Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs Policy Research Project Report Number 117 Port-Related State Programs and Federal Legislative Issues A Report by the Policy Research Project on Texas Seaport and Waterborne Commerce and Its Role in International Trade Conducted for the Texas Department of Transportation in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Project 0-1452: Systems Planning for the Inland Waterways and Port System in Texas Research Report 1452-2 Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 96-77629 ISBN: 0-89940-725-0 ©1996 by the Board ofRegents The University ofTexas Printed in the U.S.A. All rights reserved Cover design by Maria E. Saenz The University of Texas at Austin Center for Transportation Research Policy Research Project Participants Project Director Leigh B. Boske, Ph.D. Professor of Economics and Public Affairs Students Christopher Baker, B.A. (Government), University of Maryland at College Park Laurie A. Bowler, B.S., B.A. (Civil Engineering, Spanish), North Carolina State University Buck Breland, B.A. (Liberal Arts Honors and Government), University of Texas at Austin Sarah C. de la Fuente, B.A. (Government), University of Texas at Austin Josh Collett, B.A. (Economics), Haverford College Sonja L. Inge, B.A. (Journalism), Howard University Randall T. Kempner, B.A. (Government), Harvard University John Padwick, BUS. (Communication), University of New Mexico Brian H. Siegel, B.A. (Government), University of Virginia Guoyong Wang, B.A. (English), Nanjing Normal University, China 111 . IV Contents List of Acronyms ............................................................................ ix Foreword ......................................................................................Xlll Preface and Acknowledgments......................................................... xv Chapter 1. Executive Summary...............................••............. 1 Major Findings........................................................................... 1 State Involvement in Ports and Waterways .................................. 1 The Ocean Shipping Reform Act (H.R. 2149)..............................3 The Jones Act ...................................................................5 The Habor Maintenance Tax and Trust Fund ...............................6 Chapter 2. State Involvement in Ports and Waterways.......•............ 9 Port Administration......................................................................9 State Agencies Involved in Port Development ..................................... 12 Educational Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Funding Programs........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Trends in Port Development and Diversification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Exemplary Port-Related Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Regional Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Finance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Educational Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Port Diversification ........................................................... 21 Strong Port Trade Associations ............................................. 23 Port Promotion ................................................................ 24 Technology and Ports ........................................................ 24 Chapter 3. The Ocean Shipping Reform Act •........•..•.................31 Background ............................................................................ 31 The Shipping Act of 1916 ................................................... 3 2 The Industry Changes ........................................................ 32 The Shipping Act of 1984 ................................................... 34 The Current Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995 ................................. 36 Status........................................................................... 38 v Primary Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 The Federal Maritime Commission ......................................... 39 Supporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Opponents ..................................................................... 43 Chapter 4. The Jones Act •..•••......•.....•.....•.•..•.••.•.•...•.••.••.•.•4 9 Backgroood ............................................................................ 49 Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Other Countries' Policies .................................................... 52 C'un-ent Mari.tim.e Scenari.o................................................... 53 The Current I>ebate.................................................................... 53 Primary Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 National Security Interests ................................................... 56 Carrri.ers ....................................................................... 57 Shipyards...................................................................... 58 Ship-pers ....................................................................... 59 l..,a,OOr• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 9 Noncontiguous Origins and I>estinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Ports............................................................................ 61 Chapter S. Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund..•..•••....••.•••••••••••••••.6 5 Backgroood of1™1F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 The Legal Battle Surroooding HMT................................................. 66 The Co'Urt's Rul.ing........................................................... 66 The Government's Reaction ................................................. 70 Primary Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 Shippers and National Industrial Transportation League ................ 70 Ports and American Association ofPort Authorities ..................... 71 Emo~an.. Union Coootries .................................................. 72 Consequences and Alternatives ...................................................... 73 Appendixes: State Profiles •••.•••.....••.••.••..•••••••.•.•••••.•.••••..•..7 7 Appendix I. Alabama ..................................................................... 79 Appendix II. Alaska ................................................·.~ ................... . 83 Appendix III. California ..............................................· · · · · ... · · ........ 89 Appendix IV. Connecticut .......................................· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ....... 99 . VI Appendix V. Delaware ................................................................... 105 Appendix VI. Florida .................................................................... 109 Appendix VII. Georgia ................................................................. 117 Appendix VIII. Hawaii ................................................................. 123 Appendix IX. Illinois ................................................................... 129 Appendix X. Indiana .................................................................... 133 Appendix XI. Louisiana ................................................................. 139 Appendix XII. Maine .................................................................... 147 Appendix XIII. Maryland .............................................................. 153 Appendix XIV. Massachusetts ....................................................... 159 Appendix XV. Michigan ................................................................ 167 Appendix XVI. Minnesota ............................................................. 173 Appendix XVII. Mississippi .......................................................... 179 Appendix XVIII. New Hampshire .................................................. 185 Appendix XIX. New Jersey and New York ..................................... 189 Appendix XX. North Carolina ....................................................... 199 Appendix XXI. 0 hio ....................................................................205 Appendix XXII. Oregon ................................................................211 Appendix XXIII. Pennsylvania ......................................................221 Appendix XXIV. Rhode Island ......................................................227 Appendix XXV. South Carolina .....................................................231 Appendix XXVI. Texas .................................................................237 Appendix XXVII. Virginia ............................................................245 Vil Appendix XXVIII. Washington ...............................................:......253 Appendix XXIX. Wisconsin ..........................................................259 Vlll List of Acronyms AAPA American Association of Port Authorities AIF A American International Freight Association BASIS Baltimore's automated shipping information system BOLT Baltimore online telephone cargo inquiry system CalMA California Maritime Academy Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCP A Connecticut Coastal Port Authority CDECD Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development COOT Connecticut Department of Transportation CENSA Council of European and Japanese National Shipowners' Association CFIP Coastal Facilities Improvement Program CIT Court of International Trade CMA Connecticut Maritime Association CPW Center for Ports and Waterways OOD Department of Defense OOT Department of Transportation DPA Designated Port Area Program DRP A Delaware River Port Authority DSPC Diamond State Port Corporation DWCPA Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority EDI electronic data interchange EOCD Executive Office of Community Development EOEcA Executive Office of Economic Affairs EOEnA Executive Office of Environmental Affairs EOTC Executive Office of Transportation and Construction EPA Environmental Protection Agency EU European Union FDOC Florida Department of Commerce FOOT Florida Department of Transportation FMC Federal Maritime Commission FPC Florida Ports Council FSTED Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development FTDC Florida Trade Data Center FTZ foreign trade zone FWS Fish and Wildlife Service GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GIW AC Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Advisory Committee GIWW Gulf lntracoastal Waterway GIWW SEAC Gulf Intracoastal Waterway State Executive Advisory Committee GPA Georgia Ports Authority HAP Harbor Assistance Program HOOT Hawaii Department of Transportation HMF Harbor Maintenance Fee HMT Harbor Maintenance Tax HMTF Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund ICC Interstate Commerce Commission ICDB lliinois Capital Development Board ICT Interagency Coordination Team 1X ILA ISTEA ITC ITD IWfF Jax.port LDOTD MARAD MCZM :MOC MDECD 1vIDOT :MM'A MnOOT MPA NAFTA NCSPA NITL NMFS NVOCC O&M ODOT OECD OPPA OPRF OSRA PAL PANYNJ PDO PDOC PDX PennDOT POWMS PPC PRPA QPD RFP RHDP RIEDC SEACOM Sea-Tac SCSPA TACA TAMU TAMUG TEU TGLO TIME THC TNRCC TPWD International Longshoreman's Association Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act International Trade Commission International Trade Division Inland Waterways Trust Fund Port of Jacksonville, Florida Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Maritime Administration Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office Maryland Distribution Council Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development Maine Department of Transportation Maine Maritime Academy Minnesota Department of Transportation Maryland Port Administration North American Free Trade Agreement North Carolina State Ports Authority National Industrial Transportation League National Marine Fisheries Services non-vessel-operating common carriers operations and maintenance Ohio Department ofTransportation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Oregon Public Ports Association Oregon Ports Revolving Fund Ocean Shipping Reform Act Ports Association of Louisiana Port Authority of New York and New Jersey paperless delivery order system Pennsylvania Department of Commerce Portland International Airport Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Port of Wilmington Maritime Society Port of Philadelphia and Camden Philadelphia Regional Port Authority Quonset Point-Davisville request for proposals Rivers and Harbors Dredging Program Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation Special Educational Advisory Committee on Maritime and International Trade Seattle-Tacoma International Airport South Carolina State Ports Authority Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement Texas A&M University Texas A&M University at Galveston Twenty-foot-equivalent container unit Texas General Land Office Transportation Infrastructure Model for Economic Development Texas Historical Commission Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texa5 Parks and Wildlife Department x TxDOC TxDOT USDA UT VPA WOOT WHOI WisDOT WPPA Texas Department of Commerce Texas Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Agriculture University of Texas Virginia Port Authority Washington Department of Transportation Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Wisconsin Department of Transportation Washington Public Ports Association XI Xll Foreword The Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs has established interdisciplinary research on policy problems as the core of its educational program. A major part of this program is the nine-month policy research project, in the course of which two or more faculty members from different disciplines direct the research of ten to twenty graduate students of diverse backgrounds on a policy issue of concern to a government or nonprofit agency. This "client orientation" brings the students face to face with administrators, legislators, and other officials active in the policy process and demonstrates that research in a policy environment demands special talents. It also illuminates the occasional difficulties of relating research findings to the world of political realities. This report is the product of a policy research project conducted in the 1995-96 academic year with funding from the Texas Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The study is part of a two-year project coordinated by the LBJ School and UT Austin Center for Transportation Research to investigate public policy issues related to the Texas Seaport and Waterway System. The curriculum of the LBJ School is intended not only to develop effective public servants but also to produce research that will enlighten and inform those already engaged in the policy process. The project that resulted in this report has helped to accomplish the first task; it is our hope that the report itself will contribute to the second. Finally, it should be noted that neither the LBJ School nor The University of Texas at Austin necessarily endorses the views or findings of this report. Moreover, the contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration or the Texas Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Max Sherman Dean X111 XIV Preface and Acknowledgments The policy research project that produced this report was conducted during the 1995-96 academic year as a cooperative effort between the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and the University ofTexas at Austin Center for Transportation Research, with funding from the Texas Department of Transportation. This report could not have been produced without the generous donation of time and information by a great many individuals. The following individuals deserve special recognition for assisting members of the policy research project team on various aspects of the study. Mr. Luis Ajamil, President, Bermello Ajamil and Partners Inc. (port consultants), Miami, Florida; Mr. Richard S. Armstrong, Executive Secretary, Massachusetts Seaport Advisory Council, Fairhaven, Massachusetts; Mr. Greg Balcer, Executive Director, Port of Hood River, Hood River, Oregon; Mr. Wade Battles, Marketing Director, Port of Miami, Miami, Florida; Mr. Fred Bayer, Manager of Cargo Sales, North Carolina State Ports Authority, Wilmington, North Carolina; Ms. Ann Marie Boursiquot, Public Affairs Officer, Port ofBoston, Boston, Massachusetts; Mr. Doug Brown, Director of Bureau of Port Operations, Connecticut Department of Transportation, New London, Connecticut; Mr. James E. Brown, Director of Planning, North Carolina State Ports Authority, Wilmington, North Carolina; Mr. Jack Campbell, Office of Growth and Retention, Texas Department of Commerce, Austin, Texas; Ms. Carla Cefaratti, Deputy Director, Transportation Assistance Division, Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, Ohio; Mr. Paul Chilcote, Senior Director ofPlanning, Research, and Budget, Port of Tacoma, Tacoma, Washington; xv Mr. David W. Crickette, Information Services Administrator, Georgia Ports Authority, Savannah, Georgia; Mr. Michael R. Deller, Executive Director, Port of Everett, Everett, Washington; Ms. Mary Beth Demma, lntermodal Planning Director, Connecticut Department of Transportation, New London, Connecticut; Ms. Lisa DiRaimo, Research Specialist, Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation, Providence, Rhode Island; Mr. Thomas J. Dowd, Affiliate Professor, University of Washington, School of Marine Affairs/Washington Sea Grant, Seattle, Washington; Mr. Alfred W. Escobar, Manager of Finance, Port of Redwood City, Redwood City, California; Ms. Maxine Finkelstein, Director of Marketing, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York City, New York; Captain J.A. Finley, Port Director, Port of Greenbay, Brown County, Wisconsin. Ms. Ellen Fisher, Chief, Harbors and Waterways Section, Bureau of Railroads and Harbors, Division of Transportation, Wisconsin Department of Transportation; Ms. Karen Fox, Director of Public Affairs, North Carolina State Ports Authority, Wilmington, North Carolina; Mr. Alfredo Fuchs, Trade Specialist, Florida Trade Data Center, Miami, Florida; Mr. Rodney B. Ganda, Manager of Port Operations and Cargo Marketing, Port of Redwood City, Redwood City, California; Mr. Peter J. Gatti Jr., Director of Policy Development, Air, Marine, International, The National Industrial Transportation League, Arlington, Virginia; Mr. Michael G. Gerber, Special Assistant to U.S. Senator Phil Gramm, Washington, D.C.; Ms. Astrid C. Glynn, Director of Transit, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, Boston, Massachusetts; Ms. Jean C. Godwin, Vice President of Government Relations, American Association of Port Authorities, Alexandria, Virginia; Mr. Tom Griebel, Assistant Executive Director, Multimodal Transportation, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas; XVl Mr. Charles F. Griffen, P.E., Director of Port Planning and Harbor Development, Georgia Ports Authority, Savannah, Georgia; Mr. Philip M. Grill, Chairperson, Maritime Cabotage Task Force, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Bernard S. Groseclose Jr., Director, Planning Development, South Carolina State Ports Authority, Charleston, South Carolina; Mr. John Hachey, General Manager of Marine Operations, Port of Portland, Portland, Oregon; Ms. Michelle Hart, Administrative Assistant, New Hampshire State Port Authority, Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Mr. Mitchell N. Harvey, Strategic Planning Manager, Construction Management and Planning Division, Port Everglades, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; Mr. Robert G. Hebert Jr., Administrator, Ports/lntermodal, Rail Office, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida; Mr. Thomas J. Heidt, Market Research Manager, Port of Houston Authority, Houston, Texas; Mr. Andrew Held, Maritime Market Research Analyst, Massport, Boston, Massachusetts; Ms. Mary Anne Helfrich, Executive Assistant, Port of Redwood City, Redwood City, California; Mr. Daniel R. Hodgkins, Director of Finance and Administration, Port of Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas; Ms. LaVerne Hokama, Program Budget Analyst, Hawaii Department of Transportation, Honolulu, Hawaii; Mr. James Ingalls, Manager of Fiscal Administration, Bureau of Policy and Planning, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Newington, Connecticut; Mr. James A. Johnson, Senior Intermodal Manager, Office of Planning and Programs, Illinois Department of Transportation, Chicago, Illinois; Mr. Patrick Jones, Executive Director, Washington Public Ports Association, Olympia, Washington; Ms. Marilyn Kai, Director of Public Affairs, Hawaii Department of Transportation, Honolulu, Hawaii; XVll Mr. Larry B. Karnes, Supervisor, Freight Unit-Intermodal Section, Bureau of Transportation Planning, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, Michigan; Ms. Jeane Kersey, Marketing Researcher, Georgia Ports Authority, Savannah, Georgia; Mr. DuWayne A. Koch, Senior Transportation Policy Advisor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Richard (Dick) Lambert, Director, Ports and Waterways Section, Office of Railroads and Waterways, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota; Mr. Jack Lane, Geographer, Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, Virginia; Mr. Keith A. Leavitt, Manager of Ports Division, Oregon Economic Development Department, Salem, Oregon; Mr. John R. LeCapra, President, Florida Ports Council, Tallahassee, Florida; Ms. Susan Lee, Transportation Specialist, U.S. Maritime Administration, Washington, D.C.; Ms. Nancy Leikauf, Director of Communications, Florida Ports Council, Tallahassee, Florida; Mr. Martin J. Lewin, Attorney at Law, Aitken, Irvin and Lewin, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Benjamin Lieberman, Market Planning Manager, Maryland Port Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; Mr. Douglas V. Ljungren, Business Planning Manager, Port of Tacoma, Tacoma, Washington; Mr. Robert E. McChesney, Director of Properties and Development, Port of Everett, Everett, Washington; Mr. Rick Maldonado, Director of Governmental Affairs, Port of Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas; Mr. Harry Middleton, Media Relations, Port of Oakland, Oakland, California; Mr. Byron Miller, Public Affairs Officer, South Carolina State Ports Authority, Charleston, South Carolina; Mr. Harold Moeser, P.E., Statewide Harbors Engineer, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau, Alaska; XVlll Ms. Igna Nelson, Senior Intermodal Analyst, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York City, New York; Mr. James O'Banion, Marketing and Special Projects, Port of Hood River, Hood River, Oregon; Herbert M. Packer, III, Executive Director, Office of PennPORTS, Pennsylvania Department of Commerce, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Mr. David Partain, Assistant Containerport Administrative Manager, Containerfield Office, Georgia Ports Authority, Savannah, Georgia; Mr. John Phillips, Harbor Programs·Manager, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, Georgia; Dr. James E. Pittman, Planning Division, Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jackson, Mississippi; Mr. Joseph Polldng, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Rob Quartel, President, Jones Act Reform Coalition, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Pad Quinn, Manager of Environmental and Safety Affairs in Marine Operations, Port of Portland, Portland, Oregon; Mr. Jim Randall, Director, Multimodal Operations Office, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas; Ms. Patricia S. Reese, Manager of Port Relations, Georgia Ports Authority, Savannah, Georgia; Mr. Eric Reinhelt, Director of Marketing, Port of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Ms. Joann Riester, Waterway Planner, Multimodal Operations Office, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas; Mr. Thomas Roesch, Manager of International Trade, Aorida Department of Commerce, Tallahassee, Florida; Mr. Kevin Rousseau, Research Assistant in Office of Freight Transportation, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, Maine; Ms. Peggy Russell, Researcher, Senate Committee on Transportation, Highways and Public Works, State Senate, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Ms. Vicki W. Scott, International Development, Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development, Jackson, Mississippi; XIX Dr. Garry L. Shoesmith, Professor, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Mr. Walter B. Stevenson, Jr., Chief, Office of Water Resources Division, Alabama Department ofEconomic and Community Affairs, Montgomery, Alabama; Ms. Diane Strickland, Communications Manager, Georgia Ports Authority, Savannah, Georgia; Mr. David A. Wagner, Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer, Port of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana; Mr. Michael S. Walker, Senior Planner, Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation, North Kingstown, Rhode Island; Mr. Stacy B. Watson, Marketing Analyst, Georgia Ports Authority, Savannah, Georgia; Ms. Betty Ann White, Marketing and Public Relations Manager, Jackson County Port Authority, Pascagovia, Mississippi; Dr. E. Cameron Williams, Associate Professor of Marketing and Intermodal Transportation, Georgia Southern University, Savannah, Georgia; Mr. Gil Wright, Finance Officer of Ports Division, Oregon Economic Development Department, Salem, Oregon; and Ms. Pat Younger, Legislative Affairs Manager, Port of Houston Authority, Houston, Texas. xx Chapter 1. Executive Summary This report, the second in a two-report series, provides an overview of port-related state programs and an assessment of the economic impacts of three legislative bills on waterborne commerce. The report is divided into five chapters, including this first chapter, the executive summary. Chapter 2 addresses port administration in various states, state agencies involved in port development, educational and funding programs, and trends in state port development and diversification. It also highlights exemplary state programs. Chapters 3, 4, and 5, respectively, assess the economic impacts of the proposed Ocean Shipping Reform Act, efforts to significantly alter the Jones Act, and the implications of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruling which found the Harbor Maintenance Tax to violate the export clause of the U.S. Constitution. Appendixes contain profiles of port activities and state programs in 30 states. The first, 1995 report presented a comprehensive overview of the Texas seaport and inland waterway system, the results of which are intended to be integrated into the Texas Transportation Plan. The report examines Texas waterborne commerce, the Gulf lntracoastal Waterway, Mexico's seaport system, port access to the Texas railway and highway systems, and issues affecting current and future port and waterway performance. Major Findings State Involvement in Ports and Waterways Several states are actively involved in rendering various kinds of assistance to their ports and waterways. Among them are Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and Washington. Other states have been involved only minimally. Collectively, one finds a wide array of port­related state programs and institutional arrangements among the 30 states contacted for this study. Several examples serve to illustrate this point. However, chapter 2 and the individual state profiles should be consulted for more detail. The Maryland Port Administration of the Maryland Department of Transportation implemented its own Total Quality Program to improve customer service. It is currently working with other members of the state's local maritime community to develop a port­wide Total Quality Program that would be the first of its kind in the nation. The Office of PennPORTS, within the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce, serves as the liaison between state government and ports, working to include ports in the state's international trade and intermodal plans. PennPORTS also assists ports with planning, marketing, regulatory issues, and infrastructure investments. A different method of liaison and cooperation between state government and ports can be found in the state of Washington. Authorized by the state legislature in 1961, the Washington Public Ports Association (WPP A) is the coordinating organization for all public port districts in the state. The association is instructed by statute to carry out studies common to all ports, exchange helpful operational information, promote port development, and serve as a communications channel between ports and the state legislature. WPPA employs six full-time staff and receives volunteer help from the ports themselves. A variety of funding and port development programs has been devised by states to assist ports and waterways. The Florida State Transportation Trust Fund provides capital for the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (FSTED) program. The funds can be used for land or capital-good acquisition, improvements to existing facilities, dredging, or other infrastructure improvements. State participation cannot exceed 50 percent of total project costs. Proposed projects must be consistent with the port's comprehensive master plan and the local government's comprehensive master plan. Louisiana created two separate programs. The Port Construction and Development Priority Program was established in 1989 to assist smaller ports with capital improvements and projects. In addition, the legislature passed a bill creating the Transportation Infrastructure Model for Economic Development (TIME). The TIME program imposed a four-cent gasoline tax for a 20-year period for projects ranging from the New Orleans' airport to highway and bridge projects. The Port of New Orleans was earmarked $100 million from this fund. Likewise, Wisconsin has the Harbor Assistance Program (HAP), budgeted at $4 million per biennium. Grants from the program may not exceed 80 percent of the moneys expended by the applicant for harbor improvements. Preference is given to applicants with high volumes of handled tonnage. Several states are relying on tax breaks to lure business to their ports. This tool is particularly popular with medium-sized ports that have to compete with larger maritime centers. The North Carolina State Ports Authority was the first to offer a tax credit. In 1992, North Carolina enacted legislation that extended a state income tax credit for annual port costs that exceed a three-year average. A firm or individual is eligible for a state 2 income tax credit for any amount paid above the average, up to 50 percent of the tax liability, but it cannot exceed $1 million. Indiana offers inventory tax relief for exported merchandise. And Mississippi firms can reduce their state tax load by the amount of handling charges added to their shipments as they pass through a terminal. Georgia grants a tax break in the form of exemption from sales tax on containers and related chassis used in the international shipment of cargo by oceangoing vessels. What is striking about these and the myriad other planning, marketing, educational, financial assistance, and informational dissemination programs found in this report is that they represent a "menu" of options that can be adopted individually by states or molded into a coherent package of state assistance that may be offered to a state's port and wateiway community. No particular state has been found to be exemplary in every respect. And each state must judge the merits of another state's programs according to its own needs, political climate, and existing tax burdens. The Ocean Shipping Reform Act (H.R. 2149) The Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA) has been proposed to deregulate the ocean shipping industry in the United States. Presently stalled in the U.S. Senate, the proposal was passed on May 1, 1996, by the House of Representatives on a 239-182 vote. The legislation would change the nature of waterborne commerce by eliminating tariff filing with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) and freeing carriers to offer personalized service contracts to shippers, exporters, and/or importers of cargo. Such ~weeping legislation is being vigorously debated. Proponents claim that the bill would lead to a more competitive marketplace resulting in greater efficiencies, thereby enhancing U.S. trade. Larger shippers support the plan because it will enable them to privately negotiate their shipping rates with carriers instead of having to abide by publicly filed tariffs. Presently, shipping rates are set by carrier conferences in a system that protects the carriers from antitrust prosecution. Opponents argue that deregulation will lead to cutthroat competition resulting in fewer shipping lines calling at fewer ports. They claim that the freedom to negotiate rates will allow large shippers to attain cheaper shipping rates, yet small-and medium-sized shippers would see their rates rise. These smaller shippers have been very vocal in their opposition to OSRA as more expensive shipping rates may price their goods out of the market. This would have the effect of reducing traffic at ports and threatening the employment of thousands of port workers. One of the long-debated issues in ocean shipping concerns the freedom ofcarrier conferences to set rates collectively. For over 80 years, a principled compromise, which provides antitrust immunity with government regulation, has governed the industry in the United States. Reinforced by the Shipping Act of 1984, this balance of freedom with regulation is once again at the forefront of discussion. OSRA would abolish this regulatory framework by eliminating the Federal Maritime Commission and ending government oversight of tariffs. As other transportation industries have been deregulated, attention recently has turned to ocean shipping. However, many have claimed that the ocean shipping industry is unique and that the present conference system is the best possible approach. An essential part of their argument is that unbridled competition is destabilizing and inefficient for some sectors of the economy. Liner shipping is deemed "to be one such sector because it is characterized by high fixed costs and low marginal costs, relatively inelastic demand, indivisible supply and requirements of regularly scheduled sailings irrespective of the amount of cargo available."1 In such an industry, a stabilizing force is needed to prevent shipping rates from falling below average costs. In the absence of a conference system, bankruptcies and takeovers would result, which would disrupt ocean­cargo services. Regulated conferences ensure stability for the industry. This stability gives ports and private-sector firms confidence to invest millions of dollars in ships, containers, terminal facilities, inland cargo facilities, and dredging so as to maintain an efficient and cost-effective system. What would result from the deregulation of the ocean shipping industry is uncertain. Some see large shippers dominating the industry, securing reduced rates for their cargo, while smaller shippers would be charged more to make up the difference for the carriers. Another view is that, with the expected increase in ship capacity, smaller shippers could benefit from lower rates as liners are anxious to fill their ship space. The fate of liners will have a direct impact on both shippers and ports. Competition would reduce the cost to ship cargo in the short run, but over time, as the liners continue to consolidate, ocean shipping may be left with liner cartels, able to set prices without the oversight of a regulatory office. Higher prices and fewer routes would negatively impact both shippers and ports. It is likely, however, that with or without passage of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, the industry will continue to evolve. Liners, shippers, and ports that operate efficiently and are able to attract business will thrive while weaker, smaller entities will suffer at the hands of their stronger competitors. 4 The Jones Act The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly referred to as the Jones Act, effectively eliminates foreign competition from domestic waterborne commerce, that is, from one U.S. port to another. In general, the act reserves domestic trade for ships built and flagged in the United States and owned and crewed by American citizens. The primary justification for the Jones Act is to protect an industry that is important for national security reasons. While there is value in maintaining a fleet of merchant marine vessels, the critical question is whether the benefit of the fleet is greater than the costs imposed on society due to the market distortions of the act. In addition to the national security issue, reforms could significantly affect a number of major players in the maritime industry, while benefiting others. The primary beneficiaries of reforms would be shippers and, indirectly, consumers. With lower shipping rates and the likelihood of new routes opening, shippers will be given greater flexibility in their choices of transport. Specifically, shippers of agricultural and mined commodities stand to benefit the most because of the nature of their commodities (low cost, high volume). Shippers of petroleum products, especially shipments of certain refined products from Gulf Coast refiners to lower East Coast destinations, could benefit. In addition to shippers, the "noncontiguous" trade routes of Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and other U.S. possessions stand to benefit from reforms. Since these routes have no land transportation competition, the Jones Act carriers essentially monopolize shipping between these locations and other U.S. ports. With foreign competition, rates will almost certainly fall since the locations would likely integrate directly with international trade routes. While it is difficult to accurately predict the effects of reforming the Jones Act, there would almost certainly be benefits from correcting the market distortions the act creates. A U.S. International Trade Commission study concluded the costs of the act could be as high as $10.4 billion annually.2 Strictly looking at tonnage and trade levels, ports would benefit from the likely increase in traffic that lower rates would bring. Unfortunately, since many ports' tenants and their workers, that is, Jones Act carriers and laborers, are staunchly opposed to reforms, ports are placed in an awkward position. Consequently, ports are generally remaining silent on this matter. Even the American Association of Port Authorities has taken no official position on the Jones Act. The current benefits of the Jones Act are hard to quantify. The national security benefit of having an American merchant marine fleet, albeit small, is important. If foreign competition drove Jones Act carriers out of the market, there are national security costs in not controlling the domestic shipping infrastructure. While U.S.-flag vessels also play a role in military sealift and support operations, the value of such services is marginal, noting the small size of the fleet, the availability of foreign-flag vessels, and the military' s own capabilities to ship supplies to war zones. In the face of this ongoing debate, Senators Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, and Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, on May 23, 1996, introduced the Coastal Shipping Competition Act (S. 1813), otherwise known as the Jones Act Reform Bill. The bill was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. This proposed legislation would allow foreign-flag cargo and passenger vessels to enter into limited domestic coastal trade. Laws governing traffic on inland waterways, not accessible to oceangoing vessels, would remain essentially unchanged. The Harbor Maintenance Tax and Trust Fund The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, introduced in 1986 by the Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 99-662), is funded by an excise tax of 0.125 percent (or 12.5¢ per $100 of value of cargo) on all imports, exports, domestic shipments in the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence Seaway ports, and on cruise-ship tickets. The trust fund was established to defray the government's operations and maintenance expenditures assigned to commercial navigation of all harbors within the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers administers the trust fund, while the U.S. Customs Service collects the tax. The U.S. Court of International Trade has declared the Harbor Maintenance Fee to be an unconstitutional tax on exports, rejecting the government's argument that it is not a tax but rather a "user fee." Ifupheld on appeal, the ruling could result in refunds to shippers totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, insofar as the court also decided that it had jurisdiction to order the reimbursement of two years of tax payments. Over 100 U.S. exporters have been paying the tax under protest, a mechanism that enables them to qualify for possible refunds. Ifthe tax is thrown out completely, alternative funding mechanisms will have to be explored, such as replacing the excise tax with a form of user fee. Others have called for the elimination of unneeded ports and the abandonment of less efficient port dredging projects as a means to reduce the levels of future required funding. 6 Notes 1U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, "Hearing on S. 1356, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995 (OSRA)," testimony by Murray Graham, Deputy Secretary General, Council of European and Japanese National Shipowners' Association, November 1, 1995, p. 4. 2Kyle Johnson, U.S. International Trade Commission, The Economic Effects ofSignificant U.S. Import Restraints (Washington, D.C., September 1991), pp. 1-2-11. 8 Chapter 2. State Involvement in Ports and Waterways Ports play a vital role in international commerce. In 1993, approximately 350 million short tons of cargo, including much of the high-value merchandise shipped in containers or in breakbulk form, were shipped annually through facilities owned or operated by America's public ports. This translates into roughly one-third of the total volume of U.S. foreign commerce. In 1993, U.S. ports (both public and private) moved import/export cargo totaling 990.7 million short tons (up 2.3 percent from 1992) with a value of $510.3 billion.1 This maritime commerce creates substantial economic benefits for the localities in which ports are located, their respective states, and the nation. According to the U.S. Maritime Administration, in 1992 commercial port activities resulting from cargo operations accounted for 1.5 million jobs, contributed $74 billion in gross domestic product, provided personal income of $52 billion, and generated $14.5 billion in federal taxes and $5.5 billion in state and local taxes. 2 Because of these economic benefits, it should come as no surprise that many state governments have become involved in assisting their ports and waterways. This chapter canvases the landscape (or more appropriately the seascape) of 30 states to ascertain the extent of individual state involvement in terms of port promotion and development, financial assistance, planning and educational programs, port administration, and the like. Much of the information is drawn from the state profiles appearing in the appendixes. Where more detail is provided than is contained in the state profiles, appropriate citations are given. However, the primary purpose of this research effort is to show the diversity of state maritime programs, rather than to provide a few, selected in-depth case studies. Table 1 presents a profile comparison of different dimensions of state involvement and port activity that are more fully discussed in the following pages. Port Administration Ports are administered in a variety of ways and by a variety of agencies. Arrangements vary from state ownership of ports to a completely decentralized structure or even private ownership of the ports. 9 Table 1. State Port and Waterborne Commerce Profile Note: Data "Infrastructure" and "1994 State Waterborne Commerce" from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; "of Total" for states on the table only; other from interviews by students. Non· reporting indicated by"--." Several states operate their ports solely through an established port authority. North Carolina, New Hampshire, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, and Indiana all maintain strong port authorities that run the day-to-day operations of the ports within their respective states. The port authorities differ, however, in their structures. Most of the port authorities operate as independent entities. However, Maryland's port authority operates as an administration within the state department of transportation. Alaska, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Virginia all have mixed structures of port administration. Mississippi, for example, has two state-owned ports while the remaining ports operate as entities of local governments. Florida ports are operated by either county, city, or independent port district governments. In Maine, most port facilities are privately owned, but operations are handled by a quasimunicipal harbor commission. In Virginia, the Virginia Port Authority, owner and operator of ports in Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Front Royal, is a division of the state's department of transportation, while Richmond's port is a division of the city government. The wide array of entities running port operations within these states does not seem to hinder the effectiveness of trade and transportation. In Florida, the world's largest cruise port, Miami, is run by the county while the Port of Tampa, Florida's largest port in terms of tonnage, is administered by an independent port authority. Delaware and Hawaii own and operate their ports. Interestingly, the states could not differ more in their histories. The Port of Wilmington is Delaware's lone port and has only recently been acquired by the state. Hawaii boasts seven deepwater ports and two medium­draft ports, which have been maintained by the Port Hawaii Division of the Hawaii Department of Transportation since statehood in 1959. The Alabama State Docks, which are administered by the Alabama State Docks Department, are the principal facilities at the Port of Mobile and at ten inland ports. Private maintenance of ports is the rule in Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, and Rhode Island. Rhode Island's transfer to a private organization from city management is a recent occurrence. In Connecticut, the solely private ownership of ports is a temporary situation due to the economic collapse of the state-owned Port of New London in 1993. The Port of New London is being rebuilt; however, the details of its future administration are still in question. In 1978, Michigan passed legislation authorizing state assistance to privately owned ports. Almost 20 years later, only one port has taken advantage of this option. 11 California ports are all owned by their respective cities. Washington, Oregon, and Louisiana ports are all operated by local port districts. State Agencies Involved in Port Development The primary state agencies responsible for port issues are most often state departments of transportation. There are a few exceptions. In Massachusetts, state oversight is decentralized with no one agency handling the majority of port issues. The departments of economic development or commerce in Oregon, Connecticut, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania handle the majority of port issues in their respective states. Most states involve their departments of commerce in some marketing capacity. North Carolina and Louisiana have had several aggressive marketing campaigns. The majority of departments of commerce, however, provide more limited assistance, such as brochures and pamphlets. Some departments of natural resources, land management, or ecology are involved in environmental consulting on behalf of ports. Their roles will continue to be important in issues of dredging and conservation of land, resources, and habitation. Alaska, Washington, and Oregon have the most proactive agencies in this respect. Educational Programs Several states offer college level and advanced maritime degrees and programs. Among them are the California Maritime Academy of the California State University system; the Maine Maritime Academy; the University of Delaware; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the University ofMichigan; Texas A&M University at Galveston; Georgia Southern University; College of Charleston, South Carolina; Old Dominion University, Virginia; University of Massachusetts; University of Washington; and Louisiana State University. All of these programs have been successful in preparing students for work in the maritime industry. The programs are also instrumental in educating the general public on maritime industry and issues. South Carolina's College of Charleston, for example, sponsors the annual Port Week program, which offers educational programming to 4,000 elementary students within the state. 12 Funding Programs States assist their ports through a variety of funding options. Many states finance port projects through general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, or more specifically, transportation bonds, such as the $58.9 million package approved by Maine voters in 1995, which included financing for a $2 million land purchase at Portland and $13 million for a dry-cargo tenninal at Eastport. Mississippi and Oregon have established revolving loan funds and Illinois has a capital fund. Florida and Louisiana have provided funding for a multitude of projects through trust funds. Virginia operates a port fund and Massachusetts a land bank. The states have experienced varied levels of success among their programs. However, the overwhelming trend has been to increase or maintain program funding and continue to provide program services. Louisiana, for example, recently lowered the minimum local match required for its Port Construction and Development Priority Program. In addition, Mississippi has increased the loan amount for its Port Revitalization Revolving Loan Program from $500,000 to $1 million. Trends in Port Development and Diversification A major development in ports is a trend toward superports. Container lines are beginning to trim their operations and call on fewer ports. The larger ports are able to provide better accommodations, rates, and tum-around times for carriers, as well as handle a broader range of cargo.3 This has adversely affected many of the smaller ports, which, in tum, have initiated programs of port diversification in California, Connecticut, Oregon, and Washington such as concentrating on a niche market, focusing on port lands development, or creating public access areas for recreation. Connecticut suffered the economic collapse of its state-owned port and bankruptcy of a privately run port. In order to revitalize the private port of New Haven, US Stevedoring is negotiating a buyout of the port's dry-cargo operations. Such a sale would be the industry's first employee buyout. In addition, Logistec Stevedoring is considering running the operations of the state-owned New London port, once the facility is rebuilt. California's Port of Oakland was one of the first ports to specialize in intermodal container operations, the advantages of which have revolutionized international trade. By specializing, the port is able to be one of the three principal Pacific Coast corridors for United States maritime commerce. Oregon's Port Hood formerly handled primarily timber-related products. However, with a decrease in revenues from timber, Port Hood creatively diversified its operations, capitalizing on its location in the Columbia River gorge to attract the windsurfing industry. Over 20 windsurfing companies operate out of Port Hood. The port's proactive stance on diversification also focused on industrial park and beach development. Washington has experienced a massive drop in its cargo operations. In an attempt to diversify, the Port of Everett has planned the expansion and development of an industrial park and cold-storage facility. It has also attempted to carve out a niche market for itself in neobulk cargo delivered on pallets. Also cited as a recent, successful trend in port development has been the strong gubernatorial interest in maritime activities in Oregon and Massachusetts. Both states cite recent gubernatorial focus on maritime commerce as key to development within the state. In Massachusetts, Governor William Weld created the Commission on Commonwealth Port Development to study ways the state could support maritime activities. As a result, Massachusetts is planning to invest up to $280 million in its seaports. Oregon's Governor John Kitzhaber has emphasized his interest in port development and has taken a keen interest in the Port Commission of the Port of Portland. Exemplary Port-Related Programs To remain competitive in the face of a volatile trade market and massive economic and political upheaval around the world, U.S. ports must carefully analyze and monitor import and export markets and change accordingly. In this regard, various actors in the maritime system have implemented innovative and exemplary port-related programs that are helping ports keep pace with the rapidly changing global maritime industry. This section of the report describes a few of these programs. 14 Regional Planning The Virginia Inland Port The Virginia Inland Port, a state-of-the-art intermodal trade hub, draws on the strength of the Virginia Port Authority's regional scope, increasing the efficiency of Virginia's freight movement network. The seamless cooperation afforded the ports that are operated and managed by the authority enables efficient and coordinated intermodal planning. "When Virginia invested $10 million to open the Virginia Inland Port in 1989, it made a dramatic move to position itself as a major transportation hub for goods moving to and from international markets. ''4 Located strategically in Front Royal just minutes from the intersection of interstates 81 and 66 in a locale that allows users to reach 50 percent of the nation's population within 48 hours by train, the Virginia Inland Port serves as an intermodal containerized cargo distribution center, attracting trucks from a region 200 miles in radius. 5 Cargo is transferred from rail to trucks or from trucks to rail for shipment among the inland port, the marine terminals at Hampton Roads, and the central and southeast United States. 6 The port has proved an engine of economic growth, as 95 percent of its business since its 1989 opening has been from new customers. It handled more than 13,621 containers from January to November 1995 alone.7 Finance Programs Oregon's Revolving Loan Fund Created by the state legislature in 1977 with a initial loan of $4 million from the state's general revenue (which has since been repaid from the fund's interest earnings) to alleviate the problems that ports faced in attaining financing and loans, the revolving loan fund has made $22 million in loans since its inception. 8 Smaller ports rely on the fund as a primary lending tool, while medium-and large-sized ports primarily utilize it as interim financial support while awaiting bond issuance.9 The Port of Portland borrowed from the fund once to finance a Hyundai import dock. Public ports may borrow from the fund for a term of 20 years at an annual interest rate of 5 percent, while private ports may borrow at 1 percent below the 30-year treasury bond rate. Private ports may also secure loans from the Ports Division of the Oregon Department of Economic Development but at an interest rate of no lower than 6 percent.10 Programs eligible for loans include the finance of water-oriented facilities, industrial parks, airports, and industrial development projects. There is no matching requirement for borrowing entities, but they must not have more than $2 million in loans outstanding from the fund at any given time. Loans are limited to $700,000.11 The fund provides $4 million in loans per biennium, pays the salaries of Ports Division employees, and pays for Ports Division activities, such as the employment of a lobbyist. Further, in 1987, the legislature authorized the "annual transfer of an amount not to exceed 1.5 percent of the assets of the OPRF [Oregon Ports Revolving Fund] from the OPRF to the Planning and Marketing fund," and the legislature extended these transfers in 1991 through 1995 and again in 1995 through 1999. 12 Projects funded for the 1995-97 biennium include loans ranging from one of $75,000 to Tillamook Bay for the construction of a warehouse to one of $332,700 to Siuslaw to supplement two federal grants from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Economic Development Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce for a waterfront development. As of December 31, 1995, five contracts totaling $1,057,700 had been approved for four ports, and $527, 722 had been disburseci.13 Louisiana Prior to 1990, ports funded capital improvement projects through general funds from the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD). In 1989, the state legislature passed two bills that served to establish priority ranking, feasibility assessment, and funding for port construction. A constitutional amendment, passed by the citizens of Louisiana in 1990, established the Transportation Trust Fund and specified that all proceeds from gasoline, motor fuels, and special fuels be dedicated to the funding of various transportation modes within the state, including ports.14 As of May 1995, $82.5 million had been appropriated to fund 64 port­related projects. 15 The Port Construction and Development Priority Program, which receives its funds from the Transportation Trust Fund, was set up in 1989 and was directed at smaller ports in the 16 state of Louisiana. The program exempted the Port of New Orleans from participating for the first five years. Originally, ports were required to provide matching funds at a level of 25 percent of the project. In 1993, however, an amendment lowered the matching requirement to 10 percent. Administered by the LDOTD and assisted by the Louisiana State University National Ports and Waterways Institute, the components of the program include legislative authorization, rules and regulations of the programs, an application process, an evaluation process, a prioritization of projects, funding, and implementation. Among financed projects are new and renovated access roads, new and renovated railroads, dredging, and equipment purchases. In addition to establishing the Transportation Trust Fund, the legislature passed a bill creating the Transportation Infrastructure Model for Economic Development (TIME). The TIME program imposed an additional four-cent gasoline tax for a 20-year period with all the proceeds from the tax going to specific projects ranging from the New Orleans' airport to highway and bridge projects. 16 In order to accommodate smaller ports, $100 million from this fund was earmarked for the Port of New Orleans with the understanding that the port would not participate in the alternate Port Construction and Development Priority Program for five years. In addition, there was an understanding that the Port of New Orleans would match this outlay dollar for dollar. As of late 1995, $90 million of the $100 million had been spent on a variety of projects at the port. 17 TThffi was funded through the year 2009. Its major benefactors have already called for its extension or for the creation of a similar program.18 With the advent of fiscal year 1996, the Port of New Orleans became eligible to participate in the Port Construction and Development Priority Program. With this funding now available, and in light of recent international agreements, New Orleans released its new Capital Improvements Program forecasting the next five years of development at its port. How this increased demand for capital will affect smaller ports in the pursuit of their own capital financing needs remains to be seen. The Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Program The Florida State Transportation Trust Fund is the primary means that Florida uses to provide direct aid to ports. This fund provides capital for the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (FSTED) program. Originally created in 1990 with an $8 million annual appropriation from the legislature, FSTED has since been 17 amended to provide $10 million annually in grants to Florida's ports.19 The grant moneys can be used for land or capital-good acquisition, improvements to existing facilities, dredging, or other infrastructure improvements. State participation cannot exceed 50 percent of the total cost of a project, and in order to be approved, a proposed project must be consistent with the port's comprehensive master plan and the local government's comprehensive master plan, be of demonstrable economic benefit to the state as determined by the Florida Department of Commerce (FDOC), and be consistent with Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT) adopted five-year work program.20 The program is managed by the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council, which consists of the 14 public deepwater port directors and the secretaries of commerce, transportation, and community affairs as ex officio members. The council is responsible for preparing a five-year Florida seaport mission plan, which defines the goals and objectives of the seaports concerning the development of port facilities and an intermodal transportation system. Additionally, the FSTED Council meets semiannually to review the projects submitted by each of the individual ports and to recommend which projects should be funded by the state. 21 The list of approved projects is reviewed by the departments of commerce, transportation, and community affairs to ensure that each project is consistent with state statutes and local master plans in each area. 22 In practice, a large majority of the projects are found to be satisfactory and ports have not found the regulatory controls to be difficult.23 According to sport officials, the fund has been successful in speeding the completion of projects for the larger ports and making possible the completion of projects for the smaller ports.24 While larger ports, such as Miami and Port Everglades, have made the most extensive use of the fund, all of the ports, except for Port St. Joe, have utilized the 25 program. To date, over $40 million has been disbursed by the FSTED program. Legislation to increase the annual outlay from $10 to 25 million and allow fund appropriations to be used to leverage bond offerings awaits Governor Lawton Chiles' signature. Massachusetts Seaport Revitalization Bill The Massachusetts state government has taken a major financial step to rebuild its maritime and intermodal transportation infrastructure by passing a $280 million bond bill. The bill 18 includes provisions for $80 million in infrastructure improvements along the Massachusetts coastline, $50 million in dredging assistance, and $85 million for clear rail lines to allow for double-stacked rail shipments from Atlantic ports across the state. The bill was passed in large part because Governor William Weld considers maritime commerce development to be an important way to save and create jobs within Massachusetts. The specific local area recommendations in the bill were developed at a series of town meetings, which occurred in port communities throughout the state. These meetings represented the first time in recent years that Massachusetts had actively sought input from a statewide group of maritime industry participants. The North Carolina Income Tax Credit In an effort to make its smaller ports more attractive and allow competition against larger facilities, in 1992, North Carolina passed legislation that extended a state income tax credit for annual port costs that exceed a three-year average. Initially targeted exclusively toward firms exporting cargo, the tax credit has been so successful that it was recently modified to apply to all businesses and individuals using the Morehead City and Wilmington ports who are currently subject to North Carolina state income tax. The tax credit can be earned on any cargo wharfage and handling fees imposed by the state that exceeds the most recent three-year average (current year inclusive). The excess of the fees imposed by the North Carolina State Ports Authority (NCSP A) can be credited against taxes due to the state with two provisions. The tax credit cannot exceed 50 percent of the total tax liability for each tax year and the maximum cumulative credit may not exceed $1 million. Unused tax credits may be carried over for five successive years. 26 The key to the tax credit is the strong push it gives interested individuals or firms to increase their annual port usage. By not requiring previous shipping within the state by firms using the credit, new business is encouraged, while existing customers are also provided an incentive in the form of the tax credit to increase their volume of shipping. 27 Since its inception, the credit has been exclusively used by merchants utiHzing the Wilmington Terminal. 19 Educational Programs Virginia Virginia has made a strong commitment to maritime education with programs being offered at Old Dominion University, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at William and Mary at Gloucester Point, state-operated community colleges, and city-operated vocational training centers. Additionally, courses are offered at SEA COM, the Special Educational Advisory Committee on Maritime and International Trade, which is a collaboration of 18 Hampton Roads-area trade organizations. 28 Old Dominion serves as the Commonwealth Center of Excellence in Coastal Physical Oceanography. The International Maritime, Ports and Logistics Management Institute in the College of Business and Public Administration at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, one of the few such English-speaking programs in the world, "provides comprehensive programs focusing on graduate education, non-credit workshops and seminars, and applied research to address specific [port] issues and meet regional needs."29 The institute was organized to support the academic, technical, and professional education needs of the local port industry. Founded by leaders of Old Dominion University and the Hampton Roads area, the institute is overseen by an advisory board comprised of top­ranking administrators, managers, and practitioners from the area. 30 A student enrolled in Old Dominion's master of business administration program may attain a concentration in port and maritime management, 31 as can a student in the master of public administration program, by completing 12 hours of classes through the institute. Also, students in the master of arts in economics program may enroll in the institute's courses as electives. An undergraduate specialization is currently proposed in conjunction with the College of Business Administration but remains unfunded.32 Courses offered include international maritime transport, port operations and management, international maritime and admiralty law, port planning and economics, and directed research or port internship. 33 The state of Virginia, Old Dominion University, the city of Norfolk, and the South Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers forged a public-private partnership in the form of the Center for Advanced Ship Repair and Maintenance at Old Dominion.34 The center is charged with developing new techniques and technologies that will help local ship repair businesses compete in the global market. Funding in the form of a $2.4 million grant35 for 20 the project came from the Virginia Center for Innovative Technology, the ship repairers association, and the university. The industry employs over 12,000 people in the Norfolk-Hampton Roads area and injects $1 billion into the local economy annually. Traditionally dependent on business from the world's largest naval base, the ship-repair industry now must seek out new clients as the U.S. military fleet has been downsized dramatically over the past few years. The center recognizes this challenge and seeks to develop lower-cost methods of ship repair as well as to train the local work force in more efficient techniques. 36 School of Marine Affairs at the University of Washington Originally established in 1972 as the Institute for Marine Studies, the University of Washington's School of Marine Affairs offers an internationally recognized master's degree program for launching careers in marine policy and administration. Students in this program select from among five areas of concentration, including marine resource management; coastal zone management; marine environmental protection and global change; marine societies, institutions, and decision processes; and ports and marine transportation management. Within this last concentration, students learn about port financial performance, operating efficiency, facilities planning, and the technological developments and governmental policies that affect merchant fleets and seaports. 37 College of Charleston lntermodal Transportation Concentration The College of Charleston Business School, in association with the South Carolina State Ports Authority, has developed an intermodal transportation concentration, which can be obtained as part of a business degree. The concentration consists of six courses focusing on practical issues like logistics and transportation management. One of the courses is a night lecture series in which students listen to guest lecturers from various transportation fields over a 26-week period. Approximately 20 students enroll in the course per year. Port Diversification Washington Since 1989, cargo business at most of the small deepwater ports in Washington has dropped significantly. In fact, four small ports, Olympia, Everett, Port Angeles, and Grays Harbor, experienced a 48.4-percent drop in total tonnage over the last five years. 21 Much of the blame for the decline is attributed to the more than 50-percent reduction in the state's log exports and the shift by many shipping companies to move logs through larger ports and to transport more cargo in containers. 38 In response to the reduction in business, many small ports in Washington are diversifying. For example, at the Port of Everett, a decline in cargo has prompted port officials to begin plans to construct a $42 million, 174-acre industrial park and cold-storage facility. They expect that the project will take six years to complete, create more than 1,800 jobs, and generate $39 million a year in wages. The port also has plans to renovate its marina in preparation for a public market, restaurant, hotel, and commercial complex; to construct a new multipurpose warehouse to store dried lumber, pulp, and fruit; and to import alumna, the processed ore for making aluminum and fuselages for the Boeing 777. 39 Additionally, in an effort to move away from commodities that are transported by containers, the Port of Everett also intends to target neobulk cargo, which is delivered not in containers but on pallets.40 Port of Hood River, Oregon The Port of Hood River, a small niche port located in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area and that relied heavily on the timber industry for revenues in the past, diversified its operations toward tourism and has attracted over 20 windsurfing-related companies to its port. Leveraging its proximity to the Portland metropolitan area and its location in a federally recognized national scenic area, the port has earned a reputation as the most innovative port in the state in terms of land development.41 The port also owns and operates a toll bridge, three for-profit beaches, and its own airport.42 Further, the port is in the process of building a convention center to expand tourism for the area and has sold an industrial park which it developed. Manufacturers of telecommunications and electronic products, which either lease from or have purchased lands from the port, are a major source of employment for the Hood River area. The port tapped into the Oregon Port Revolving Fund in support of its shift toward reliance on the windsurfing industry, including a 1992 loan of $300,000 to construct a waterfront recreation event site. 43 Windsurfing has provided such a boost to the Hood River economy, and to other ports along the Columbia River, that a booklet detailing it has been published by the University of Oregon in both 1987 and 1990, entitled Columbia River Gorge Sailboard Economics. 22 Windsurfing provided $7 .2 million to the Columbia River Gorge area in 1987 and $16.5 million in 1990 and is predicted to generate $34 million in direct expenditures in 1995. In 1990, an estimated 9,650 windsurfers used the area, an increase of 44 percent over 1987.44 The port has also attracted other industries to utilize its facilities. Lessees include a microbrewery, manufacturing firms, and a computer assembly firm.45 Strong Port Trade Associations Florida Ports Council The 14 public deep water ports in Florida have joined together to form a strong trade association, the Florida Ports Council (FPC). After years of divisive competition, the ports joined together to push the state legislature for seaport project funding. The FPC, which had not been a strong lobbying arm until then, succeeded in convincing the Florida legislature to approve the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (FSTED) program in 1990. The FPC's lobbying efforts in 1996 were instrumental in convincing the Florida House and Senate to pass an increase in FSTED funding. The FPC is staffed by a full-time executive director who has staff and offices in both Miami and Tallahassee. One of the tasks of the FPC is to ensure that each of the ports participating in the FSTED program compiles an annual list of port-related statistics and port capital development projects, which is compiled in a five-year plan that is presented to the legislature. 46 Washington Public Ports Association As the port coordinating agency for Washington since 1961, the Washington Public Ports Association's (WPPA) mission is to promote port development; encourage trade, tourism, and transportation; research and analyze port-related issues; serve as a clearinghouse for port information; and work as a liaison between the state legislature and the ports.47 The association, which employs six full-time staff, currently represents 68 of the 76 public port districts in Washington. While only public port districts are considered regular members of the WPP A, "businesses and individuals with an interest in port affairs and with goals parallel to the Association" are eligible to join as associate members.48 In addition, the WPPA awards honorary life memberships to individuals who have distinguished themselves through service to the port industry. The WPPA conducts numerous conferences and seminars to keep commissioners, port staff, and its associate members informed about changes in the port industry. It also publishes a variety of educational and promotional materials, including a directory of all its member and nonmember ports and associate members; a monthly membership newsletter; weekly legislative updates; and periodic reports covering a range of issues relating to the economy, the environment, transportation, and commerce.49 Port Promotion Port Week The South Carolina State Ports Authority sponsors the annual Port Week, designed to educate state elementary school students about port and water issues. Each year, over 4,000 school children in kindergarten through fourth grade attend an information session at the Port of Charleston. The kids are treated to a tour of the port as well as lessons on the port's importance to city and water safety. For many children from the interior of the state, this is the first time that they have seen an ocean or had water safety training. The budget for this program is less than $20,000 because transportation and lodging is provided by the individual schools. Technology and Ports Maryland's Information Services Department Under the direction of its Information Services Department, the Maryland Port Administration (MPA) uses a number of automated information management systems to promote and enhance shipping throughout the Port of Baltimore. • Electronic data interchange (EDI}-EDI is an internationally recognized standard for computer-to-computer exchange of business information. • Baltimore's automated shipping information system (BASIS)-BASIS allows terminal operators and longshoremen to connect with U.S. Customs and other government regulatory and enforcement agencies to obtain daily vessel and cargo information. 24 • Paperless delivery order system (PDO)-Using PDQ, a broker or importer can electronically prepare and transmit all necessary information to trucking companies and the MPA so that truck drivers may take possession of their cargo without having to present unnecessary and costly paperwork. • Mobile handheld computers-Through the use of portable, handheld radio frequency computers, longshoremen at the work site have the technology to review cargo information, input data directly into the MP A's computer system, and generally facilitate safer cargo handling and faster cargo reporting. • Baltimore online telephone cargo inquiry system (BOLT)-BOLT is a 24-hour toll-free voice response system that provides cargo information to anyone using a Touch-Tone™ telephone. 50 Notes 1American Association of Port Authorities (AAP A), U.S. Public Port Facts, Alexandria, Va., September 1994. (Brochure) 2U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Public Port Financing in the United States (Washington, D.C., July 1994), p. 5. 3"Too Many Ports," Journal ofCommerce (October 17, 1995), p. 6b. 4Virginia Port Authority, "The Virginia Inland Port. One Stop. America and the World.," Virginia Maritimer, vol. 15, no. 1 (December 1995/January 1996), p. 8. 5Ibid., pp. 7, 16. 6Hampton Roads Maritime Association, The Port ofGreater Hampton Roads Annual, 1996 (Newport News, Va., 1996), p. 122. 7Virginia Port Authority, "How Virginia's Inland Port Is Launching a World of Opportunity for All of Us," Virginia Maritimer, p. 7, 15; and Virginia Port Authority, ''The Virginia Inland Port." 8Gil Wright, Ports Division, Oregon Economic Development Department, "Oregon Port Revolving Fund Legislative History," Salem, Oreg., 1995. 9Ibid. 1°Ibid. 11Gil Wright, Ports Division, Oregon Economic Development Department, "Program Description," Salem, Oreg., 1995. 13Gil Wright, Ports Division, Oregon Economic Development Department, "Oregon Port Revolving Fund Loan Activity, 1995-1997 Biennium," Salem, Oreg., 1995. 14Letter from Peggy Russell, Senate Committee on Transportation, Highways and Public Works, State of Louisiana, to Sarah de la Fuente, October 27, 1995. 26 15Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, A Status Report on the Port Construction and Development Priority Program Second Annual Report, by Project Support Section, Directorate of Public Works and Flood Control, Baton Rouge, La., 1995, p. 6. 16Letter from Russell to de la Fuente; and telephone interview by Sarah de la Fuente with David Wagner, Port of New Orleans, New Orleans, La., October 16, 1995. 17Telephone interview by de la Fuente with Wagner. 18Ibid. 19Letter fro~ Robert G. Hebert Jr. to Randall Kempner, October 24, 1995. 2°Florida Statutes 1993, ch. 311.09, Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (1994 Supplement). 23Interview by Randall Kempner with Wade Battles, Marketing Director, Port of Miami, Miami, Fla., February 8, 1996; interview by Randall Kempner with Luis Ajamil, President, Bennello Ajamil & Partners, Inc. (port consultants), Miami, Fla., February 9, 1996; and interview by Randall Kempner with Mitchell N. Harvey, Director of Marketing, Port Everglades, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., February 9, 1996. 25Letter from Hebert to Kempner. 26North Carolina State Ports Authority, State ofNorth Carolina Income Tax Credit, Charlotte, N.C., n.d. (Handout.) 27Alice Cantwell, "Ports Try Tax Breaks to Reel in Business," Journal of Commerce (April 6, 1995), p. IA. 28Hampton Roads Maritime Association, The Port ofGreater Hampton Roads Annual, pp. 127-28. 29Ibid., p. 127. 30"0verview" (April 11, 1996), available from http://www.odu.edu/gnusers/miatc_v/marl.htm; INTERNET. 31 "Course Descriptions" (April 11, 1996), available from http://gopher.odu.edu:70/R0-3186-1 m/college­ info/business/mbainfo.text; INTERNET. 32"1nstitute Activities" (April 11, 1996), available from http://www.odu.edu/gnusers/miatc_ v/mar4.htm; INTERNET. 33"Graduate Studies in International Maritime, Ports and Logistics Management" (April 11, 1996), available from http://www.odu.edu/ gnusers/miatc_ v/maritg.hnn; INTERNET. 34"About CASRM" (April 11, 1996), available from http://www.odu.edu/gnusers/miatc_v/,aritg.htm; INTERNET. 35"Partnerships with Business" (April 11, 1996), available from http://www.odu.edu/gnusers/miatc_v /prof.htm; INTERNET. 36"Background" (April 11, 1996), available from http://www.odu.edu/gnusers/miatc_v/casrm.htm; INTERNET. 37Marilee Bostic, "Prospectus for the School of Marine Affairs at the University of Washington," available from http://www.sma.washington.edu/prospectus.html#intro; INTERNET, last modified on March 25, 1996. 38Rob Tucker, "Small Port Log Losses," News Tribune (February 12, 1995), p. Fl. 39Larry Liebman, "The Log Jam's Not What It Used to Be," Puget Sound Business Journal, vol. 14, no. 48, sec. 1 (April 15, 1994), p. 27. 4J'erry Brennan, "California Lands Commission Orders Port Not to Pay City in Los Angeles Dispute," Traffic World (November 13, 1995), p. 34. 21Interview by Inge with Middleton. 22''The California Marine Academy" (June 1996), available from http://www.csum.edu; INTERNET. 24Gus Owen, 'The Alameda Rail Link," Journal ofCommerce (June 19, 1996), p. 6A. 98 Appendix IV. Connecticut State Background Connecticut is the 27th most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 3,275,000 in 1994. The state has the fourth highest population density of 676.0 persons per square mile.1 The major metropolitan areas include Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, and Waterbury. 2 The New England state ranks 48th in the nation in total area with 5,018 square miles. The topography of Connecticut includes a narrow central lowland running north-south, a hilly eastern upland drained by rivers, and the Berkshires and higher elevations in the north and northwest.3 The principal industries of the Connecticut economy include manufacturing, retail trade, government, services, finances, insurance, and real estate. Chief agricultural crops are nursery stock, vegetables, sweet com, tobacco, and apples. Primary manufactured goods consist of aircraft engines and parts, submarines, helicopters, instruments, machinery and computer equipment, and electronics and electrical equipment. 4 Connecticut ports handled 16.8 million tons of cargo in 1994, ranking the state 32nd in total waterborne commerce.5 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure By 1998, the state of Connecticut will have three operational deepwater ports. As a result of the Port of New London's April 1993 physical collapse, the state's only publicly owned seaport has been rendered largely inactive. The two private seaports of Bridgeport and New Haven have accounted for most of the state's 16.8 million tons of waterborne 6 commerce. Description of Major Ports There are three major commercial ports in the state along with dozens of smaller private noncommercial ports. Port of New London The Port of New London is presently under a $23 million warehouse, pier, and railroad reconstruction, funded by a collaborative effort between the Connecticut Department of Transportation (COOT), Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (COECO), and the U.S. Department of Commerce. When complete, the port will offer a 1,000-foot pier, and two 55,000-square-foot warehouses and will provide major renovations to its rail and roadway access. The port will focus its trade activities around its geographical location, which, it claims, provides immediate access (within 500 miles) to one-third of the U.S. and two-thirds of the Canadian economy. For these reasons, the state is anticipating that much of the New London port's cargo will be contracted to the Canadian forest product industry. 7 Port of New Haven The Port of New Haven offers three berths with a maximum depth of 39 feet. The port is primarily utilized for imported liquid and dry cargo. Offering 400,000 square feet of inside storage space, in addition to 50 acres of outside storage space, the port targets dry cargo. Additionally, the port provides 3.3 million barrels of storage in 64 tanks designated for liquid cargo. 8 Port of Bridgeport With a 110-ton shore crane and 40 pieces offorklift equipment designed for handling refrigerated warehouse and ships, the Port ofBridgeport now handles only fruit. The port also provides 20 acres of outside storage space, 130,000 square feet of inside storage space, and 85,000 square feet of refrigerated warehouse space.9 Port Administration The state is currently searching for a team to operate the rebuilt New London facility. There are rumors that the $7 4 million Canadian stevedoring giant, Logistec, may bid to operate the facility. New Haven and Bridgeport are currently owned and operated by numerous independent agents. However, Logistec is also considering a bid to operate those ports as well. Future major capital improvements to the state pier of New London will come from one of two possible sources: the COOT dedicated transportation fund or bonds. Although COOT 100 has utilized its bonding authority to finance the reopening of the New London Port, there is no direct public assistance planned for any of the state's private ports. However, COECO does offer the owners of the private ports direct low interest loans. The state has received criticism from port commissioners and shipping executives who question the appropriateness of the state's funding a single facility. These individuals feel that whoever eventually runs the New London port will have an unfair competitive advantage over the state's private ports. 10 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development Other state agencies involved in port development include the Connecticut Coastal Port Authority (CCPA). The CCPA is an agency of the COOT, created in 1995 by the state legislature for the expressed interest of marketing and developing the port system of the state of Connecticut. Chaired by the COOT chairman, the CCPA consists of members of the public sector, a representative from the COECO and private port operators (without voting rights). With an annual budget of $10,000, the CCP A funds small promotional efforts and makes recommendations to the COOT and generally acts in an advisory role to the state legislature on state port marketing issues. Other Public and Private Sector Organizations The Connecticut Maritime Association (CMA) is a private organization established in the 1970s to provide "self-help" assistance to the shipping industry. With over 70 maritime company offices in the Stamford/Greenwich area, the CMA is poised to become a major economic force when the state port becomes operational. Port-Related Programs and Projects New or Proposed Programs In a new approach toward revitalizing a dying port, the Port of New Haven is negotiating to sell its dry-cargo operations to its unionized workers. Coming on the heals of the port's 1994 bankruptcy, the $9.2 million deal is believed to be the U.S. stevedoring industry's first employee buyout. The employees have arranged for Logistec to manage the dry freight operations. The Canadian stevedoring firm would supposedly also provide the resources necessary to back capital projects at both New Haven and Bridgeport.11 102 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 752. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 625. 5U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .mil/ndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 6Ibid. 7Telephone interview by John Padwick with Doug Brown, Director, Bureau of Port Operations, Connecticut Department of Transportation, New London, Conn., February 7, 1996. 8Connecticut Department of Transportation, Port ofNew Haven Fact Sheet, New London, Conn., n.d. (Brochme.) 9Connecticut Department of Transportation, Port ofBridgeport Fact Sheet, New London, Conn., n.d. (Brochme.) 1°''An Uncertain Future for 3 Deep-Water Ports," New York Times (Jan. 5, 1996), p. BS. 11"1t's about Trust and Risks," Hartford Courant (Sept. 3, 1995), p. Bl. 104 Appendix V. Delaware State Background Delaware is the 46th largest state in the nation, with an estimated population of 706,000 in 1994. The state has the seventh highest population density of 361.3 persons per square mile.1 The major metropolitan areas include Wilmington, Dover, and Newark. 2 Delaware is the second smallest state in the nation in total area with 2,045 square miles. Its topography consists of a piedmont plateau to the north that slopes to a near-sea level plain. 3 The principal industries of the Delaware economy include chemistry, agriculture, finance, poultry, shellfish, tourism, automobile assembly, food processing, and transportation equipment. Chief agricultural crops are soybeans, potatoes, com, mushrooms, lima beans, green peas, barley, cucumbers, snap beans, watermelons, and apples. Primary manufactured goods consist of nylon, apparel, luggage, foods, automobiles, processed meats and vegetables, and railroad and aircraft equipment.4 In 1994, Delaware moved 33.1 million tons through its waterways, ranking it 25th nationally in total tons shipped by waterborne commerce. 5 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure and Description of Major Ports The Port of Wilmington, the only deepwater port in Delaware, is located at the confluence of the Delaware and Christina rivers and is 65 miles from the Atlantic Ocean shipping lanes. The port has seven deepwater berths, a 510-foot floating pier for roll-on/roll-off vessels, a tanker berth for liquid petroleum products, 3,450 feet of marginal wharf, and a project depth of 38 feet. In 1992, Wilmington was the nation's 19th largest container port and 26th largest port in terms of total tonnage. The port's principal import cargoes include bananas and other tropical fruit, automobiles and trucks, deciduous fruits, citrus fruits, frozen meat, lumber, paper, steel, and petroleum products. Its primary exports include automobiles and trucks, heavy equipment and machinery, kraft linerboard paper, and deciduous fruits. 6 A 1993 report shows that the total direct and indirect benefits to the state from the Port of Wilmington include $566 million in revenues, $86 milJion in payrolls, and 2,842 jobs. From these amounts, Delaware receives an estimated $8.4 million in tax revenue.7 Port Administration Upon signing an agreement with the City of Wilmington on September 8, 1995, the State of Delaware acquired ownership of the Port of WiJmington and subsequently established the Diamond State Port Corporation (DSPC). The newly created corporation has the responsibility of overseeing the fiscal and regulatory policies and operations of the port. DSPC's board of directors consists of three members from the governor's cabinet and six members from the private sector who are nominated by the governor and confirmed by the Delaware state Senate.8 Major Port Organizations Public and Private Sector Organizations The Port of Wilmington Maritime Society (POWMS) is a private, nonprofit special interest association established to increase community support and develop business opportunities for the Delaware port. POWMS actively supported the legislation that forma1ized the State of Delaware's purchase of the Port of Wilmington and is now working with the businesses in the port community to develop a list of recommendations for capital improvements projects to be submitted to DSPC.9 Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs The Graduate College of Marine Studies at the University of Delaware offers master's degrees, with a concentration in marine policy that provides students the opportunity to analyze issues relating to the legal, political, and economic aspects of the coastal zone, the seabed, and the ocean. Courses offered in this program include shipping and port management, admiralty and maritime law, and ocean law and policy, among many others. 106 Notes 1U.S. Department ofCommerce, Bureau ofthe Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 752. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 625. "Ibid. su.s. Anny Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.anny .mil/ndc/wcstaton. txt; INTERNET. 61>ort of Wilmington, Port ofPersonal Services, Wilmington, Del., 1995. (Information packet.) 7"Port Major Factor in State Economy," Delaware Business Review (May 10, 1993), sec. 1, p. 17. 8Port of Wilmington, "City, State Finalize Port Sale: Diamond State Port Corporation Established," Port Illustrated (Fall 1995), pp. 7-8. 9I>ort of Wilmington, "POWMS History Shows 17 Years of Support for Port Business Activities," Port Illustrated (Fall 1995), pp. 9-11. 108 Appendix VI. Florida State Background Florida is the fourth most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 13,953,000 in 1994. The state has the tenth highest population density of 258.4 persons per square mile.1 The major population areas include Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, and St. Petersburg.2 Florida, a peninsula jutting southward 500 miles between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, ranks 22nd in the nation in total area with 58,664 square miles. Its topography consists of flat or rolling land. 3 The principal industries of the Florida economy include international trade, agriculture, government, light manufacturing, and tourism. Chief agricultural crops are citrus fruits, vegetables, potatoes, melons, strawberries, and sugarcane. Primary manufactured goods include electronic equipment, transportation equipment, food, printing and publishing, and machinery.4 In 1994, Florida moved 121.1 million tons through its waterways, ranking fifth nationally in total tons shipped by waterborne commerce. 5 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure Florida has 14 public deepwater seaports, ranging from tiny Fort Pierce to the internationally renowned Port of Miami. The ports are geographically split between the gulf and Atlantic coasts. The gulf ports are focused primarily on domestic trade, while the Atlantic Coast ports compete with ports all along the Eastern Seaboard for international cargo and cruise ship passengers. The Atlantic Coast ports account for over 90 percent of the state's $31. 9 billion in annual waterborne foreign trade.6 The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) extends from Pensacola to St. Marks, just north of Florida's ''bend" and then from just north of Tampa Bay to Ft. Myers. In all, the orww covers more than 588 miles of Florida's coast and inland waterways.7 According to the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council (FSTED Council), the Florida seaport industry and port-dependent businesses create over 300,000 jobs and generate annual state and local tax revenues well in excess of $600 million.8 Description of Major Ports Florida's four largest ports, Miami, Everglades, Jacksonville, and Tampa account for over 90 percent of the total foreign trade and 80 percent of total maritime tonnage that is handled in the state.9 Port of Miami The Port of Miami, located at the southern tip of the state, is the world's busiest cruise port. It is home to 14 cruise ships and served over 2.9 million passengers in 1994. The port is also one of the fastest growing container ports in the United States and presently ranks tenth nationally in container trade. Miami's largest trading partners are South and Central America, but the port also serves markets in Europe and Asia. It is a major transshipment point for cargo moving from Europe and the Far East to Latin America. The port has a 42-foot channel and handles all types of cargo except bulk products. 10 Port Everglades Port Everglades is located in Fort Lauderdale, approximately 40 miles north of Miami. It has a 45-foot depth, making it the deepest port south of Norfolk, Virginia. Like Miami, it has been experiencing strong growth in both containerized cargo and cruise passengers. With over 2.2 million cruise passengers, Port Everglades is the second largest cruise port in the world. Everglades is the primary receiving port for South Florida's petroleum, and oil is the port's primary cargo. It also handles general container cargo, cement, and other liquid and dry bulk products. 11 Jaxport The Port of Jacksonville (Jaxport) is located on Florida's north Atlantic Coast, on the border with Georgia. Leading cargoes include containerized, roll-on/roll-off general cargo, automobiles, breakbulk cargoes, and dry and liquid-bulk products. In 1994, Jacksonville was the 14th largest container port in the nation. Jaxport, which offers a 38-foot-deep channel, serves as a major military staging area. 12 110 Port of Tampa The Port of Tampa, located in the center of the Florida's Gulf Coast is the largest port in Florida in terms of tonnage (51 million tons in 1994). It handles primarily bulk cargo related to the phosphate industry, power generation, and transport fuels. Tampa is also home to a growing cruise ship industry. In 1994, it handled 300,000 revenue passengers. The governing depth of Tampa's harbor and channels is 34 feet, but some channels have been dredged to as much as 45 feet. 13 Port Administration Florida's ports are administered by the full gamut of governing agencies. Miami, Manatee, and Everglades are administered by their county governments. St. Petersburg, Key West, and Pensacola are operated by city governments. Canaveral, Fort Pierce, Jacksonville, Palm Beach, Panama City, and Tampa maintain independent port authorities or districts. At this point, no Florida port is utilizing direct taxing authority in order to supplement its revenues. The state government has no operating authority over any port.14 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development There are three major state agencies involved with seaport development in Florida: the Department of Transportation, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Community Affairs. The Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) is the primacy state government liaison and financing partner for the port community. Through its rail office, port/intermodal rail section, FDOT works with ports on intermodal planning, landside access, and the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (FSTED) program. (See below for greater description.) The Florida Department of Commerce (FDOC), through its International Trade Division, helps support port development by undertaking general state marketing efforts throughout the world. Specifically, the FDOC prints a brochure that promotes Florida's ports. Additionally, FDOC is one of the state agencies that evaluates FSTED grant requests. 15 The Department of Community Affairs assists ports indirectly by working with local governments in creating five-year development plans. As some of the local governments operate ports, the ports themselves benefit from state and federally funded planning grants. This department also plays a role in evaluating FSTED grant requests. 16 The Florida Trade Data Center (FfDC), located in Miami, provides a series of free and fee­based information services to importers and exporters interested in Florida commerce. The Trade Data Center has assumed a role of disseminating trade data that was being handled by overburdened port marketing departments. The FfDC also maintains an electronic marketplace that lists trade leads from all over the world. The Trade Data Center is funded by the FDOC, Florida seaports (predominately the Port of Miami), and its own revenues.17 Other Public and Private Sector Organizations Florida's ports are represented by a strong trade association, the Florida Ports Council (FPC). All 14 public deepwater port directors are represented on the FPC board and the organization maintains a full-time director who has offices in both Miami and Tallahassee. In 1990, the FPC, which had been able to foster a consensus among the 14 statewide ports, succeeded in lobbying the state legislature to pass CS/SB 1316, which included the Florida Seaport and Economic Development Program.18 Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs The Florida State Transportation Trust Fund is the primary means that Florida uses to provide direct aid to ports. This fund provides capital for the FSTED program. Originally created in 1990 with an $8 million annual appropriation, FSTED has since been amended to provide $10 million annually in grants to Florida's ports. 19 The grant moneys can be used for land or capital-good acquisition, improvements to existing facilities, dredging, or other infrastructure improvements. State participation cannot exceed 50 percent of the total cost of a project, and, in order to be approved, a proposed project must be consistent with the port's comprehensive master plan, FOOT's adopted five-year work program, and the local government's comprehensive master plan; and it must be of demonstrable economic benefit to the state as determined by the FDOC.20 The program is managed by the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council, which consists of the 14 public deepwater port directors and the secretaries of 112 commerce, transportation, and community affairs as ex officio members. The Council meets semiannually to review the projects submitted by each of the individual ports and recommends which projects should be funded by the state. 21 According to seaport officials, the fund has been successful in speeding the completion of projects for the larger ports and making possible the completion of projects for the smaller ports.22 While larger ports, such as Miami and Port Everglades, have made the most extensive use of the fund, all of the ports except for Port St. Joe have utilized the program. New or Proposed Programs Because of the success of the program, the Florida Ports Council is lobbying the state legislature to increase the annual fund allocation from $10 to $35 million. As of mid­March, 1996, both Florida house and senate committees had agreed to increase the annual funding to $25 million a year by fiscal year 1997. Ifthe pending legislation is accepted by the legislature and the governor, ports would also gain the ability to use trust fund allocations to leverage new bonds. 23 Additionally, Miami and Jaxport have initiated pilot programs using funds appropriated by the Seaport Employment Training Grant Program. The grant program, also passed in 1990, offers funding for seaport employment training programs. Like the FSTED funds, the state will only provide a maximum of 50 percent of the project funding. Unlike FSTED, there is no predetennined annual appropriation.24 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 775. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 641. 4U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States, pp. 28-29. 5U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .mil/ndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 6Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council (FSTED Council), A Five Year Plan to Accomplish the Mission ofFlorida's Seaports 1995/6-1999i2000 (Tallahassee, 1996), pp. 2, 3. 7Letter from Robert G. Hebert Jr., Administrator, Ports/lntermodal, Rail Office, Florida Department of Transportation, to Randall Kempner, March 20, 1996. 8FSTED Council, A Five Year Plan, p. v. 9Ibid., p. 3. 1°Letter from Hebert to Kempner, March 20, 1996; and FSTED Council, A Five Year Plan, pp. 7, 49. 11lnterview by Randall Kempner with Mitchell N. Harvey, Strategic Planning Manager, Construction Management and Planning Division, Port Everglades, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., February 9, 1996; and FSTED Council, A Five Year Plan, pp. 7, 42. 12FSTED Council, A Five Year Plan, p. 46. 13Port of Tampa, Port ofTampa Fact Sheet, Tampa, Fla., March 1994. (Brochure.); and FSTED Council, A Five Year Plan, p. 54. 14Telephone interview by Randall Kempner with Robert G. Hebert Jr., Tallahassee, Fla., January 19, 1996. 114 15Telephone interview by Randall Kempner with Thomas Roesch, Manager ofInternational Trade, Florida Department of Commerce, Tallahassee, Fla., January 26, 1996. 16Florida Statutes 1993, ch. 311, Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (1994 supplement); and telephone interview by Kempner with Hebert. 17Interview by Randall Kempner with Alfredo Fuchs, Trade Specialist, Florida Trade Data Center, Miami Fla., February 9, 1996. 18Telephone interview by Randall Kempner with John R. LeCapra, President, Florida Ports Council, Tallahassee, Fla., October 16, 1996. 19Letter from.Robert G. Hebert Jr. to Randall Kempner, October 24, 1995. 2°Florida Statutes 1993, ch. 311.09, Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (1994 supplement). 22Interview by Randall Kempner with Wade Battles, Marketing Director, Port of Miami, Miami, Fla., February 8, 1996; interview by Randall Kempner with Luis Ajamil, President, Bermello Ajamil & Partners, Inc. (port consultants), Miami, Fla., February 9, 1996; and interview by Kempner with Harvey. 23Telephone interview by Randall Kempner with Robert G. Hebert Jr., March 19, 1996. 24Florida Statutes 1993, ch. 311.11, Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (1994 supplement); and letter from Hebert to Kempner. 115 116 Appendix VII. Georgia State Background Georgia is the 11th most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 7,055,000 in 1994. The state has the 20th highest population density of 121.8 persons per square mile. 1 The major metropolitan areas include Atlanta, Columbus, Savannah, and Macon.2 Georgia ranks 21st in the nation in total area with 58,910 square miles. Its topography consists of the Blue Ridge Mountains, which cover the northeast and north central, the central piedmont that extends to the fall line of rivers, and coastal plains. 3 The principal industries of the Georgia economy include services, manufacturing, government, and retail trade. Chief agricultural crops are peanuts, cotton, com, tobacco, hay, and soybeans. Primary manufactured goods consist of textiles, food, and kindred products.4 From its vast stand of pine come more than half the world's resins and turpentine and 74.4 percent ofthe U.S. supply. Georgia is also a leader in the production of marble, kaolin, and bauxite.5 Georgia, with 17.8 million tons handled in 1994, ranked 30th among states in terms of waterborne commerce. 6 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure Georgia has four ports-all owned and operated by the Georgia Ports Authority (GP A). The Port of Savannah and the Port ofBrunswick are deepwater ports located on the Atlantic Coast. Additionally, the ports authority operates two river barge terminals at Bainbridge and Columbus. Located in the western half ofthe state, Bainbridge is on the Flint River and Columbus is on the Chattahoochee River. Each services midwestem goods routed for the Gulf ofMexico. With 20 percent ofthe U.S. population living within 500 miles of Savannah, the port is in a unique position to service economic development throughout the state and nation. The Port of Savannah is closer than any other South Atlantic port to the major consumer areas of the Southeast. 7 117 The ports generate 63,000 jobs throughout the state and add $189 million to the economy through state and local taxes.8 Together, the ports generate over $7 billion annually in business activity .9 Description of Major Ports Historically, the ports in Georgia have been the cornerstone ofeconomic development for the southeastern United States. The Port of Savannah, founded in 1733, is one of the oldest ports in the nation. From its beginnings as a link to England, through King Cotton, and now, into the 21st century, Savannah and its counterparts have cultivated trade development on the Atlantic Coast. Today, the ports ofGeorgia handle 15 million tons of cargo annually. Io Port of Savannah The Port of Savannah, the 10th largest container port in the nation, is located in the northeastern comer of the state. There are two deepwater terminals at Savannah: Garden City and Ocean Terminal. Garden City, headquarters for the Georgia Ports Authority, is an 838-acre container-handling facility with six contiguous berths totaling 6,526 linear feet. On-site switching is provided by the Georgia Ports Authority-owned and -operated Savannah State Docks Railroad. Garden City is 24. 7 nautical miles from sea buoy. Ocean Terminal, 22.2 nautical miles from sea buoy and in the heart ofdowntown Savannah, is a 208-acre breakbulk facility with ten berths totaling 5,988 linear feet. The port has a channel depth of42 feet.II The Port of Savannah serves over 100 countries and over 300 ports directly. From July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995, the terminals handled 1,708 ship calls. I2 Port of Brunswick The Port of Brunswick is located south ofthe Port of Savannah. There are three deepwater terminals: Colonel's Island, Mayor's Point, and East River. Colonel's Island is a 345-acre facility with roll-on/roll-off and dry-bulk facilities. More than 100,000 vehicles were handled at Colonel's Island during fiscal year 1994. Colonel's Island is located 15 nautical miles from sea buoy. Mayor's Point Terminal is a 22-acre breakbulk facility specializing in export forest products. Mayor's Point is also 15 nautical miles from sea buoy. Finally, East River Terminal, 14.5 nautical miles from sea buoy, is a liquid/dry-bulk and breakbulk facility currently leased by Marine Port Terminals, Inc.13 118 The Port of Brunswick handled 422 ship calls in fiscal year 1994 and is currently enjoying its new channel depth of 32 feet. In addition, the Port of Brunswick is replacing the Sid Lanier Bridge with a new, high-level, fixed-span bridge slated to be finished in 1998.14 Port Administration Georgia's ports are administered by the Georgia Ports Authority. Established in 1945 by the state legislature, the GPA is charged with the task of developing the state's ports, while fostering international trade.15 The GPA is composed of a nine-member board appointed by the governor. The members serve four-year staggered terms. The day-to-day operations, however, are handled by an administrative staff covering divisions ranging from public affairs to information services. The Georgia Ports Authority, for the most part, is able to operate on its own revenues. However, additional federal funding comes from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Although these funds are currently threatened, thus far no attempt to use state funds for dredging operations and maintenance has been made.16 State bonds and allocations from the general assembly are used to finance major projects. For example, the current construction of container berth 7 at the Port of Savannah is being financed by general obligation bonds.17 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development In addition to the Georgia Ports Authority, the Georgia Department of Transportation assists localities in maintaining the harbors. The Savannah Harbor is the joint responsibility of Chatham County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In an effort to assist Chatham County, the Department of Transportation secures an average of $3 million in state funds annually to improve and maintain disposal areas. In addition, the Department of Transportation is the local sponsor for the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. 18 119 Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs In 1990, the Georgia Ports Authority commissioned a study, FOCUS 2000, to direct the ports into the 21st centwy. The plan was both an objective and inspired strategic plan covering a ten-year period, 1990-2000.19 Today, FOCUS 2000 is well underway and successfully securing a continued role for Georgia ports in both national and international commerce. Georgia also provides an exemption on sales tax for cargo containers and related chassis used in international cargo shipments by oceangoing vessels. 20 Georgia Southern University assists in Georgia's port development through higher education. In response to requests from the Savannah intermodal community, Georgia Southern University established a concentration in logistics and intermodal transportation in the Business School in 1991. The four-year bachelor's program was so successful it became its own major in the business school. The program concentrates on economic analysis and quantitative analysis, focusing heavily on the theory of intermodalism in the junior year. Internships are reserved for the program's best students. However, the school has had little trouble placing graduates in their field of interest.21 The program was funded with no marginal costs to the university. The money was raised with several contributions, namely one from the Georgia Freight Bureau of Atlanta. Even today, state money has only been used to hire a new faculty member specializing in logistics and intermodal transportation. 22 120 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 754. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 626. 5/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook, p. 754. 6U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, ''Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .miVndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 7Georgia Ports Authority, The Georgia Ports Authority: A Tradition ofMaritime Excellence Continues (Savannah, Ga., 1994). 8Georgia Ports Authority, The Ports ofGeorgia (Hilton Head, S.C.: Tri-comm Productions, 1995), videocassette. 9Georgia Department of Transportation, Statewide Transportation Plan: lntermodalism ... Bringing Transportation Together, p. D58. 10The Ports ofGeorgia. 11Georgia Ports Authority, Port ofSavannah Fact Sheet, Savannah, Ga., August 1995. (Brochure.) 13Georgia Ports Authority, Port ofBrunswick Fact Sheet, Savannah, Ga., August 1995. (Brochure.) 141bid. 121 15Georgia Ports Authority, The Georgia Ports Authority. 16lnterview by Sarah de la Fuente with Mr. Charles F. Griffen, P.E., Director of Port Planning and Harbor Development, Georgia Ports Authority, Savannah, Ga., February 23, 1996. 17lnterview by Sarah de la Fuente with Miriam Thompson, Senior Accountant, Finance Department, Georgia Ports Authority, Savannah, Ga., February 23, 1996. 18Georgia Department of Transportation, Statewide Transportation Plan, pp. D61-62. 19Georgia Department of Transportation, Statewide Transportation Plan, p. D59. 20Alice Cantwell, "Ports Try Tax Breaks to Reel in Business," Journal ofCommerce (April 6, 1995), sec. A, p. 1. 21Telephone interview by Sarah de la Fuente with E. Cameron Williams, Associate Professor of Marketing and Intermodal Transportation, Georgia Southern University, Savannah, Ga, March 18, 1996. 122 Appendix Vill. Hawaii State Background Hawaii is the 40th most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 1,179,000 in 1994. The state has the 13th highest population density of 183.5 persons per square mile. 1 The major metropolitan areas include Honolulu, Hilo, Kailua, and Kaneohe.2 The Hawaiian Islands rank 47th in the nation in total area with 6,471 square miles. The islands are the tops of a chain of submerged volcanic mountains. Active volcanoes include Mauna Loa and Kilauea. 3 The principal industries of the Hawaii economy include tourism, defense and other government, sugar refining, pineapple and diversified agriculture, aquaculture, fishing, and motion pictures. Chief agricultural crops are sugar, pineapples, macadamia nuts, fruits, coffee, vegetables, melons, and floriculture. Primary manufactured goods consist of sugar, canned pineapple, clothing, foods, and printing and publishing.4 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure The Hawaiian harbor system, Port Hawaii, consists of seven deep-and two medium-draft harbors distributed throughout five islands. These ports range in size from Honolulu Harbor on Oahu, which is among the top ten largest container-handling ports in the United States, to the tiny 1,612-f oot Kaunakakai Harbor on Molokai. 5 Hawaii is heavily dependent on international maritime trade. Over 80 percent of the goods consumed in the state are imported from oversees. Ninety-eight percent of the imports enter by ship through the Port Hawaii system. 6 Currently, over 20 general-cargo and specialized shipping lines call regularly on the state's ports.7 Port Hawaii prides itself on its foreign trade with Pacific Rim countries. Since statehood in 1959, foreign trade has expanded within the state by 4,000 percent to its present level of just over $2.5 billion. Of this, Pacific Rim countries now account for 89 .9 percent of the 123 state's imports and 90.7 percent of its exports. Japan is the state's leading trading partner, accounting for 22. 9 percent of the state's imports and an astonishing 41.4 percent ofits exports.8 The recent development of two oil refineries helped spur the creation of Oahu's nearby Barbers Point. This development has resulted in a significant shift in the types of goods being traded from the port system. Currently, over 50 percent of the state's international trade focuses on petroleum products, most of which are directed toward Japan.9 Description of Major Ports Honolulu Harbor Serving as the primary shipping link between Hawaii, the mainland United States, and the Far East, Honolulu Harbor is the most important commercial harbor in the state and is among the ten largest container ports in the United States. The harbor utilizes over 130 acres of container yard and 28,000 linear feet of cargo-handling pier, in handling over 11 million tons ofcargo annually. Home to 53 piers, with depths ranging from 9 to 40 feet, Honolulu Harbor serves as the primary distribution center for the island and rest of the state.10 Barber's Point Located near the southwest tip of the island, Barber's Point is Oahu's second deepwater port and is being developed to alleviate the current congestion at Honolulu Harbor, in addition to accommodating the increased demand for petroleum products. In 1995, the harbor handled in excess of 2.9 million tons of primarily bulk cargo. The harbor is currently undergoing Phase I of their development plan, which calls for a state-funded $16 million dredging project.11 The remaining ports on the outer islands provide a range of maritime facilities and services, while acting as their island's major distribution centers. In addition to traditional cargo, most of the outer island ports are also served by passenger cruise ships. Port Hawaii has also worked extensively to utilize its foreign-trade-zone status. Port Hawaii has also applied to expand its general purpose zone by adding sites at four additional ports. 12 124 Port Administration All commercial ports within the state are administered by the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) through its Port Hawaii Division. The division is administered by a harbor administrator, who is one of three transportation chiefs (airports, highways, and harbors) who report directly to the HDOT director. There have been unsuccessful recent efforts by Port Hawaii to pass state legislation authorizing the creation of a Hawaiian Port Authority, which would encompass both the harbors and airports divisions. The prevailing notion behind these efforts has been that the legislation would allow the new port authority to provide quicker response to the harbors, without requiring legislative approval. 13 Last year, Port Hawaii filed a $47 .2 million operating budget. 14 All harbors are considered self-sufficient and, as such, their operating budget is funded exclusively from user fees. The individual ports receive HOOT-generated revenue bonds exclusively for major capital improvement projects. Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development In addition to HDOT, other agencies are involved with the planning stages of port development. These agencies include the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. Beyond the planning stage, only the Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism maintains any kind of active presence with port activities. The agency manages the foreign trade zones. 15 Port-Related Programs and Projects Exi~ting Programs The master plan for Port Hawaii consists of several short-and long-range plans for the continued development of Hawaii's "lifeline" to the world. Included in these projects are: • the development of a fresh fish processing center at Honolulu Harbor, • the acquisition of additional land to expand cargo and storage space in many of the smaller outer-island ports, and • refinement of the planned interisland barge transportation system. 125 126 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 774. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 627. 4 Ibid. 5State ofHawaii Department of Transportation, Port Hawaii Commercial Harbors System Handbook (Honolulu: Port Hawaii, n.d.), p. 9. 6Telephone interview by John Padwick with LaVerne Hokama, Program Budget Analyst, Hawaii Department of Transportation, February 21, 1996. 7State of Hawaii Department ofTransportation, Port Hawaii Commercial Harbors System Handbook, p. 21. 81bid., p. 12. 9Ibid 10State ofHawaii Department ofTransportation, Hawaii Statewide Transportation Plan, vol. 1 (Honolulu, December 1991), pp. VIII-6. 11Telephone interview by Padwick with Hokama. 12State ofHawaii Department of Transportation, Port Hawaii Commercial Harbors System Handbook, p. 12. 13Telephone interview by John Padwick with Marilyn Kai, Director, Department of Public Affairs, Hawaii Department of Transportation, December 5, 1995. 14Hawaii State Legislature, House of Representatives, H.B. 1220 (1995). 127 15Telephone interview by Padwick with Hokama. 128 Appendix IX. IDinois State Background Illinois is the sixth most populous state in the nation, with a population of 11,752,000 in 1994. The state has the 11th highest population density of 211.4 persons per square mile.1 The major metropolitan areas include Chicago, Rockford, Peoria, and Springfield. 2 Illinois ranks 24th in the nation in total area with 56,345 square miles. Its topography primarily consists of prairie and fertile plains. Open hills are present in the southern region.3 Illinois has a highly diverse economic base. Chief agricultural crops include com, soybeans, wheat, oats, and hay. Primary manufactured goods consist of machinery, electric and electronic equipment, metals, chemicals, printing and publishing, and processed food. The state also has both oil and coal reserves.4 In 1994, lliinois moved 111.4 million tons through its waterways, ranking it ninth nationally in total tons shipped by waterborne commerce.5 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure and Description of Major Ports The state of Illinois has 1, 119 miles of commercially navigable waterways, providing the state with among the largest commercial navigation systems of all the inland states. However, Illinois' waterway commerce is almost entirely barge-based traffic.6 Only two ports, Illinois International Port (Chicago) and Waukeegan are capable of handling deep­draft vessels. Due to the locks on the Great Lakes/Saint Lawrence Seaway system, the largest vessels that can be accommodated at the Illinois International Port have a maximum length of 730 feet, width of 76 feet, and a draft of 26 ft. 9 inches.7 Only 3.9 million tons of foreign cargo was handled in 1994. 8 Distributed throughout Illinois' navigable rivers and canals are 282 active waterway terminals. Of these, 226 are private terminals that are generally not available to other shippers, and 56 are privately or publicly owned terminals. The most common cargoes handled at these river terminals include grains, chemicals, petroleum products, and coal. 129 The lliinois and Mississippi rivers, the longest rivers in Illinois, are home to the majority of the terminals. 9 In all, 107.3 million tons of domestic cargo were handled on lliinois' inland waterways in 1994.10 Port Administration Illinois' terminals are typically privately owned and operated. A large majority of the port facilities in the state are small terminals dedicated to specific conunodities. However, Illinois has also developed a system of port districts to oversee the planning and development of water ports. Each district operates according to a charter approved by the lliinois general assembly. Although the 13 districts possess differing powers and duties to undertake port and related industrial development, each district is expected to sustain its operations through business activities. At this point, only three are actually operating as commercial ports. In each case, these districts own land that is leased to private companies that operate port activities. While most of the districts have taxing authority, the authority has never been exercised.11 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development Port-related issues at the state level are typically handled by the Office of Planning and Programming of the Illinois Department of Transportation (DOT). Essentially, there are three part-time employees who deal with port planning and development issues. The Illinois DOT produces two planning documents related to waterway development. Every two to three years, the department will produce a state capital development plan for the port districts. This document is a compilation of the individual development plans produced by the districts. It is used to alert the Illinois assembly about potential capital needs of the port districts. Additionally, water transport is one of the areas covered annually in the Illinois state transportation plan. Over the last decade, the transportation plan has only provided limited outlays for port development, focusing primarily on assisting with technical studies.12 The Illinois general assembly typically does not provide for direct grant support to port districts, though there is a loan program for rail improvements, which may aid ports 130 through landside access. In the past 13 years, there has been no state assistance for port district administration or operating expenses. 13 The Department of Commerce and Community Affairs does operate an International Trade Office, but it does not focus strongly on promoting lliinois public port districts. Instead, its primary focus is on assisting private companies interested in Illinois trade. From time to time, the department will sponsor a port-related advertisement in commercial journals. Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs Port districts have access to a capital fund operated by the lliinois Capital Development Board (ICDB). The ICDB is a state construction agency for public agencies. Typically, the ICDB finances projects through emitting bonds that are later repaid by the revenues of the capital projects. In the late 1970s through the early 1980s, the ICDB funded four port construction projects: 3 commercial ports and one recreational marina. The largest outlay was less than 15 million dollars. However, since the early 1980s, the ICDB has not funded any port-related projects.14 131 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 775. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 641. 5U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .miVndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 6Illinois Department ofTransportation, Division of Water Resources, Illinois Directory ofLake and River Terminals, 1994 (Chicago, March 1994), p. 3. 7Ibid., pp. 6-7. 8U.S. Army Corps of Engi~eers, Waterborne Commerce Statistics. 9IIIinois Department of Transportation, Illinois Directory, pp. 13-14. 1°U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Statistics. 11Telephone interview by Randall Kempner with James A. Johnson, Senior Intermodal Manager, Office of Planning and Programs, Illinois Department of Transportation, Chicago, Ill., November 28, 1995. 12Telephone interview by Randall Kempner with James A. Johnson, April 1, 1996. 13Interview by Kempner with Johnson, November 28, 1995. 141nterview by Kempner with Johnson, April 1, 1996. 132 Appendix X. Indiana State Background Indiana is the 14th most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 5,752,000 in 1994. The state has the 16th highest population density of 160.4 persons per square mile. 1 The major metropolitan areas include Indianapolis, Fort Wane, Evansville, and Gary.2 Indiana ranks 38th in the nation in total area with 36,185 square miles. Its topography consists of a hilly southern region, fertile rolling plains in the central region, a flat, heavily glaciated northern region, and dunes along the Lake Michigan shore. 3 The principal industries of the Indiana economy include manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, agriculture, government, and services. Chief agricultural crops are com, sorghum, oats, wheat, rye, soybeans, and hay. Primary manufactured goods consist of primary and fabricated metals, transportation equipment, electrical and electronic equipment, nonelectrical machinery, plastics, chemical products, and foods. 4 Much of the building limestone used in the U.S. is quarried in Indiana, which is also a large producer of coal.5 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure The three ports of Indiana, Burns Harbor; Southwind Maritime Centre; and Clarke Maritime Centre managed to move 15.2 million tons of cargo through their docks in 1994. The Seaway System of locks and dams limits the ports to only the smallest first-and second-generation container vessels. 6 Charged with "promoting the agricultural, industrial and commercial development of the state," the Indiana Port Commission was created by act of the state legislature in 1961. The commission is responsible for the establishment of state ports, in addition to the development and marketing of foreign trade zones. 133 Since 1961, approximately $200 million in public-and private-sector funds have been invested in the Indiana port system. For every dollar spent by the state and the commission on public improvements to the ports, almost eight dollars have been spent by the private firms that maintain operations at ports.7 Industrial sites have been developed at each port for the location offirms directly engaged in marine transportation or for those firms seeking proximity to multimodal terminal facilities. All ofthe Indiana ports are classified as their own trade zones, enabling·shippers to take advantage of duty-free storage, repackaging, and assembly for imports and exports. Description of Major Ports Burns International Harbor (Indiana International Port) Indiana's International Port at Burns Harbor on the Lake Michigan shoreline was dedicated in 1970. Located at Portage, 30 miles east of Chicago, Burns Harbor is Indiana's only international port, providing much-needed access to the heart of the nation's most productive steel manufacturing region. The Great Lakes' newest port is also well situated to further serve the rich agricultural market of northern Indiana and central Illinois. Primary cargoes handled at the port are iron ore, coke, grain, fertilizers, and steel products, with the bulk ofall state steel and heavy-machinery transport flowing through it. The port is specifically designed to accommodate any traffic than can navigate the Saint Lawrence Seaway. Additionally, the port offers year round access (in contrast to the seasonal access ofother Saint Lawrence ports) to midwestern markets and the Gulf of Mexico.8 Southwind Maritime Centre Southwind Maritime Centre on the Ohio River, just east ofMount Vernon, Indiana, began operations in 1977. The center is a state-of-the-art river port, with advanced material­handling technologies, enabling it to handle all marine-related material handling needs. By providing direct rail service to its water coal transport facility, a 2.35 million bushel grain elevator, a three million gallon liquid fertilizer tanks, and its own trade zone operation, the port provides an efficient and convenient distribution center for seaway shippers.9 134 Clarke Maritime Centre Strategically located in Jeffersonville, alongside the north/south Interstate 65 corridor through Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee and the East/West Indiana, lliinois, and Kentucky Interstate 64 corridor, the Clarke Maritime Centre provides efficient, timely distribution to these states. Open since 1985, the center was built on a land area of 830 acres and 3,200 linear-feet of river front access. By providing the means under which exported goods can be reexported, without any duties paid, the center's 45,000-square-foot foreign trade zone #170 allows the center to compete on an international level.10 Port Administration The Indiana Port Commission is administered by a seven-member board whose members are appointed to four-year terms by the governor. In an effort to make the commission less partisan, state law requires that no more than four of these seven members may be of the same political party. The commission has historically utilized limited state appropriations, tax-exempt revenue bonds and federal grants to finance development at the three ports. Unlike many competing public ports, no operating subsidy is received from the state of Indiana. The commission continues to meet ongoing operating cash requirements solely from revenues generated by user fees, land leases, other port charges, and interest income. The strategic plan for the state calls for the development and establishment of a strategically targeted industrial plan. This has begun to take root in the form of niche marketing; for example, a large part of the success enjoyed at the Clarke Maritime Centre has come from its ability to position itself as the only publicly owned port between New Orleans and Pittsburgh able to offer shippers lift capabilities of up to 450 tons. Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development The International Trade Division (ITD) of the Indiana Department of Commerce plays an indirect role in port development by assisting the state's companies in their efforts to increase sales through exports. The ITD offers financial and technical assistance programs to small-and medium-sized firms that are seeking new markets. Types of assistance take 135 the form of determining export capability, conducting market research, export counseling, disseminating overseas trade leads, organizing foreign trade missions, and hosting foreign buying missions. The division also sponsors seven foreign trade offices in Canada, Mexico, Europe, and Asia. I I 136 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2Information Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 757. 3The World Almanac and Books ofFacts, (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 628. 5Information Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook, p. 757. 6Indiana Department of Commerce, A Guide to International Commerce (Indianapolis, 1995), p. 4. 7Intemational Ports of Indiana, International Ports ofIndiana, Indianapolis, Ind., 1995. (Brochure.) 9Ibid. 1°Ibid. 11lndiana Department of Commerce, A Guide to International Commerce, p. 27. 137 138 Appendix XI. Louisiana State Background Louisiana is the 21st most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 4,315,000 in 1994. The state has the 22nd highest population density of 99.0 persons per square mile.1 The major metropolitan areas include New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Shreveport, and Lafayette. 2 Louisiana ranks 31st in the nation in total area with 47,752 square miles. Its topography consists of lowlands of marshes and the Mississippi River floodplain, the Red River Valley lowlands, and upland hills in the Florida parishes.3 The principal industries of the Louisiana economy include wholesale and retail trade, government, manufacturing, construction, transportation, and mining. Chief agriculture crops are soybeans, sugarcane, rice, com, cotton, sweet potatoes, pecans, and sorghum. Primary manufactured goods consist of chemical products, foods, transportation equipment, electronic equipment, petroleum products, lumber, wood, and paper.4 Major natural resources are natural gas, salt, and sulfur. 5 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure Louisiana, ranked first among states in waterborne tonnage in 1994, has historically benefited from its location at the mouth of the Mississippi River. 6 Its 4 major deepwater ports and 15 shallow-draft ports account for 19 percent of U.S. foreign commerce leaving the nation. 7 Louisiana has several major waterways. The Mississippi River, maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, drains an area of 1.25 million square miles in 31 states and 2 Canadian provinces. The river is maintained in several segments throughout the state. Channel depths range from 9 feet to 45 feet, and channel widths from 500 feet to 1500 feet.8 139 The Gulflntracoastal WateIWay (GIWW) is maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and serves to connect Texas, through a series of canals and wateIWays, to Florida. The main channel in Louisiana is maintained at a depth of 12 feet and is 150 feet wide. The GIWW annually services over 100 million tons of freight.9 The Atchafalaya River provides a shortcut between the Gulf of Mexico and the area above Baton Rouge. By maintaining the river as a navigable wateIWay, freight saves 172 miles over the Mississippi River and congestion in the Port of New Orleans. The river is currently maintained at a depth of 12 feet and is 125 feet wide. While there are several impediments to navigation, including several bridges and the Bayou Sorel Lock, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD), the U.S. Coast Guard, and several private interests have convened to address possible solutions. 10 The Red River, the Calcasieu River, and the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal and Mississippi River Gulf Outlet provide additional water routes through Louisiana. Together, these six wateIWays make Louisiana second only to Hawaii in the percentage of total manufactured freight moved by water.11 Description of Major Ports Port of New Orleans The Port of New Orleans is one of the premier ports in the nation. Currently, the port has 334 wharves and docks located within its 22-mile spread along the Mississippi River. The port handled 10.5 million short tons of general cargo in 1995 and saw 2,461 ships call. In 1994, it is estimated that the Port of New Orleans generated 94,492 port-related jobs throughout the state. Port-related revenues generated $159.1 million in annual state tax revenues.12 Clearly a major part of the economy in Louisiana, the Port of New Orleans has embarked on a major capital improvement program. Beginning in 1989, the Port of New Orleans received $100 million from the legislature over a five-year period. Coupled with its own $115 million, the port built new specialized state-of-the-art facilities, renovated existing facilities, and expanded its berthing and storage abilities. 13 In addition to those projects is the Tchoupitoulas Corridor, a road servicing truck traffic to and from the port. Designed to streamline intermodal connections, the road will not only decrease truck turnaround time at the port, but will also relieve traffic in the city of New Orleans. 140 In fiscal year 1995, the Port of New Orleans became eligible for funds, formerly restricted to smaller ports, in the transportation trust fund. In order to best utilize these funds and continue renovations, the port released a report in January 1996 covering the next five years of capital improvements. These capital improvements are aimed at continuing to keep the port of New Orleans a leader in waterborne commerce into the 21st century. Port of Baton Rouge The Port of Baton Rouge is a deepwater port extending 87 miles along both banks of the Mississippi River. It offers one of four sites in greater Baton Rouge designated as a foreign trade zone. In 1992, the port handled 9,745,392 short tons of cargo. Among its recent capital improvements are an additional 66,500 square feet of storage space, and replacement and renovation of existing facilities.14 Port of South Louisiana The Port of South Louisiana is located on the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. The port is ranked first in the United States for total tonnage handled in its jurisdiction, as well as exports handled. The deepwater port offers 104 miles on frontage along the river, and over half of the 7 ,000 deep-draft vessels that enter the river call at facilities within the port's jurisdiction.15 Using funds from the Louisiana transportation trust fund, the port has modified conveyer belts, streamlined truck access, and purchased new equipment, specifically related to barge activity. Port Administration Ports in Louisiana operate independently. There were 45 separate port commissions and districts in Louisiana as of 1994. Such fractionalization has been cited as an impediment to growth for the state waterway system. Recently, the Ports Association of Louisiana (PAL) has encouraged partnership and cooperation among its members. The most recent example of this effort was the "Ship Louisiana" campaign. The National Ports and Waterways Institute at Louisiana State University cited considerable satisfaction among ports with the campaign and a need for duplication and expansion of such projects.16 141 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development The LDOTD handles issues related to the ports and watetways, but no formal position is designated to assist with information exchange, or facility updates among ports. The state transportation plan recommends such a position within a state agency. The LDOTD does administer the Port Construction and Development Priority Program, funded by the transportation trust fund. As administrators, the LDOTD handles all applications, publishes updates on funded projects, provides a list of prioritized projects to the legislature, and handles the administration of projects approved by the legislature. The Department of Economic Development supports port development through various marketing efforts. The department provided marketing assistance on the recent ''Ship Louisiana" campaign. 18 Other Public and Private Sector Organizations As previously mentioned, the Ports Association of Louisiana represents member ports in a variety of measures. Although not historically strong, PAL is becoming increasingly vital to maintaining a strong role for Louisiana's ports and waterways. Currently, PAL is considering ways to increase cooperation through formalizing goals, commitments, and marketing strategies.19 The National Ports and Watetways Institute at Louisiana State University provides vital information and statistics on Louisiana's ports, as well as ports throughout the nation. The Institute has conducted many studies and made various recommendations to Louisiana ports on how to maintain viability and increase productivity. The Institute provides information and manpower to studies that would not be financially feasible for a single port to complete. Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs Prior to 1990, ports funded capital projects through general finds from the LDOTD. In 1989, the legislature passed two bills that served to establish priority ranking, feasibility assessment, as well as funding for port development and construction. 142 Recognizing the vast differences among the ports in Louisiana, the legislature established two separate programs. The Port Construction and Development Priority Program was established to assist the smaller ports in Louisiana with capital improvements and projects. The Port of New Orleans was exempted from the program for five consecutive years. During these years, the legislature set aside $100 million from the Transportation Infrastructure Model for Economic Development (TIME) fund for the Port of New Orleans. New or Proposed Programs The TIME program is funded through the year 2009. The major recipients of the TIME funds are already proposing an extension of the program. 20 The legislature has yet to address the issue. 143 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New Yor~ N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 759. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 630. 5/nformation Please Almanac and Yearbook, p. 759. 6u.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Navigation Data Center, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www.wrc-ndc.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 7Louisiana Department ofTransportation and Development, Louisiana Statewide lntermodal Plan Working Paper on Water, Rail, and Intermodal Freight Transportation (Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University, National Ports and Waterways Institute, 1995), p. Ill. 8Ibid., pp. Il1-112. 9Ibid. 1°Ibid., p. 113. 11Ibid., p. 111. 12Port of New Orleans, Public Port Facilities Capital Improvement Program: An Upda.tefor Fiscal Years 1997-2001 (New Orleans, La., 1996), p. 1. 131..ouisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Louisiana Statewide Intermodal Plan, p. 115. 14Ibid, p. I 17. ' 144 151bid., p. 118. 16Ibid., pp. VIII 6, Vll2 l. 181bid., p. Vll22. 191bid., p. VITI 8. 2°Telephone interview by Sarah de la Fuente with David Wagner, Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer, Port of New Orleans, New Orleans, La., October 16, 1995. 145 146 Appendix XII. Maine State Background Maine is the 39th most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 1,240,000 in 1994. The state has the 36th highest population density of 40.2 persons per square mile.1 The major metropolitan areas include Portland, Lewiston, Bangor, and Aubum.2 The New England state ranks 39th in the nation in total area with 33,265 square miles. The Appalachian Mountains extend throughout the state. The western borders have rugged terrain. The northern coast is mainly rocky promontories, peninsulas, and fjords, while the southern coast has long sand beaches. 3 The principal industries of the Maine economy include manufacturing, services, trade, government, finance, insurance, real estate, and construction. Chief agricultural crops are potatoes, apples, hay, and blueberries. Primary manufactured goods consist of paper and wood products and leather goods.4 In 1994, Maine moved 17.3 million tons through its waterways ranking it 31st nationally in total tons shipped by waterborne commerce. 5 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure Although the state has adopted a three-port development strategy, which focuses on the ports of Eastport, Portland, and Searsport, there are also two ports that share the Penobscot Bay and river area with Searsport, Bucksport, and Winterport, as well as six that serve as ports of call for cruise ships. These facilities are Bar Harbor, Bath, Northeast Harbor, Camden, Boothbay Harbor, and Jonesport. Further, a 1985 inventory conducted by the Department of Transportation identified 92 public wharves, 21 public fish piers, 103 private wharves, 115 private fish piers, and 90 boat launch ramps. 6 Description of Major Ports Maine's three main ports, Eastport, Portland, and Searsport, are all naturally deep water and ice free.7 147 Port of Eastport The Port of Eastport is utilized most heavily by Georgia Pacific. In fact, in 1993, wood pulp comprised 72 percent of the cargo handled there, while the other 28 percent consisted of logs, granite, and other products. The port, a transfer wharf accommodating vessels, cargo staging, cranes, and trucks, has been in operation since 1981 and is adjacent to downtown Eastport. 8 Port of Portland The largest port in Maine, the Port of Portland, is located 3.5 miles from the open ocean and between the cities of Portland and South Portland. A ship channel of 45 feet in depth connects the port to the Atlantic, and the inner harbor and most piers are 35 feet in depth. Located within one-quarter mile of the interstate highway system and three miles of an international airport, which is serviced by the nation's largest airlines, the port is connected by rail to major Canadian markets.9 The port also boasts container facilities. Io Encompassing 2,074 acres, the port in 1987 handled more than 300,000 tons of dry cargo, such as forest products, scrap metal, coal, salt, tapioca, and fertilizer. I I Merrill Industries in 1982 constructed a $12 million marine terminal located on the Fore River, which services vessels, cargo staging, cranes, and trucks. 12 The port is operated by a "quasimunicipal"13 harbor commission, made up of representatives from both the cities of Portland and South Portland. Most waterfront facilities, though, are privately owned. The city of Portland finances most of the port's infrastructure, maintains a port office, and enforces strict land use regulation ofthe port area. Port of Searsport Located on the Penobscot Bay, the Port of Searsport handled more than 50 percent of the state's dry cargo from 1980 to 1990, including 423,748 tons, or 53 percent of the state's total in 1990. Petroleum is also handled in large quantities.I4 Assets include the Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Pier, which handles general cargo and petroleum, but is hampered by limited unloading space and a lack of modem facilities, and the Sprague Energy Pier, which handles dry bulk and petroleum products. Is 148 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development The Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) adopted a plan in the 1970s to concentrate on development of the ports of Eastport, Portland, and Searsport. The MDOT aids in the marketing of all of the state's ports and in the planning, design, funding and permitting of port development projects. Permitting on both the state and federal level is handled by the MOOT for smaller ports in Maine, but the ports of Portland and Searsport generally assume this responsibility for themselves.16 Projects the MOOT has assisted with include improvement of the Eastport pier and construction of a Merrill Industries Terminal, the continued development of the International Marine Terminal, and the establishment of container service at Portland.17 The MDOT did lend permitting and technical assistance to Searsport for the Sears Island Marine Dry Cargo Terminal, but on February 28, 1996, decided no longer to pursue this development. The subject of spirited debate for the last 20 years would have included the construction of a 61-to 63-acre working area with two ship berths and on-dock rail and highway access. 18 Because the project included the filling of wetlands and the take ofeel grass habitat, the initial permitting and federal funding approved in 1984 was challenged by the Sierra Club. 19 The Maine Department ofEconomic and Community Development contributed to the production of materials detailing the Penobscot Bay Area ports. 20 Other Public and Private Sector Organizations Eastern Maine Development Corporation, the Waldo County Opportunity Zone, the Penobscot Bay Area Port Development Committee, and the Maine Port Council helped produce a brochure detailing port services at the Penobscot Bay Area ports.21 Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs The Maine Maritime Academy (MMA), located in Castine, Maine, specializes in ocean and marine-oriented studies. MMA offers associate degrees in small vessel operations and marine management. Baccalaureate degrees can be earned in small vessel operations and marine management, engineering, nautical science, and ocean studies. The Department of 149 Graduate Studies offers master of science degrees in maritime management or port management, diplomas in maritime management or port management, and certificates of completion for taking courses in port operations, maritime economics and politics, marine insurance and salvage, and the like. Continuing education for mariners is provided in radar, tanker safety, diesel engineering, dangerous cargo, and executive management.22 New or Proposed Programs Governor Angus King has placed an emphasis on economic revitalization and has encouraged the freight division of the MDOT to pursue its role as a catalyst. 23 In 1995, voters in Maine approved a $58.9 million transportation bond package by a vote of 71 percent to 29 percent. Included in these bonds is the financing for a $2 million land purchase for container storage at Portland and for a $13 million single-berth, dry-cargo tenninal at Eastport. Requests for proposals for these improvements were scheduled to be issued the week of April 1, 1996.24 150 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 760. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 631. 5U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .mil/ndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 6Maine Department of Transportation, 20 Year Statewide Transportation Plan (Augusta, Maine, January 1995), pp. 44, 45. 7Telephone interview by Buck Breland with Kevin Rousseau, Research Assistant, Office of Freight Transportation, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, Maine, February 23, 1996. 8Maine Department of Transportation, 20 Year Statewide Transportation Plan, p. 44. 9Custom Communications, The State ofMaine's Port ofPortland Marine Directory (Portland, Maine, n.d.), pp. 11-12. 1°Telephone interview by Breland with Rousseau, February 23, 1996. 11Custom Communications, Port ofPortland Marine Directory, p. 11. 12Maine Department of Transportation, 20 Year Statewide Transportation Plan, p. 44. 13Telephone interview by Breland with Rousseau, February 23, 1996. 14Eastern Maine Development Corporation, Penobscot Bay Area Port Directory (Bangor, Maine, n.d.), p. 6. 15Maine Department of Transportation, 20 Year Statewide Transportation Plan, p. 45. 151 16Telephone interview by Buck Breland with Kevin Rousseau, March 30, 1996. 17Maine Department of Transportation, 20 Year Statewide Transportation Plan, p. 44. 18Telephone interview by Breland with Rousseau, March 30, 1996; and Maine Department of Transportation, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Augusta, Maine, July 1995), p. SY-I. 19Maine Department of Transportation, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, pp. synopsis, SY-2. 2°.Eastem Maine Development Corporation, Penobscot Bay Area Port Directory, p. 39. 22"Maine Maritime Academy" (June 1996), available from http://state.me.us/maritime/mma.htm; INTERNET. n.relephone interview by Breland with Rousseau, February 23, 1996. 24Telephone interview by Breland with Rousseau, March 30, 1996. 152 Appendix Xill. Maryland State Background Maryland is the 19th largest state in the nation, with an estimated population of 5,006,000 in 1994. The state has the fifth highest population density of 512.1 persons per square mile.1 The major metropolitan areas include Baltimore, Rockville, Frederick, and Gaithersburg.2 The South Atlantic state ranks 42nd in the nation in total area with 10,460 square miles. Its topography consists of coastal plains along the eastern shore and into the mainland, a piedmont plateau, and the Blue Ridge mountain chain. 3 The principal industries of the Maryland economy include manufacturing, services, and tourism. Chief agricultural crops are com, soybeans, and greenhouse and nursery products. Primary manufactured goods consist of electric and electronic equipment, food and kindred products, and chemicals and allied products.4 Maryland, with 46.6 million tons handled in 1994, ranked 19th among states in terms of waterborne commerce. 5 Maritime Infrastructure Description of Major Ports The Port of Baltimore, the only deepwater port in the state of Maryland, has five state­owned terminals and dozens of private piers. The port is connected to the Atlantic Ocean by a 125-mile, two-pronged channel system. That is, channels maintained at a depth of 50 feet approach the port from the south, up from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. Channels maintained at a depth of 35 feet meet the port from the north by way of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. 6 Baltimore ranks among the top 20 U.S. ports for total tonnage handled in a year.7 It is the third largest automobile-and truck-handling port in the nation and rates as one of the leading U.S. ports with regard to handling heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, cranes, tractors, and combines.8 The port is equipped to move all types of cargo, but its number­one export commodity is coal.9 153 The Port ofBaltimore puts $2 billion into the economy and generates $141 million in state and local taxes annually.Io Port activities have directly or indirectly created 63,000 jobs within the state and 87 ,000 jobs overall. I I Port Administration Under the auspices of the Maryland Department of Transportation, the Maryland Port Administration (MPA) is responsible for promoting the flow of waterborne commerce through the state's ports. For fiscal year 1996, the MPA received an operating budget of $49 .6 million and a capital budget of $44.3 million.12 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development The Maryland Port Administration is the state agency in charge of port development. Private Sector Organizations Created in 1988, the Maryland Port Commission includes six private-sector executives, who are appointed by the governor to set policy and devise business strategies for the Port of Baltimore. The governor also appoints the secretary oftransportation to serve as the seventh member and chairman of the commission. I3 The Private Sector Port Committee is a nonprofit advisory group that brings together the diverse interests in the local maritime community to study ways to improve business at the port, discuss port-related issues, and monitor, support, and/or initiate legislation.I4 The Maryland Distribution Council {MDC) is a public-private partnership that has over 80 members representing all aspects of the freight movement industry, including shipping lines, truckers, intermodal companies, land developers, stevedores, and importers, among many others. Established in 1992, the MDC seeks to increase distribution business in Baltimore and provide a forum for companies to address pertinent economic development issues.15 154 Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs Dredging The dredging of the Port ofBaltimore and the Chesapeake Bay approach channels is a necessary component of port maintenance and expansion to ensure vessels' safe passage. Currently, the MPA, in coordination with federal and state environmental agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is developing dredge disposal sites that will be beneficial to the aquatic environment. Total Quality Program The MPA implemented its total quality program within the agency to improve customer service. It is currently working with other members of the local maritime community to develop a portwide total quality program that would be the first of its kind in the nation.16 State-of-the-Art Technology Under the direction of its Information Services Department, the MPA uses a number of state-of-the-art automated information management systems to promote and enhance shipping throughout the Port of Baltimore.17 155 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 760. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 631. 5U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .mil/ndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 6U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, testimony by the Maryland Department ofTransportation, February 28, 1996. 7U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Statistics 1993 (Fort Belvoir, Va., 1995), p. 79. 8Carol Sorgen, "Port, State's Location Drive Trucking Industry's Success," Baltimore Business Journal (November 18, 1994), sec. 1, p. 20; and Suzanne Wooten, ''Port Getting Busier," Baltimore Sun (October 10, 1995), p. IC. 9Maryland Port Administration, Foreign Commerce Statistical Report 1994 (Baltimore, Md., 1995), p. 5. 10Suzanne Wooten, ''Battle of the Ports, Act 2," Baltimore Sun (March 12, 1995), p. ID. 11U.S. Congress, testimony by the Maryland Department of Transportation. 11Maryland Department of Transportation, Maryland Department ofTransportation, Annapolis, Md., December 6, 1995. (Fact sheet.) 156 13Interview by Christopher Baker with Benjamin Liebennan, Market Planning Manager, Maryland Port Administration, Baltimore, Md., November 7, 1995. 15Monica Mason Ezersky, "Cross Leads Maryland Distribution Council with New Energy," Port of Baltimore Magazine (September 1995), p. 10. 16Maryland Department of Transportation, 1993 Annual Report (Annapolis, Md., 1994), p. 7. 171nformation Services Department, Maryland Port Administration, Technology in Shipping, Baltimore, Md. (Brochure.) 157 Appendix XIV. Massachusetts State Background Massachusetts is the 13th most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 6,041,000 in 1994.1 The state has the third highest population density of 770.0 persons per square mile. The major metropolitan areas include Boston, Worcester, Springfield, and Lowell.2 Massachusetts' topography consists of a jagged coast extending from New Hampshire to Cape Cod and flatlands that yield to upland pastures near the central region. The west is a gently hilly country. 3 The principal industries of the Massachusetts economy include services (banking, insurance, consulting) trade, and manufacturing. Chief agricultural crops include cranberries, greenhouse nursery plants, and vegetables. Primary manufactured goods consist of electric and electronic equipment, industrial machinery, printing and publishing, and fabricated metal products.4 Massachusetts, with 25.6 million tons handled in 1994, ranked 28th among states in terms of waterborne commerce. 5 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure Massachusetts has four deepwater ports located along its Atlantic Coast: Boston, Fall River, New Bedford, and Gloucester. The state also has numerous recreational ports. Description of Major Ports Port of Boston Boston, by far the largest of the ports, is the leading regional port in New England. It is the region's major petroleum entry point and the only container port in Massachusetts. While its fuel-related shipments remain strong, the port has lost much of its noncontainerized general cargo business to regional competitors and competes fiercely with New York and Montreal for container traffic. 6 159 Port of Fall River The Port ofFall River developed initially to serve the textile industry, which prospered in southern Massachusetts earlier in this century. After the decline of the textile industry in the 1930s, Fall River lost almost all of its general cargo trade. However, the port has developed into a regional fuel entry point, with a niche trade in bulk cargoes and a major ship building and repair industry. 7 Ports of Gloucester and New Bedford Gloucester in the north and New Bedford in the south are Massachusetts' primary fishing ports. Both have seen their fortunes fall with the decline of the fishing stocks in the Atlantic. Both are moving increasingly toward fish and seafood processing as their primary industries, with stocks being imported frozen as well as caught in U.S. waters. New Bedford has recently secured some inroads into the fresh fruit market. 8 Port Administration The Port of Boston, along with Logan Airport and the Tobin Bridge, are administered by Massport, a quasi public entity chartered in 1956. While Massport' s board is appointed by the governor, the entity operates without subsidies from the state. Massport Maritime, the port division, operates two public container terminals, an automobile import terminal, a cruise ship terminal, as well as other port-related properties. Massport's maritime operations have been operating at a slight loss for the past three years.9 The ports of Gloucester, New Bedford, and Fall River are all operated as part of their local municipalities and function without operating assistance from the state government. The commonwealth does, however, maintain a state pier at each locale. Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development Massachusetts has maintained a decentralized government structure with relationship to ports. A variety of government agencies have jurisdiction over port issues. The most important are the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOTC), Executive Office of Community Development (EOCD), Executive Office ofEnvironmental Affairs (EOEnA), Executive Office ofEconomic Affairs (EOEcA), and Massachusetts Coastal 160 Zone Management Office (MCZM). In addition, there are a variety of local and county agencies with power to affect port development and planning. The EOTC oversees major construction of roadside access and rail improvements to ports, as well as the ferry and water shuttle service at ports. The EOEcA, through its Office of Business Development, is responsible for promotion of new Massachusetts ports, as well the attraction of new businesses to Massachusetts ports. The EOCD serves as an implementation agency for federal urban renewal funds, which port towns have used to develop their waterfronts. The EOEnA handles environmental permits for harbor dredging and maintenance. Additionally, the .office holds authority over the state-owned piers at Gloucester, Fall River, and New Bedford. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management is an office within the EOEnA that aids designated port areas with harbor planning and development.10 Other Public and Private Sector Organizations In response to the difficulty of statewide planning occasioned by the decentralized structure, Governor William Weld recently established the Massachusetts Seaport Advisory Council, which is made up of members of all key state agencies and port communities. The council serves as a coordinating and advising body, while program implementation will continue to be handled by the preexisting state agencies. I I Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs Over the past 20 years, Massachusetts state agencies have had relatively little direct involvement in port development projects. Some small-scale port improvement programs exist. These include the Coastal Facilities Improvement Program (CFIP) and the Rivers and Harbors Dredging Program (RHDP). Additionally, some broad-based state programs have provided assistance to ports. These include the Massachusetts Government Land Bank and the Massachusetts Industrial Finance Agency. The CFIP has been able to provide communities with small municipal harbor planning grants and has served as a conduit for federal funding for development projects in designated port areas. I 2 The River and Harbors Dredging Program is focused on aiding municipal dredging efforts. Through 1994, 12 harbors throughout the commonwealth had been dredged. However, most of these harbors host only small-scale recreational and 161 commercial maritime activity. The RHDP does not have sufficient funds to address the needs of larger dredging projects that face urban ports. 13 The Massachusetts Government Land Bank is a land and capital fund that provides financial support for state operations in various industries through sale of land to private enterprise and direct grants. The land bank has been particularly active in Gloucester, where it has funded major improvements at the Gloucester state pier.14 The Massachusetts Industrial Finance Agency, like the land bank, is a quasipublic lending agency that has provided some financing to industrial development projects at ports. The state has played an active role in developing port-related environmental and economic planning through its Designated Port Area Program (DPA). Established in 1979, this program was created in order to assure that 12 historically important coastal areas would be preserved for maritime commerce. Under the DPA regulations, these 12 areas are subject to regulations that specify that development along the waterfront must be related to maritime activity. MCZM, as administrator of the DP A program, seeks to help these areas receive federal and state funding for harbor planning and industrial development. 15 Finally, Massachusetts is home to a number of world-class maritime research institutions, including the Urban Harbors Institute at UMASS-Boston, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI), and the Department of Ocean Engineering at MIT. WHOI is the nation's largest independent oceanographic research institution. Most researchers are housed in five scientific departments: Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering, Biology, Geology and Geophysics, Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, and Physical Oceanography. Social scientists at the Marine Policy Center address economic, legal, and policy issues relating to human use of oceans. At any given time, over 350 research projects are being conducted on such diverse topics as geological activities deep within the earth, plant and animal interactions in the ocean, global climate change, and coastal erosion. WHOI's research fleet consists of the 219-footAtlantis II, 177-foot Oceanus, 46-foot coastal vessel Asterias, submersible Alvin, several small boats, and remotely operated deep-submergence vehicles. In 1968, a graduate degree program was instituted. Approximately 450 degrees have been awarded since 1968, with about 135 students presently enrolled in the program.16 The Department of Ocean Engineering at MIT offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in naval architecture and marine engineering and in ocean engineering. Graduate degrees are 162 awarded for master of engineering, master of science, naval engineering, doctor of philosophy, and doctor of science. Graduates find careers as naval architects and ocean engineers in private industry, government, academia, and research institutes. MIT also is a leading center for ship research and design, in which it has been recognized for major contributions in hydrodynamics, ship structural mechanics and dynamics, propeller design, and overall ship design. The Pratt School of Na val Architecture and Marine Engineering, established in 1912, is an integral unit of the Department of Ocean Engineering. 17 New or Proposed Programs Under the administration of Governor Weld, Massachusetts has refocused on its seafaring heritage. Governor Weld created the Commission on Commonwealth Port Development to study ways in which the state could support waterborne commerce. The commission produced a report in October 1994 that served as the basis for the Seaport Revitalization Loan Act, recently passed by the Massachusetts Legislature. Under provisions of the act, the state of Massachusetts will invest up to $280 million in the revitalization of its seaports. Some of the major provisions include • $71 million for port infrastructure and facility improvements in the state's ports, • $73.9 million for dredging along coastal communities, and • $96 million to clear rail lines from the New York border to Boston for double-stack service. The act also includes provisions for funding of educational and technical institutions related to maritime science, as well as moneys to aid fishermen to convert from ground fishing to "more inclusive fish harvesting technologies."18 163 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 774. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 641. 5U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .mil/ndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 6Interview by Randall Kempner with Andrew Held, Maritime Market Research Analyst, Massport, Boston, Mass., January 12, 1996. 7Governor's Commission on Commonwealth Port Development, Commission Final Report (Boston, Mass., October 1994), p. 20. 8Ibid., pp. 59, 116. 9Interview by Kempner with Held. 1°Interview by Randall Kempner with Astrid C. Glynn, Director of Transit, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, Boston, Mass., January 5, 1996; and interview by Randall Kempner with Richard S. Armstrong, Executive Secretary, Massachusetts Seaport Advisory Council, Fairhaven, Mass., January 9, 1996. 11Executive Department of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Order 376, "Establishing a Seaport Advisory Council," December 22, 1994. 12Interview by Kempner with Armstrong. 13Governor' s Commission on Commonwealth Port Development, Commission Final Report, p. 55. 164 14lnterview by Kempner with Armstrong. 15Govemor's Commission on Commonwealth Port Development, Commission Final Report, pp. 45-47. 16"Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution" (June 1996), available from http://www.whoi.edu; INTERNET. 17"Welcome to MIT's Department of Ocean Engineering" (June 1996), available from http://web.mit.edu/ afs/athena.mit.edu/org/o/ocean/www; INTERNET. 18Commonwealth of Massachusetts Legislature, "An Act Relative to the Revitalization and Development of the Commonwealth's Seaports," March 1996. 165 166 Appendix XV. Michigan State Background Michigan is the eighth largest state in the nation, with an estimated population of 9 ,496,000 in 1994. The state has the 14th highest population density of 167.2 persons per square mile.1 The major metropolitan areas include Detroit, Grand Rapids, Warren, and Flint.2 The state ranks 23rd in the nation in total area with 58,527 square miles. Its topography consists of low rolling hills that give way to a northern tableland of hilly belts in the lower peninsula. The upper peninsula is level in the east with some swampy areas. The western region is higher and more rugged. 3 The principal industries of the Michigan economy include manufacturing, services, tourism, agriculture, and mining. Chief agricultural crops are corn, winter wheat, soybeans, dry beans, oats, hay, sugar beets, honey, asparagus, sweet com, apples, cherries, grapes, peaches, blueberries, and flowers. Primary manufactured goods consist of transportation equipment, fabricated metals, food products, rubber, and plastics.4 Natural resources in the state include iron, copper, iodine, gypsum, bromine, salt, lime, gravel, and cement.5 Michigan ranked 14th among U.S. states in total tonnage moved by waterborne commerce in 1994, with 79.0 million tons handled.6 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure Scattered along the shorelines of four of the five Great Lakes, Michigan's 40 commercial ports provide shippers with direct connections to the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River barge system, and the Atlantic Ocean (via the Saint Lawrence Seaway), as well as to the entire Great Lakes shipping system. 7 Most of the marine cargo in Michigan travels to or from U.S. or Canadian ports on the Great Lakes or along the Saint Lawrence River. In fact, less than 2 percent of the cargo moving through the Michigan ports comes from or goes to an overseas port. 8 167 Description of Major Ports Located on the Detroit and Rouge rivers, the Port of Detroit is 618 miles from the entrance to the Saint Lawrence Seaway. It moves over 18 million tons of cargo annually, an amount approximately equal to one-fifth of Michigan's total tonnage, and is the sixth largest steel handling port in the U.S.9 With approximately 40 terminals, including two full-service terminals, a liquid-bulk terminal, a bulk facility, and ten deepwater berths, the Port of Detroit is equipped to handle all types of cargo.Io Port Administration Port terminals in Michigan are privately owned and operated. Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development There are three state agencies that are involved with port development in Michigan: the Department of Transportation, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of Environmental Quality. I I The Michigan Department of Transportation is the state government's primary liaison with the commercial port community. Through its freight planning unit, the department works with ports, local governments, and port-related businesses to coordinate intermodal planning and improve landside access to port facilities. The Department of Natural Resources provides planning and development assistance to ports that are constructing or renovating recreational harbors or facilities. As the state's environmental regulatory agency, the Department of Environmental Quality issues environmental permits for harbor dredging and maintenance. Other Public and Private Sector Organizations Comprised of state officials, legislators, and governors' appointees from eight states, the Great Lakes Commission functions to secure a strong economy, a clean environment, and a high quality of life. In this regard, one of the commission's top priorities is to promote the use, development, and maintenance of the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence transportation 168 system. Services carried out by the commission's professional staff and many task forces include policy development, regional advocacy, communications, coordination, and research. 12 Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs In 1978, the state legislature passed a measure to authorize funding for the establishment and operation of public port authorities in Michigan. Since then, only one such entity, the Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority (DWCPA), has been created. Unlike port authorities in some other states, the DWCPA owns no port-or transportation-related infrastructure.13 Its mission is to promote trade and freight transportation at the privately owned Detroit docks. The DWCPA is a multigovernmental agency, whose board of directors consists of appointees from the state, county, and city. The state provides the port authority with more than $300,000 in annual appropriations, or 50 percent of its port budget. The other half of its funding comes from the City of Detroit and Wayne County, who each pay 25 percent.14 The Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, offers graduate study in the broad areas of marine hydrodynamics and marine environmental engineering, and current marine design. "This includes engineering related to the design and production of all kinds of vehicles, structures, and systems to operate successfully in the harsh and demanding marine environment and also includes engineering that supports the understanding and proper use of the marine environment."15 The department has four graduate degree programs: master of science, master of engineering, a professional degree (naval architect or marine engineer), and a doctor of philosophy. These graduate programs are intended to prepare students for careers in any aspect of the broad field of engineering for the marine environment. The department's facilities include Ocean Engineering Laboratory and Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory.16 169 Notes 1U .S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 762. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 632. 5/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook, p. 762. 6U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .mil/ndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 7Consumers Power Company, "Exceptional Transportation Systems: Commercial Ports, Michigan Economic Development Services" (Jackson, Mich., 1996); available from http://www.cpco.com/econdev/ transportation.html#ports; INTERNET. 8Michigan Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Planning, Freight Transportation Planning Section, Michigan Commercial Port Directory (Lansing, Mich., 1991), p. 1. 9Ibid.; and Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority, Through Detroit, Detroit, Mich. (Information packet.) 10 Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority, Through Detroit. 11 Interview by Christopher Baker with Larry B. Karnes, Supervisor, Freight Unit-lntermodal Section, Bureau of Transportation Planning, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, Mich., March 12, 1996. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 170 14 Interview by Christopher Baker with April D. Dawson, Director of Public Information, Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority, Detroit, Mich., March 21, 1996. 15"The Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering" (June 1996), available from http://www. name.engin.umich.edu:8001; INTERNET. 161bid. 171 172 Appendix XVI. Minnesota State Background Minnesota is the 20th largest state in the nation, with an estimated population of 4,567 ,000 in 1991. The state has the 31st highest population density of 57.4 persons per square mile.1 The major metropolitan areas include Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, and Duluth.2 Minnesota ranks 12th in the nation in total area with 84,402 square miles. Its topography consists of central hills and lake regions that cover approximately half of the state. Rocky ridges and deep lakes lie to the northwest, flat plains are located in the northwest, and rolling plains with deep river valleys are in the south. 3 The principal industries of the Minnesota economy include agriculture business, forest products, mining, manufacturing, and tourism. Chief agricultural crops are com, soybeans, wheat, sugar beets, sunflowers, and barley. Primary manufactured goods consist of food processing, nonelectrical machinery, chemicals, paper, electric equipment, printing and publishing, instruments, and fabricated metal products. 4 The state is rich in natural resources. A few square miles of land in the north in the Mesabi, Cuyuna, and Vermilion ranges produce more than 75 percent of the nation's iron ore.5 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure Minnesota has four deepwater ports located along the shores of Lake Superior: Duluth/Superior, Two Harbors, Taconite Harbor, and Silver Bay. Together, these ports handle more than 65 million tons of freight annually. 6 Iron ore, grain, and coal are the major cargo moved through these ports. A number of smaller communities on Minnesota's Lake Superior are involved in such waterborne activities as commercial fishing, ferry boat service, and movements of small amounts of marine supplies. 7 A large amount of cargo also is transported through Minnesota's 231-mile river system that includes portions of the Mississippi, Minnesota, and St. Croix rivers. Among the state's 48 173 active river terminals, those located in the St. Paul-Minneapolis metropolitan area, Red Wing and Winona, handle 15-20 million tons of freight a year.8 Description of Major Ports Located on the western tip of Lake Superior, the Port of Duluth/Superior is the world's largest deep-draft freshwater port in terms of total tonnage. The port moves some 40 million metric tons of cargo a year. Of this amount, which is exceeded by only 17 other ports in the U.S., over 90 percent consists of domestic shipments of grain, coal, and iron ore. The port's largest foreign export commodity is grain. In 1995, international grain exports from Duluth/Superior totaled 3.7 million tons.9 The Port of Duluth/Superior, which annually pumps $240 million into the economy, has also created over 3,000 jobs because of its operations.10 Port Administration The state government has no operating authority over any port in Minnesota. Of the state's four ports on the Great Lakes, Two Harbors, Silver Bay, and Taconite Harbor are administered by the private sector, while Duluth is operated by an independent port authority originally established by the State of Minnesota.11 Port authorities or industrial development agencies in five Minnesota river cities are responsible for river shoreline development. In response to state legislation, other river cities have developed plans to address issues related to commercial and industrial shoreline development.12 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development The Minnesota departments of transportation, natural resources, trade and economic development, the Environmental Quality Board, the Pollution Control Agency, and the Historical Society are the main state agencies involved with port development in Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), through its Ports and Waterways Section, is responsible for plan development, issue analysis, and policy development for the state's river and Great Lakes' water transportation systems.13 174 The Department of Natural Resources has part of the state's permitting authority for the construction and renovation of recreational harbors and port facilities. The Department of Trade and Economic Development markets the transportation, logistics, and trade services that are available through Minnesota ports. Other Public and Private Sector Organizations The Upper Mississippi Waterway Association is a private, nonprofit, special interest association established to promote the use of water transportation on the upper Mississippi River, disseminate information, provide assistance and advice to policymakers, and furnish its members with a variety of business services.14 As described in Appendix XV (Michigan), the Great Lakes Commission is active in Minnesota, as well. Port-Related Programs and Projects New or Proposed Programs In 1996, the Minnesota Legislature is considering a measure to fund a state program that would provide loans and/or grants to municipalities, port authorities, and other political entities to upgrade port infrastructure. 15 The program, which was authorized by the legislature in 1991 and named the Harbor Improvement Assistance Program, has not yet been allocated an appropriation. Iffunding is approved, MnDOT will administer the program. MnDOT would take responsibility for developing the program into a revolving loan fund, determining which projects receive funding, as well as overseeing implementation. Dock repairs, storage area improvements, rail and road access upgrading, equipment repairs or replacements, and some capital improvements are among the types of projects that will be considered eligible. 16 175 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 763. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 633. 5/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook, p. 763. 6Telephone interview by Christopher Baker with Richard F. Lambert, Director, Ports and Waterways Section, Minnesota Department of Transportation, March 5, 1996. 7Minnesota Department of Transportation, Ports and Waterways Section, Great Lakes Transportation in Minnesota (St. Paul, Minn., Spring 1994), p. 2. 8Minnesota Department of Transportation, "Minnesota Guidebook" (St. Paul, Minn. [cited October 1995]); available at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/gdbook.html#mtnw; INTERNET. ~elephone interview by Baker with Lambert. 10Seaway Port Authority of Duluth, Port Facts, Duluth, Minn. (Brochure.) 11Telephone interview by Baker with Lambert. 12Minnesota Department of Transportation, Ports and Waterways Section, River Transportation in Minnesota (St. Paul, Minn., Spring 1993), p. 58. 13Minnesota Department of Transportation, ''Minnesota Guidebook." 14 Telephone interview by Baker with Lambert. 176 16Minnesota Department of Transportation, River Transportation in Minnesota, p. 67. 177 178 Appendix XVII. Mississippi State Background Mississippi is the 31st most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 2,669,000 in 1994. The state has the 32nd highest population density of 56.9 persons per square mile.1 The major metropolitan areas include Jackson, Biloxi, Greenville, and Hattiesburg.2 The gulf state ranks 32nd in the nation in total area with 47,689 square miles. Its topography consists of the low, fertile delta between the Yazoo and Mississippi rivers, bluffs stretching around the delta border, and sandy gulf coastal terraces followed by piney woods and prairies. Rugged, high, and sandy hills, followed by the Black Prairie Belt are in the extreme northeast. 3 The principal industries of the Mississippi economy include manufacturing, government, and wholesale and retail trade. Chief agricultural crops are cotton, catfish, rice, and soybeans. Primary manufactured goods consist of apparel, food and kindred products, furniture, lumber and wood products, electrical machinery, and transportation equipment.4 Mississippi, with 46.4 million tons handled in 1994, ranked 20th among states in terms of waterborne commerce. 5 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure Mississippi has three main waterways: the Mississippi River, the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The three waterways accommodate 15 ports, 2 of which are state owned, and over 200 private terminals. The Mississippi River and Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway provide the central United States access to the Gulf of Mexico. Together, the waterways link about 25,000 miles from Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska to the Appalachian Mountains. 6 The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway stretches from the Port of Bienville to the Port of Pascagoula, linking a system that reaches from Texas to Florida. 179 Description of Major Ports Port of Gulfport Mississippi's two largest ports are the Port of Gulfport and the Port of Pascagoula. The Port of Gulfport is operated by the Mississippi State Port Authority at Gulfport. Gulfport is the second largest banana port in the United States, handling approximately 600,000 tons of bananas in 1993. 7 In order to continue to accommodate these imports and other container cargo, the Port of Gulfport recently completed a master plan calling for an upgrade of its container facilities. Port of Pascagoula The Port of Pascagoula (Jackson County Port Authority) is Mississippi's largest deepwater port, ranking 18th in the nation for waterborne commerce to foreign countries. Situated in two 38-foot harbors, the port operates eight public terminals equipped to handle breakbulk, bulk, and refrigerated cargoes. Major exports are frozen foods and forest products. Gulf Coast Storage, Inc., operates the dockside freezer/cold storage facility in the Pascagoula River Harbor.8 Port Administration Mississippi's ports are administered in several different ways. The Ports of Gulfport and Yellow Creek operate as state-owned facilities under the authority of the Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development (MDECD). In both cases, the MDECD has created port authorities to handle day-to-day operations. However, the enabling legislation differentiates between the two ports. Yellow Creek is operated by the Yellow Creek Inland Port Authority. The Gulfport State Port Authority at Gulfport is operated by members from the city or county of Gulfport.9 The additional 13 ports are operated as agencies of local government. The ports of Aberdeen, Amory, Biloxi, and Greenville are operated by municipalities. The ports of Bienville, Claiborne, Columbus-Lowndes, Itawamba, Natchez, Pascagoula, Rosedale, Vicksburg, and Yazoo are operated by their respective counties.10 Each port in Mississippi is responsible for its financing, with the exception of the two state­owned ports: Gulfport and Yellow Creek. Ports with local government control rely on local bonds, taxes from local governments, and revenues. 180 Mississippi's ports are having trouble financing their capital development needs. Two of the ports do not have rail access, and several of the road systems are inadequate in access and quality. 11 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development The Mississippi Department of Transportation was created in 1994 after a consolidation of numerous agencies involved in various modes of transportation. As a new entity, its role concerning ports is still being developed. Currently, there is only one employee designated to work with ports and port development. The ability to act on behalf of ports is severely restricted, because no appropriation was made to the ports and waterways division. The Mississippi DOT does not have bonding authority. 12 The Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development (MDECD) plays a much larger role in port affairs. The MDECD had oversight of the two state-owned ports. As previously mentioned, the MDECD leaves the operations and maintenance of Gulfport and Yellow Creek to their respective port authorities. In addition, the MDECD administers the Mississippi Port Revitalization Revolving Loan Program and assists ports in their marketing efforts. 13 Other Public and Private Sector Organizations The ports ofMississippi have organized under the Mississippi Water Resources Association. This entity acts as an advocate for all ports and was instrumental in coordinating efforts of the state to include waterborne commerce in the creation of the Mississippi DOT.14 Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs In an effort to assist ports in their capital projects, as well as foster waterborne commerce in the state, the MDECD established the Mississippi Port Revitalization Revolving Loan Program in 1992. This program is designed to assist state, county, or local port authorities in funding capital improvements. 181 The MDECD restricts eligible projects to port construction, expansion, improvements, rehabilitation, or repair. The money may not be used for operating capital or facilities related to gambling vessels. 15 Once limited to $500,000, applicants may now apply for up to $1 million at a time. 16 The maximum term is ten years and the interest rate is set at 3 percent per year. Port loan funds may be used to fund 100 percent of a project. 17 The program has issued only two loans. With capital projects reaching into the millions of dollars and with local funds being limited, $500,000 was inadequate. However, by raising the loan ceiling to $1 million, the MDECD is hoping to attract more ports and port projects.18 Mississippi also provides a tax credit for port handling fees. Companies within the state still must pay port handling fees, but at the end of each year, they receive a summary of fees that is sent off with their tax return. Their tax load is then reduced by the amount of handling charges added to their goods as they pass through the terminal.19 182 Notes 1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 763. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 633. 5U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .mil/ndc/wcstaton. txt; INTERNET. 6Mississippi Department of Transportation with Wilbur Smith Associates, Statewide Transportation Plan (Jackson, Miss., 1995), p. D2. 71bid., p. D7. 8Facsimile from Betty Ann White, Marketing and Public Relations Manager, Port of Pascagoula, Jackson County Port ~uthority, to Sarah de la Fuente, April 2, 1996. 9Mississippi Department of Transportation, Statewide Transportation Plan, p. D8. 1°Ibid., p. D4. 12Telephone interview by Sarah de la Fuente with James E. Pittman, Planning Division, Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jackson, Miss., November 20, 1995. 13Telephone interview by Sarah de la Fuente with Vicki W. Scott, International Development, Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development, Jackson, Miss., November 21, 1995. 14Telephone interview by de la Fuente with Pittman. 183 15Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development, Mississippi Port Revitalization Revolving Loan Program: Guidelines (Jackson, Miss., n.d.), p. I. 16Telephone interview by de la Fuente with Scott. 17Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development, Mississippi Port Revitalization, p. 3. 18Telephone interview by de la Fuente with Scott. 19Alice Cantwell, "Ports Try Tax Breaks to Reel in Business," Journal ofCommerce (April 6, 1995), sec. A, p. 8. 184 Appendix XVill. New Hampshire State Background New Hampshire is the 41st most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 1,137,000 in 1994. The state has the 18th highest population density of 126.7 persons per square mile.1 The major metropolitan areas include Manchester, Nashua, Concord, and Rochester.2 The New England state ranks 44th in the nation in total area with 9 ,279 square miles. Its topography consists of a low, rolling coast followed by countless hills and mountains rising out of a central plateau.3 Major natural resources in the state include stone and clay.4 The principal industries of the New Hampshire economy include tourism, manufacturing, agriculture, trade, and mining. Chief agricultural crops are dairy products, nursery and greenhouse products, hay vegetables, fruit, and maple syrup and sugar products. Primary manufactured goods consist of machinery, electrical and electronic products, plastics, and fabricated metal products.5 New Hampshire ranked 38th among U.S. states in total tonnage moved by waterborne commerce in 1994, with 14.1 million tons handled. 6 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure New Hampshire boasts 165 miles of shoreline, including 18 miles of ocean, nine rivers, and almost 14 square miles of bays.7 Description of Major Ports The Port of Portsmouth is the state's lone port and has served the shipping community for over 300 years. Located only 3 miles from the Atlantic and 1/2 mile from interstate. 95, the port is serviced by rail by the Boston & Maine Line. Portsmouth services liner, bulk carriers, passenger ships, container ships, feeder vessels, and barges; features foreign trade zone # 81, according to port officials the only active foreign trade zone north of New York; and is the closest ice-free year-round port to Europe in the United States. The port primarily handles scrap metal, as New Hampshire exports about 6 percent of the country's supply. 8 185 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development The legislature of New Hampshire created the New Hampshire State Port Authority as an autonomous state agency in 1957 to manage the Port of Portsmouth. The authority is guided by a board of directors appointed by the governor and the executive council.9 The authority has an annual budget of $400,000 and employs five full-time employees.10 Its mission entails the promotion of commerce, the movement of cargo through the port, and the coordination with other state. and federal governmental entities to maintain, develop, and utilize the port, harbors, and navigable rivers of the state. 11 In 1994, the legislature granted the authority jurisdiction as the single point of contact for all dredging projects in the state. 12 Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs The port authority issues mooring permits for all of the state's wateiways and also administers a revolving loan fund, financed by a U.S. Economic Development Administration grant, which assists the local fishing industry. 13 New or Proposed Programs A barge pier should be completed in June of 1996 and a 750-foot pier project is currently in the bidding process.14 · 186 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 767. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 636. 4/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook, p. 767. 6U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .mil/ndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 7New Hampshire State Port Authority, Harbor Management, Portsmouth, N.H., n.d. (Pamphlet.) 8New Hampshire State Port Authority, Port Overview, Portsmouth, N.H., n.d. (Pamphlet.) 9Ibid 1°Telephone interview by Buck Breland with Michelle Hart, Administrative Assistant, New Hampshire State Port Authority, Portsmouth, N.H., November 7, 1995. HNew Hampshire State Port Authority, Port Overview. 131bid.; and telephone interview by Breland with Hart. 14New Hampshire State Port Authority, Port Overview. 188 Appendix XIX. New Jersey and New York State Background New Jersey New Jersey is the ninth most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 7,904,000 in 1994. The state has the highest population density of 1,065.4 persons per square mile. 1 The major metropolitan areas include Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Elizabeth.2 The Middle Atlantic state ranks 46th in the nation in total area with 7, 787 square miles. The coastal plain that covers 60 percent of the state in the southeast gradually rises from sea level to gentle slopes. In the northwest is the Appalachian Valley. The Appalachian Highlands, a flat-topped mountain chain, extend from the northeast to the southwest. Finally, the Piedmont Plateau consists of low plains broken by high ridges, or Palisades, that rise 400 to 500 feet. 3 The principal industries of the New Jersey economy include services, trade, and manufacturing. Chief agricultural crops are hay, com, soybeans, tomatoes, blueberries, peaches, and cranberries. Primary manufactured goods consist of chemicals, electronic and electrical equipment, nonelectrical machinery, and fabricated metals. 4 Many large oil refineries are located in northern New Jersey. 5 New York New York is the third most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 18,169,000 in 1994. The state has the sixth highest population density of 384.7 persons per square mile. 6 The major metropolitan areas include Albany, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and the five boroughs of New York City (Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and Staten Island. )7 The Middle Atlantic state ranks 30th in the nation in total area with 49, 108 square miles. The topography of New York is diverse. The highest and most rugged mountains exist in the northeast Adirondack upland. The Saint Lawrence-Champlain lowlands extend from Lake Ontario northeast along the Canadian border. The Hudson-Mohawk lowland, which is 1 O to 30 miles wide, follows the flows of the rivers north and west. The Atlantic coastal 189 plain is found in the southeast. The Appalachian Highlands, which cover half of the state westward from the Hudson Valley, include the Catskill Mountains and Finger Lakes. Finally, a plateau is located in the Erie-Ontario lowlands.8 The principal industries of the New York economy include manufacturing, finance, communications, tourism, transportation, and services. Chief agricultural crops are apples, cabbage, cauliflower, celery, cherries, grapes, com, peas, snap beans, and sweet com. Primary manufactured goods consist of books and periodicals, clothing and apparel, pharmaceuticals, machinery, instruments, toys and sporting goods, electronic equipment, and automotive and aircraft compon~nts.9 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure Covering 7 50 miles of waterfront in the bistate area, the Port of New York and New Jersey operates eight terminals in the Newark and Upper New York Bays. Located in the center of the largest regional market in the U.S., the port provides daily access to more than 17 million consumers. 10 Additionally, through its intermodal links, the port claims to provide second-day access to an additional 80 million consumers in the Midwest and Canada. Among those providing regular service to the port are: 10,000 trucking companies, 80 steamship lines, and six operational intermodal rail terminals. These services allow the port to provide employment opportunities to over 165,000 individuals and contribute 3.3 percent of the gross regional product, while generating in excess of $500 million in annual state sales and income tax. 11 Current estimates place employment within the New York harbor area at 189 ,000 and total economic activity at $20 billion. 12 Description of Major Ports Port Newark/Elizabeth Terminal The ports of Newark and Elizabeth are located on the western shore of Newark Bay, New Jersey. While Port Newark is a multipurpose terminal, significant investment by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) has led its neighboring port, Port Elizabeth, to become known as "America's container capital." 190 The Port of Newark was first leased to the PANYNJ in 1948 and has since had significant work completed to upgrade the facility, including the construction of additional berths, the development of the south side of the port (along channel that adjoins Port Elizabeth) and the deepening of channels to 40 feet. With over 23,000 linear feet of wharfage, the port has become one of the leading national ports of bulk and breakbulk goods. By investing nearly $405 million in the port, the P ANYNJ has been able to assist the port in the development of its facilities in such a manner that the port is able to assist Port Elizabeth with its container operation. Included among the port's facilities are a 125,000-square-foot refrigerated warehouse in addition to more than 70,000 additional square feet of refrigerated storage, 36 container cranes, two bulk-liquid handling facilities, a copper-rod production plant, and two orange juice concentrate and blending facilities. 13 Since 1958, Port Elizabeth has emerged as a force in the global container market. With a total port authority investment of nearly $411 million, Port Elizabeth has been able to claim a leading position in the world container market. These funds have allowed the port to develop 16,000 linear feet of wharf age, provide a mean low depth of 35 to 40 feet along 'Yith sufficient channel depths to accommodate the largest of the giant container ships. With two facilities encompassing 450 acres of upland area and 14 container cranes, the port's primary terminal operator is Maher Terminals, Inc., which also serves as an operator for ExpressRail. While both facilities are serviced by Conrail, which provides rail access to each distribution building and some berths, Port Elizabeth is also serviced by ExpressRail, which, via Conrail, allows all port customers daily double-stack rail service to both the Midwest and Canada.14 Together, both the Port Newark and Port Elizabeth complexes make up the area known as foreign trade zone (FTZ) #49. This broad-based designation enables tenants to utilize the entire 2, 100-acre marine facility to take advantage ofFfZ benefits, which eventually include possible deferral, reduction, and elimination of U.S. Customs duties. New York City Passenger Ship Terminal With six berths servicing all the passenger ships using the port, the New York City Passenger Ship Terminal is one of the world's largest passenger handling facilities. At a cost of nearly $40 million, the P ANYNJ developed the terminal in 197 4 in response to a request from the City of New York. To ease the comforts of its 460,000 passengers and 191 accommodate their accompanying baggage, the terminal offers a 1,700-foot roadway system, which runs the entire length of the three-level terminal.15 Uti1izing its three exposition halls, the terminal supplements its income by hosting an array of events including trade shows, fashion shows, galas, and fund raisers. Howland Hook Marine Terminal The Howland Hook Marine Terminal was built by American Export Lines and purchased by the City of New York in 1973. In 1985, the P ANYNJ took over the terminal in a lease with the city. With over 2,500 linear feet of berth, 147 acres of open storage, seven container cranes, and a modem truck entry complex, the terminal has the capacity to handle 425,000 containers annually, making it one of the highest volume cargo facilities in the port. 16 In 1995, the terminal was leased to Howland Hook Container Terminal, Inc., on a long­ term basis. According to the port authority, the company intends to operate the terminal as a independent, full-service container and general cargo facility. Brooklyn Marine Terminal/Red Hook Container Terminal The Brooklyn Marine/Red Hook Tenninal has been enlarged with the acquisition of several other adjacent properties to its current size of 118 acres. In 1956, the P ANYNJ purchased certain Brooklyn waterfront properties that would become the Brooklyn Marine Terminal. The 1980 agreement between the City of New York and the state led to the construction of the 40-acre Red Hook Container Tenninal, which would be composed partially of new land and partially of the existing Brooklyn Marine Terminal. Although the Red Hook Container Terminal provided the Brooklyn Marine Terminal its first entry into the container port industry, the primary reason the tenninal was instituted was to reduce truck traffic through the metro region. In 1983, the PANYNJ authorized the expansion of the facility culminated by a capital investment of nearly $16 million by the port authority. The P ANYNJ now operates the Red Hook $65 million project under a 50-year agreement. The majority of the two terminals belong to the Red Hook Container Terminal, which can handle container and breakbulk vessels. The facility is serviced by a container barge service that moves cargo between the Red Hook Terminal (Brooklyn) and Port Elizabeth Marine Terminal (N.J.). This service moves containers, which are being either imported on exported on ocean-destined ships calling on Red Hook piers. Customers then have the 192 option ofpick up or delivery at either the New York or New Jersey location. The Red Hook terminal is the only marine terminal in the port to offer this option. Conversely, the Brooklyn terminal is used primarily for transient ship berthing and bulk cargo handling and storage. Currently, together Brooklyn's six piers and Red Hooks' additional ten berths handle an estimated 716 annual tons of cargo. However, in 1990, the same original partners (city, state, and P ANYNJ) broke ground on a $16.1 million expansion project that, when complete, will boost the two terminals' capacity levels by an estimated 50 percent.17 Auto Marine Terminal Spread over 115 acres along the Jersey City/Bayonne waterfront, the Auto Marine Terminal is strategically located to provide direct access to ocean-destined auto carrier vessels and to facilitate the direct land-based distribution of vehicles via rail and motor carriers. Initiated in 1989, the Auto Marine Terminal was intended to accommodate the increase in automobile imports and exports within the bistate area. During the last year, the Auto Marine Terminal handled over 173,000 automotive vehicles. 18 Port Administration All commercial ports within the bistate area fall under the jurisdiction of the P ANYNJ. The port authority is a self-supporting agency administered by both states. Functioning without tax revenues or the ability to levy taxes, the P ANYNJ was created in 1921 by an agreement, approved by the U.S. Congress, between the states of New York and New Jersey. The largest port authority in the nation, the P ANYNJ relies on tolls from ocean­and land-based vehicles to underwrite its operations. The port authority was established to plan, develop, and operate terminal, transportation, and other facilities pertaining to the promotion and protection of commerce within the port area. As such, the port's facilities include, among others, bridges, tunnels, airports, heliports, industrial parks, bus terminals, the World Trade Center, and marine ports. Falling under the head of the P ANYNJ are three departments: interstate transport, aviation, and port.19 In 1995, the P ANYNJ announced a budget of $2.69 billion, with $669 million designated for capital improvements and $1.6 billion for operating expenses. Of the capital 193 expenditure figure, P ANYNJ reported that $45 million would be eannarked for marine terminals.20 The PANYNJ is facing several key issues that will have to be addressed in the near future if the port authority is to remain a viable entity. The reorganization of the port authority over next few years will have a telling impact on the future of the port and its role in international trade. The primary problem facing the PANYNJ is the issue of dredging. Put on hold since 1993, the search for alternative dumping grounds for dredging materials has become a priority item within both states. According to the International Longshoreman's Association (ILA), steamship companies are beginning to bypass the port because the channels-at 25 feet-are too shallow to accommodate large tankers and container ships. Recent displays of the possible consequences include passenger ships threatening to dock elsewhere and the National Parks Service contemplating stopping ferry visits to the Statue of Liberty. An additional example of the impact of the dredging issue comes from one of the port's largest operators, Maher Terminals, who last year reportedly handled 600,000 containers; this year alone the firm expects that number to drop by 5 percent. Frustrated by the effective efforts of environmental groups who oppose ocean dumping, both governors have pledged and taken steps aimed at resolving the impasse. 21 Recently, legislation has been introduced at the state level that would require the tax-exempt port authority to pay full local property taxes on all property owned within the state of New Jersey. The legislation is being closely watched because, if passed, it could have a significant impact on the port authority's operations. A 1931 law allows local towns to collect "in-lieu-of-tax payments" from the port authority, but these payments have been frozen at the rate ofthe year the authority purchased the property. The result is that the port authority dramatically underpays its obligated property taxes, leaving many of the local municipalities, in effect, subsidizing the port authority. The bistate nature of the board of the P ANYNJ appears to have created a set ofproblems unique to the two-state agency. Governors, who make the board appointments, repeatedly wrestle over the board's appointments, hiring, and finances. Other recent port issues include charges of favoritism (toward New Jersey) on the part of the port authority, attacks by the New York's governor's office of the port authority's avoiding owed back rent, and bistate pressure to reduce waste and extravagance by the port authority's operations. 22 194 Additionally, the New York Times has publicly questioned last year's 600 layoffs, the largest number in the port authority's history, as a possible change in direction away from the port authority's role as a regional economic development power. Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development In addition to the P ANYNJ, the only other agency or department with any significant role is the U.S. Coast Guard, whose primary duty within the port is drug enforcement. Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs In 1994, the P ANYNJ created the position of Chief Technology Officer to manage its Information Technology Plan. The plan will guide technology investments over the next five years tying them specifically to "achievable objectives." According to the port authority, the chief benefit of the master plan is that it eliminates competitive or duplicate technology while carefully scrutinizing payback through analysis of return on investment. Due to the volume handled by its ports and global nature of their business, the port authority also maintains an international presence by providing foreign representatives in London, South Africa, and Russia, among other countries. 195 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 768. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts, (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 636. 5/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook, p. 768. 6U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States, Bureau of the Census, pp. 28-29. 1/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook, p. 769. 8The World Almanac and Book ofFacts, p. 637. 9Ibid 1°I>ort Authority of New York and New Jersey, More Ships, More Trains, More Trucks, More Planes, More from the Port ofNew York and New Jersey (New York, N.Y., n.d.). (Brochure.) 11Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, The Port ofNew York and New Jersey Fact Sheet, New York. (Brochure.) 12"A Call to Dredge: Shipping Held at Bay? Longshoremen, Politicians Cite Loss of Business," The Record (March 5, 1996), p. BOI. 13Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, The Port ofNewark and Elizabeth Fact Sheet, New York. (Brochure.) 14Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, The New Express Rail On-Dock lntermodal Terminal Fact Sheet, New York. (Brochure.) 196 15Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, The Passenger Ship Terminal Fact Sheet, New York. (Brochure.) 16Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, The Howland Hook Marine Terminal Fact Sheet, New York. (Brochure.) 17Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, The Brooklyn Port Authority Marine Terminal and Red Hook Containerport Fact Sheet, New York. (Brochure.) 18I>ort Authority of New York and New Jersey, The Auto Marine Terminal Fact Sheet, New York. (Brochure.) 19''Environmental Concerns Mire Port Dredging Process," Ashbury Park Press (Nov. 12, 1995), p. AA6. n'Port Authority's US$2.69bn Budget/' New Strait Times (April 18, 1995), p. 20. 21Telephone interview by John Padwick with Inga Nelson, Senior Intermodal Analyst, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, N.Y., March 5, 1996. 22''Port Authority Plays No Favorites in Regional Transportation," New York Times (Feb. 15, 1996), p. A26; "Mayor's Office Attacks Port Authority over Rent," New York Times (Jan. 21, 1996), sec. l, p. 25; and "Port Authority to Lay off 300 More Workers," New York Times (Sept. 9, 1995), sec. 1, p. 24. 197 198 Appendix XX. North Carolina State Background North Carolina is the tenth most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 7 ,070,000 in 1994. The state has the 17th highest population density of 145.1 persons per square mile. 1 The major metropolitan areas include Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem. 2 The state ranks 28th in the nation in'total area with 52,669 square miles. Forty percent of the state is coastal plain and tidewater, which extend to the fall line of the rivers. Another 40 percent of the state is a 200-mile-wide piedmont plateau of gentle to rugged hills. The principal industries of the North Carolina economy include manufacturing, agriculture, tobacco, and tourism. Chief agricultural crops are tobacco, soybeans, com, peanuts, small sweet potatoes, feed grains, vegetables, and fruits. Primary manufactured goods consist of textiles, tobacco products, electrical and electronic equipment, chemicals, furniture, food products, and nonelectrical machinery.3 North Carolina is the nation's leading producer of mica and lithium. 4 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure While North Carolina is home to only two seaports, Wilmington and Morehead City, the state's maritime activities have a significant impact on its economy. A 1994 economic impact study, conducted by the Wake Forest Graduate School of Business, illustrates the growing significance of the state's port business. The study concluded that the two ports were responsible for 78,449 jobs, $1.9 billion in income, $10.8 billion in sales, and $258.1 million in state and local taxes.5 The state has been successful in integrating its two inland intermodal tenninals located in Charlotte and Greensboro into the marketing of its port system as a package. The inland intermodal ports allow the state to provide services for carriers (usually at a discounted rate). Acting as a "staging depot," the inland terminals provide efficient shipping services, including storage, paperwork, inspections, loading and unloading. 199 The net effect of this intermodal system is an estimated transportation savings to the shipper of 50 percent of the land-based transportation costs. 6 The state has been aggressive in selling its land-based terminals as a front door to its seaports. Description of Major Ports Port of Wilmington The Port of Wilmington is located near the southern tip of the state's shoreline on the east bank of the Cape Fear River, which is 26 miles from the open sea. The port features over 1 million square feet of covered storage and provides road and rail access to all storage buildings. The 6,768-foot continuous wharf has a 38-foot channel and the port divides its efforts among containerized, break, and bulk-cargo operations. In addition to twice daily CSX rail service, the port offers nearby access to U.S. Interstate 40, which extends westward across the continent in addition to direct, nonstop access to Interstate 95, which runs up and down the entire eastern seaboard.7 The cargo handled by the Port ofWilmington is distributed almost evenly across the three different cargo types: container, bulk, and breakbulk. Since 1992, the Port of Wilmington has increased its total cargo tonnage by 8.2 percent to 2.2 million tons. Annual port total cargo tonnage figures are expected to climb 28 percent over the next five years at an estimated annual rate of 5.1 percent. The Port of Wilmington currently accounts for the lion's share of statewide seaport-related employment opportunities, with 66,171 jobs.8 Port of Morehead City Morehead City is primarily a bulk-cargo port. Nearly 97 percent of all cargo passing through the facility is bulk. The port, while traditionally focusing on phosphate products, has recently begun to move into wood chips, frozen poultry, and raw rubber. Included in over 800 thousand square feet of covered storage is a 225,000-ton-capacity phosphate warehouse. Serviced by 5,500 feet of continuous wharf, the port is only 4 miles from the sea and offers a channel depth of 45 feet. 9 Presently, Morehead City handles 2.4 million tons of cargo annually with growth expected to continue at an annual rate of 8.3 percent over the next five years. While the annual tonnage of the port is similar to Wilmington, the number ofjobs statewide associated with the port is significantly less at 12,278. This difference is attributable to Morehead City's focus on bulk goods. This apparent discrepancy is consistent with the findings of a Wake 200 Forest study that recognized that breakbulk cargo generates the greatest number of direct port-related jobs, followed by container, dry bulk, and liquid cargo. 10 The North Carolina State Ports Authority (NCSPA) administers both the land and sea terminals for the state. Founded in 1945, the NCSPA is an Enterprise Fund agency and, as such, totally self-funds its oper~ting budget. The NCSPA executive director reports to an 11-member board of directors. The board is composed of seven gubernatorial appointees, serving six-year staggered terms, and four legislative appointees who serve two-year staggered terms. 11 The NCSPA currently maintains branch offices abroad Japan, Korea, and Chile. Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development Although having no governance or managerial authority over the NCSP A, other state agencies involved to one degree or another in port development are the North Carolina departments of commerce; transportation; environment, health and natural resources; and administration. Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs As previously discussed, the state has been extremely aggressive in marketing its ports as a diversified intermodal system. With neighboring states Virginia and South Carolina both competing for containerized business, the NCSPA has made a concerted effort to offer flexibility by diversifying its ports while providing low-cost, efficient service between its inland and seaport terminals. The NCSPA has enjoyed limited success in persuading the state legislature of the importance of seaport commerce. In 1992, the state passed legislation that extended a state income tax credit for each firm whose annual port costs exceeded its three-year average cost. According to the port authority, cargo tonnage is increasing annually, especially in Wilmington, as more and more companies attempt to become eligible for the credit. The three-year average consists of an exporter's handling and wharf age fees paid to NCSP A. 201 The firm or individual receives a state income tax credit for the amount above the average (up to 50 percent of total tax liability), not to exceed $1 million.12 202 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2Information Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 770. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 638. 5Gary L. Shoesmith, North Carolina State Ports Authority Economic Impact Study, 1994 (Winston­Salem, N.C.: Babcock Graduate School of Management, Wake Forest University, February 20, 1995), pp. 4. 6Telephone interview by John Padwick with James E. Brown, Director, Planning, North Carolina State Ports Authority, Wilmington, N.C., March 5, 1996. 7North Carolina State Ports Authority, Wilmington Handbook, Wilmington, N.C. (Brochure.) 8Shoesmith, Economic Impact Study. 9North Carolina State Ports Authority, Morehead City Handbook, Wilmington, N.C., n.d. (Brochure.) 10Shoesmith, Economic Impact Study, p. 13. 11Telephone interview by John Padwick with Karen Fox, Director of Public Affairs, North Carolina State Ports Authority, Wilmington, N.C., March 25, 1996. 12Alice Cantwell, "Ports Try Breaks to Reel in Business," Journal ofCommerce (April 6, 1995), sec. A, p. 8A. 203 204 Appendix XXI. Ohio State Background Ohio is the seventh most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 11, 102,000 in 1994. The state has the eighth highest population density of 271.1 persons per square mile. 1 The major metropolitan areas include Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo.2 Ohio ranks 35th in the nation in total area with 41,330 square miles. Its topography primarily consists of rolling plains. It has the Allegheny plateau in the east, Lake Erie plains extending southward, and central plains in the west. 3 The principal industries of the Ohio economy include manufacturing, trade, and services. Chief agricultural crops are com, hay, winter wheat, oats, and soybeans. Primary manufactured goods consist of transportation equipment, machinery, and primary and fabricated metal products. Ohio is the top state in lime production and among the leaders in coal, clay, salt, sand, and gravel. Other important natural resources found within the state include petroleum, gypsum, cement, and natural gas. 4 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure Two-thirds of the state's boundaries--over 700 miles-consist of navigable waterways. Ohio ranks fifth nationally in terms of annual waterborne traffic volume; each year, over 120 million tons of goods are shipped through the state's Lake Erie ports or terminals located along the Ohio River. Coal and iron are major Lake Erie commodities, whereas Ohio River terminals are mostly privately owned and, therefore, tend to handle single commodities for their customers, such as bulk raw materials for utilities, steel firms, and the construction industry.5 Major Lake Erie ports are Toledo, Lorain, and Cleveland. 205 Description of Major Ports Port of Toledo The Port ofToledo is a domestic and international shipping center stretching along the banks of the Maumee River, the largest river flowing into the Great Lakes. The port handled 13,872,882 tons in 1990. Major commodities shipped through the port include general cargo, coal, iron ore, bulk liquids, grains, dry bulk, and fertilizers. The overseas general cargo center consists of a nine-million gallon bulk-liquid storage terminal, a dry­bulk handling and storage facility, and additional storage and fabrication areas immediately behind the vessel berths. The port is served by a number ofrail carriers, including the CSX, Conrail, and Norfolk Southern. Motor carriers serving the port have nearby highway access to interstates 75, 80, and 90.6 Port of Lorain The port city ofLorain, Ohio, is located at the mouth of the Black River on the southern shore ofLake Erie, approximately 30 miles west ofCleveland. Port volume amounted to 13 million tons in 1990.7 Commodities handled included sand, aggregates, millscale, limestone, potash, coal, and coke. Handling and storage facilities are available for liquid and dry bulk. CSX and the Norfolk Southern railroads provide terminal access. As for highway access, the port is adjacent to state routes 611, 58, and 57.8 Port of Cleveland Steel, general cargo, and dry bulk are the major commodities shipped through the Port of Cleveland. The port provides handling capabilities for liquid bulk, dry bulk, general cargo and containers. Conrail provides rail access, and there is nearby highway access to interstates 71, 77, and 90. Port Administration Lake Erie ports are administered by local port authority boards, representing cities and counties. Board members tend to serve six-year terms and chose their own port executive directors. Ohio River terminals are mostly operated by private enterprise.9 206 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development The Division of Water Transportation was established within the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) in 1985. As part of its responsibilities, division staff collect information on water transportation facilities, commodities handled, port capacity, and annual tonnage figures. As part of a reorganization, this information is now collected by the Division of Transportation Assistance. 10 The ODOT also has performed and/or participated in a number of waterborne-related studies, including • development of the Ohio River, 1987; • Ohio Water. Transportation Study, 1988; • Lake Erie Redevelopment Study, 1989; • the Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Water Resource Planning and Development; and • ACCESS OHIO, annually 1992 through 1995. The water transportation study identified a number of actions the implementation of which would facilitate waterborne transportation in the state. These actions called for the ODOT to work with the state's ports to solve access problems and to identify funding sources to improve surface transport access; encourage state regulatory agencies to recognize the economic and environmental benefits of water transportation in the approval-process of new dredge-disposal facilities; pursue the "Ship Ohio" campaign, which seeks to lower the cost of state-purchased cargo by routing shipments through state ports; and work with state regulatory agencies to promote safety and coordinate recreational and industrial development.11 The Ohio Department of Development has recently met with state ports to discuss ways in which the state may assist them in marketing and promotion. Moreover, the state has a 207 grant program, currently funded at $140,000 per year (but which has been as high as $1 million) to assist Ohio's port authorities with planning and construction.12 208 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 771. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 639. 50hio Department ofTransportation, Access Ohio--Micro Phase: Ohio's Multi-Modal State Transportation Plan to the Year 2020 (Columbus, Ohio, 1995), p. 175. 60hio Department of Transportation, Ohio's La.ke Erie Ports and Ohio River Terminals, 1992-1993 (Columbus, Ohio, n.d.), p. 1. 7Ibid., p. 17. 8Ibid., p. 23. 90hio Department of Transportation, Access Ohio, p. 175. 1°Ibid. 12Telephone interview by Leigh Boske with Carla L. Cefaratti, Deputy Director, Transportation Assistance Division, Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, Ohio, June 21, 1996. 209 210 Appendix XXII. Oregon State Background Oregon is the 29th most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 3,086,000 in 1994. The state has the 39th highest population density of 32.1 persons per square mile. 1 The major metropolitan areas include Portland, Eugene, Salem, and Gresham.2 Oregon ranks tenth in the nation in total area with 97,073 square miles. Two-thirds of the topography of the state consists of a plateau. Rugged mountains lie along the coast. The fertile Wilamette River Valley is located in the east and south. East of this valley is the Cascade Mountain Range of volcanic peaks. 3 The principal industries of the Oregon economy include forestry, agriculture, tourism, high technology, and manufacturing. Chief agricultural crops are hay, grass seed, farm forest products, wheat, potatoes, onions, and pears. Primary manufactured goods consist of lumber and wood products, foods, machinery, fabricated metals, paper, printing and publishing, and primary metals.4 Oregon has the only nickel smelter in the United States.5 Oregon ranked 22nd among U.S. states in total tonnage moved by waterborne commerce in 1994, with 39.1 million tons handled.6 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure Oregon has 23 port districts, all either located on the Pacific Coast or the Columbia River, of which Portland was the first, established by the legislature in 1891. Dredging of the Columbia River by the Port of Portland was covered by this legislation, and today the river channel is maintained at a depth of 40 feet from the Pacific Ocean to Portland, enabling oceangoing ships access additionally to the ports of Astoria and St. Helens. The Columbia-Snake River system is second only to the Mississippi in U.S. cargo volume.7 Port-managed facilities include seven ocean bars, approximately 400 miles of river and bay channels, ten airports including Portland International, two bridges that span the Columbia 211 River, several docks and marine terminals, and intermodal facilities, such as barge, rail, and truck transfer points. 8 The Oregon economy is greatly enhanced by port activities. Economic activity is estimated by the Oregon Economic Development Department at $470 million annually and direct jobs generated by ports other than Portland are estimated at 5,000. The Port of Portland generates 17,000 jobs itself and approximately $3 billion in business revenues yearly .9 Description of Major Ports Port of Portland The Port of Portland is a rarity in that it is an operating port, employing its own stevedores and managing all aspects of marine operations for its container and general-cargo terminals. A request for proposals (RFP) has been issued for a private firm to assume day-to-day operations of Terminal Six, a container terminal, but financial analysis has revealed that the port would lose anywhere from $1 to $9.3 million a year in revenues if a private contractor is employed. Thus, port staff will recommend to the Port Commission of the Port of Portland to reject all RFP proposals for privatization at the commission's June 12, 1996, meeting.10 The port exports a larger volume of cargo than any other West Coast port and is ranked behind only the ports ofLos Angeles and Long Beach in total waterborne commerce. Handling close to 12 percent of the country's imported cars, the port ranks as the fifth largest auto import center in the country. I I In addition to five marine cargo terminals serviced by three railroad lines and two interstate highways, the port operates an international airport, a ship repair yard (the only publicly owned, privately operated one in the United States), Portland-Troutdale Airport, Portland­Hillsboro Airport, and the Portland-Mulino Airport. The shipyard handles more than 45 percent of all commercial repair work done on the West Coast, while Portland International Airport (PDX) in 1992 served more than 7.2 million passengers and handled over 162,000 tons of air freight. I 2 The port's property tax rate, limited by a state initiative capping ad valorem taxation, has been reduced over the last three years. I 3 General government and school ad valorem taxation has been capped at $15 per $1000 valuation and total ad valorem taxation at $16 212 per $1000 valuation, leaving only $1 per $1000 valuation for the port and other government entities. 14 Port of Hood River The Port of Hood River, a small niche port located in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area that relied heavily on the timber industry for revenues in the past, diversified its operations toward tourism and has attracted over 20 windsurfing-related companies to its port. Leveraging its proximity to the Portland metropolitan area and its location in a federally recognized national scenic area, the port has earned a reputation as the most innovative port in the state in terms of land development.15 The port also owns and operates a toll bridge, three for-profit beaches, and its own airport. Further, the port is in the process of building a convention center to expand tourism for the area and has sold an industrial park which it developed. Manufacturers of telecommunications and electronic products which either lease from or have purchased lands from the port are a major source of employment for the Hood River area. 16 The port's diversification strategy is also discussed in the "State Involvement in Ports and Waterways" chapter. Port Administration The Ports of Portland and Coos Bay feature boards that are appointed by the state's governor, while the other 21 ports are administered by elected commissioners.17 All Oregon public ports possess taxing authority, while other revenue sources include fees from boat moorage, parking lots, launch ramps, restrooms, and general-cargo marine terminals.18 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development The Oregon Department of Economic Development has a ports section, which employs four full-time employees, and the state's department of transportation helps with highway access-related issues. 19 213 The ports section works with several agencies, including the Division of State Lands, the Department of Environmental Quality, and the Department of Land Conservation and Development.20 Other Public and Private Sector Organizations The Pacific Northwest Waterway Association, based in Vancouver, Washington, and comprised of members from the Columbia-Snake River ports of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, helps promote the region's ports, as does the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association, a consortium of local coastal governments that concentrates on fishing and salmon industry-related·issues.21 The Oregon Public Ports Association (OPPA), the headquarters of which is located in Salem, Oregon, concentrates on state issues and often sends its director to Washington, D.C., to lobby for Oregon ports.22 Created during the 1995 legislative session and promoted by the OPPA, the Ports Advisory Council, the members of which are appointed by the Board of the Economic Development Department and which is staffed by the ports section of the department, focuses on dredging, freight mobility, and port-operations issues. 23 Other involved entities include the Merchants Exchange, a group of Pacific Northwest marine-oriented businesses, and the Columbia-Snake River Marketing Group, a consortium of ports from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, which jointly produce a marketing brochure, The Great Waterway: The Guide to Marine Facilities and Industrial Properties on the Columbia Snake River System.24 Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs The ports section of the Oregon Department of Economic Development features three major funding programs: the Oregon Ports Revolving Loan Fund, the Marine Navigation Improvement Fund, and the Port Planning and Marketing Fund Grant Program. 25 Created by the legislature in 1977 by an initial $4 million loan (which has since been repaid from the fund's interest earnings) from the state's general revenue to alleviate the problems 214 that ports faced in attaining financing and loans, the revolving loan fund has made $22 million in loans since its inception. 26 Grants for the drafting of strategic business plans, facility and project planning, and marketing may be obtained from the ports division through its Port Planning and Marketing Fund Grant Program, financed by $300,000 in state funds for the 1993-95 biennium. As of December 1995, $154,025 in grants had been awarded for the 1995-97 biennium. Grants of up to $25,000 may be secured from this program.27 Created in 1993 to counteract the federal trend toward legislation, which requires cost­ sharing provisions for nonfederal entities in dredging projects, the section's Marine Navigation Improvement fund is also an important source of funds for Oregon ports. Projects funded for the 1995-1997 biennium total $4.48 million, including channel deepening at Coos Bay, breakwater rehabilitation at Newport, the Columbia River channel deepening feasibility study, and barge dock and access channel construction at Morrow. 28 In addition to offering technical assistance with strategic planning, the ports section aids ports in operations, site development planning, marketing studies and plans, coordination with other agencies, dredging projects with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and technical assistance concerning obtaining proper pennitting. The section also represents the Economic Development Department in an oil spill prevention plan. 29 The ports section also has two contracts that aid in Oregon port development. A Washington, D.C.-based lobbyist advocates on the behalf of the state's ports, and the section devotes $125 ,000 yearly to the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. 30 New or Proposed Programs Governor John Kitzhaber, who possesses an "acute awareness of the port that did not exist in the past," is the first governor in over a decade to directly address the port commission of the Port ofPortland and feels that Oregon's "total transportation network is absolutely essential to maintaining the competitive position that Oregon currently holds in the global marketplace." 31 Stressing his commitment to port development, the governor stated: You've got huge capital challenges here at the Port of Portland. And if we are unable to change the public attitude and gain broad political support in the general public and in the legislative assembly for making those kind [sic] of investments, 215 we are not going to be able to continue the economic growth that this state has enjoyed recently. 32 Outgoing Republican Senator Mark Hatfield has been instrumental in efforts to secure federal approval for the deepening of the Columbia River from the Pacific to Portland from a depth of 40 feet to one of 43. A feasibility study for this project has been conducted, but no final funding decision has been issued by the federal government, which would finance 50 percent of the project through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.33 Windsurfing has been an economic boon for several Oregon ports. The ports section has provided funding through its revolving-loan program to three ports for the purpose of developing this industry.34 Most noteworthy is the Port of Hood River, a niche port that witnessed the demise of its most important industries, mentioned above and in the "State Involvement in Ports and Waterways" chapter. 216 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995, (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 773. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 640. 5/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook, p. 773. 6U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Navigation Data Center, ''Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .mil/ndc/wcstaton.txt; IN1ERNET. 70regon Economic Development Department and Oregon Public Ports Association, Oregon Ports, 1995, Salem, Oreg. (Pamphlet.) 9Ibid 1°Telephone interview by Buck Breland with John Hachey, General Manager, Marine Operations, Port of Portland, Portland, Oreg., June 6, 1996. 110regon Economic Development Department and Oregon Public Ports Association, Oregon Ports. 13Interview by Chris Baker and Breland with Hachey, Portland, Oreg., February 16, 1996. 14Telephone interview by Buck Breland with Greg Baker, Executive Director, Port ofHood River, Oregon, Hood River, Oreg., June 5, 1996. 217 15lnterview by Chris Baker and Buck Breland with Keith Leavitt, Manager, Ports Division, Oregon Economic Development Department, Portland, Oreg., February 15, 1996. 16Telephone interview by Breland with Baker. 17lnterview by Baker and Breland with Leavitt. 18lbid.; and Oregon Economic Development Department and Oregon Public Ports Association, Oregon Ports. 19Memorandum from Keith Leavitt, Manager, Ports Division, Oregon Economic Development Department, to members, Trade and Economic Development Sub-Committee, March 2, 1995. 21Interview by Baker and Breland with Leavitt. 24The Merchants Exchange and the Columbia Snake River Marketing Group, "The Great Waterway: The Guide to Marine Facilities and Industrial Properties on the Columbia Snake River System, " Marine Digest (1994 ), p. 51. 25Interview by Baker and Breland with Leavitt. 28Telephone interview by Breland with Baker; and Oregon Economic Development Department, Ports Division, "Summary of Services" (internal document). 29Memorandum from Leavitt. 3°Interview by Baker and Breland with Leavitt. 218 31Interview by Baker and Breland with Hachey; and Port of Portland, "Governor John Kitzhaber, Port of Portland Commission Meeting, September 13, 1995," Portland, Oreg. (internal document), p. 1. 321bid., p. 5. 33Interview by Baker and Breland with Leavitt. 34 Ibid. 219 220 Appendix XXIII. Pennsylvania State Background Pennsylvania is the fifth most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 12,052,000 in 1994. The state has the ninth highest population density of 268.9 persons per square mile. 1 The major metropolitan areas include Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Erie, and Allentown.2 The Middle Atlantic state ranks 33rd in the nation in total area with 45,308 square miles. Its topography consists of the Allegheny Mountains, which run from the southwest to the northeast, with the piedmont and coast plain in the southeast triangle. The Allegheny Front makes a diagonal spine across the state's center. Finally, a rugged plateau lies in the northwest Lake Erie Lowlands.3 The principal industries of the Pennsylvania economy include steel, travel, health, apparel, machinery, and food and agriculture. Chief agricultural crops are com, hay, mushrooms, apples, potatoes, winter wheat, oats, vegetables, tobacco, and grapes. Primary manufactured goods consist of primary metals, foods, fabricated metal products, nonelectrical machinery, and electrical machinery. Pennsylvania produces 10 percent of the nation's cement. Also important are brick and tiles, glass, limestone, and slate.4 Maritime Infrastructure Pennsylvania's three ports-Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Erie-provide over 300 commercial and public facilities that collectively handled 90.7 million tons of freight in 1994.5 The Port of Philadelphia is strategically located at the center of the Northeast corridor, the nation's largest marketplace. The Port of Pittsburgh is at the origin of the Ohio-Mississippi River system that reaches markets in twenty-four states and offers shippers access to the Gulf of Mexico and beyond. The Port of Erie is located within 100 miles of Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Buffalo and is close to Toronto. Description of Major Ports Port of Philadelphia The Port of Philadelphia handled 40.7 million tons of freight in 1994. Its specialized facilities for perishable cargoes, paper, lumber, and steel make it the nation's leading 221 breakbulk port. And, as a premier project cargo port, it possesses the highest lift-capacity crane (375 tons) on the North Atlantic. Shippers have access to three major rail carriers­ Conrail, CSX, and the Canadian Pacific Rail System. These connecting carriers offer double-stack, tri-level auto-rack, and high-and-wide rail services. With port-side rail access to Canada, the midwest, and the south, the Port of Philadelphia offers second-day service to over half of the United States' and almost 75 percent of Canada's commercial and industrial activity. 6 Port of Pittsburgh The Port of Pittsburgh is the nation's largest inland port, moving over 49 million tons of freight in 1994. The port complex is served by Conrail, CSX, and the Norfolk Southern railroads. Coal remains the dominant cargo shipped on Pittsburgh's three rivers-Ohio, Allegheny, and Monongahela-accounting for 75 percent of barge movements, but other goods and materials (such as paper and chemicals) are growing in volume as well. The ten-county region's 160 terminals are all privately owned, of which 120 are proprietary (exclusively handling cargo for a single company) and the other 40 are for-hire (handling cargo for other shippers).7 Port of Erie The Port of Erie's international ·marine terminal handles bulk, breakbulk, and general cargoes. It possesses the highest-capacity crane (300 tons) on the Great Lakes. There are 1,500 feet of berth space, 110,000 feet of warehouse space, 22 acres of outdoor storage space, and 50 acres available for bulk storage. Conrail provides on-terminal rail service. The port handles all manner of bulk commodities, including sand, gravel, coal, coke, and a variety of ores. It also serves the steel industry, moving shipments of pig iron, ferroalloys, and steel coils. 8 Port Administration The Port of Philadelphia is a state-owned, landlord port that leases terminals to end users. The Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PRP A) was created by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to provide oversight to the port complex's massive capital improvement initiative. The Port of Erie is a local government-owned, landlord port that is operated by the executive director of the Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority. The Port of Pittsburgh Commission represents a ten-county region that encompasses all navigable waterways in southwestern Pennsylvania. The commission serves as a promotional and 222 central information office for the 160 private terminals that operate in the region. By the end of 1996, the Port of Philadelphia should enter a new phase, with the unification of the neighboring port of Camden, New Jersey. The new Port of Philadelphia and Camden (PPC) will combine the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, the South Jersey Port Corporation, and the World Trade Division of the Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA). The PPC will be a subsidiary of the DRPA.9 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development The Office of PennPORTS within the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce (PDOC) is responsible for port promotion and development activities. It serves as liaison between ports and state government, working to ensure that ports are considered in the state's international trade and intermodal plans. PennPORTS also assists ports with planning, marketing, regulatory issues, and infrastructure investments. Io The Governor's Response Team, also housed within the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce, serves as the single point of contact for firms seeking assistance for site selection, finance, and permits. The response team interacts with all governmental agenciei in coordinating and expediting development opportunities. Part of this coordination involves interaction with trade and marketing representatives with the state's three ports to discuss logistic questions and international trade. I I Moreover, the Office of International Trade within the PDOC provides financial assistance, technical staff support, and market research. The state offers low-interest loans, job­training grants, enterprise-zone tax credits, and road improvements to selected sites. 12 Finally, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) indirectly is involved in ports through its intermodal planning and project activities. Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania provides an operating subsidy to the Port of Philadelphia and pays off the debt service of bonds the proceeds of which were used to acquire port assets. The ports of Pittsburgh and Erie receive annual grants to defray 223 operating expenses. Finally, PennDOT's Rail Freight Assistance program can render landside rail access improvements to ports. 13 224 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995, (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2lnformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 773. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 639. 5U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Navigation Data Center, ''Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .mil/ndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 6l>ennsylvania Department of Commerce, The Ports ofPennsylvania (Brochure, n.d.) 'Ibid; and "Pennsylvania: Your Partner in Trade," Journal ofCommerce (May 30, 1996), p. 6. 'Pennsylvania Department ofCommerce, The Ports ofPennsylvania. 9Telephone interview by Leigh Boske with Herbert M. Packer Ill, Executive Director, Office of PennPORTS, Pennsylvania Department of Commerce, Harrisburg, Penn., June 11, 1996. 11"Pennsylvania," Journal ofCommerce, p. 7. 12l>ennsylvania Department of Commerce, The Ports ofPennsylvania. °Telephone interview by Boske with Packer. 225 226 Appendix XXIV. Rhode Island State Background Rhode Island is the 43rd most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 997,000 in 1994. The state has the second highest population density of 953.8 persons per square mile. 1 The major metropolitan areas include Providence, Warwick, Cranston, and Pawtucket.2 Rhode Island is the smallest state in the nation with a total area of only 1,212 square miles. Its topography consists of the eastern lowlands of the Narragansett Basin and western uplands of flat and rolling hills. 3 The principal industries of the Rhode Island economy include manufacturing and services. Chief agricultural crops are nursery products, turf, potatoes, and apples. Primary manufactured products consist of costume jewelry, toys, machinery, textiles, and electronics. Rhode Island ranks 37th among states in terms of total waterborne commerce.4 Maritime Infrastructure Description of Major Ports and Port Administration Rhode Island has two major deepwater ports: Port of Providence and Quonset Point­ Davisville. Port of Providence In 1994, the Port of Providence moved 6.5 million tons of cargo, making it the 68th largest U.S. port according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineer figures.5 Operation of the Port of Providence has recently been transferred from the city to a private management company, because the city was unable to earn a profit through port operations. The city now operates as landowner only. 6 Quonset Point-Davisville Quonset Point-Davisville (QPD), a former naval base that has its own airport and rail facility, is presently operated by a quasipublic organization funded by the State of Rhode 227 Island (approximately $2 million a year). Prior to being spun off last year, QPD had been administered by the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation (RIEDC), a separate quasipublic organization. The executive director of the RIEDC still serves as chair of the QPD port board of directors.7 In terms of financing, both ports typically rely on revenue bonds for financial support, although they also utilize their own capital derived from rental income and land sales for capital improvements. The Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation has authority to issue up to $4 million in bonds without voter approval-funds that could be used for seaport development. The RIEDC also assists with port marketing by attending trade missions and printing marketing brochures. 8 Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs QPD is presently working on a new development plan aimed at bringing new multimodal business to the facility, which includes a major new marketing effort as well as the decontamination of polluted land left by the navy.9 Additionally, QPD has plans for a $3 billion long-term port development project; however, financing for this project has not yet been arranged. Providence has adopted an industrial waterfront plan designed to unite the development of port and industrial activities along the water.10 228 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 774. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 641. 5U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Navigation Data Center, ''Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .mil/ndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 6'felephone interview by Randall Kempner with Michael S. Walker, Senior Planner, Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation, North Kingstown, R.I., November 11, 1995. 7Telephone interview by Randall Kempner with Lisa DiRaimo, Research Specialist, Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation, Providence, R.I., December 15, 1995. 8Ibid 9Ibid 10City ofProvidence, Department of Planning and Development, Providence Industrial Waterfront Plan (Providence, R.I., March 1990). 229 230 Appendix XXV. South Carolina State Background South Carolina is the 25th most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 3,664,000 in 1994. The state has the 21st highest population density of 121.7 persons per square mile. 1 The major metropolitan areas include Columbia, Charleston, and Greenville.2 The topography of South Carolina consists primarily of coastal plains that cover two-thirds of the state. The Blue Ridge Mountains lie in the northwest part of the state. 3 The principal industries of the South Carolina economy include tourism, agriculture, and manufacturing. Chief agricultural products are tobacco, soybeans, corn, cotton, peaches, and hay. Primary manufactured goods consist of textiles, chemicals, machinery and fabricated metal products, and apparel.4 South Carolina ranked 33rd among U.S. states in total tonnage moved by waterborne commerce in 1994, with 14.1 million tons handled.5 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure and Description of Major Ports South Carolina port facilities include four terminals at Charleston, two in Georgetown and one in Port Royal. All are operated by the South Carolina State Ports Authority (SCSPA). Of the three ports, Charleston is by far the largest and competes for international cargo with other Atlantic coast ports. 6 Port of Charleston A major regional port, the Port of Charleston serves shippers in 26 different states. It is second only to the Port of New York/New Jersey in terms of international commercial container volume on the East Coast and Gulf Coast. Total general tonnage for 1995 at the Port of Charleston was 8.8 million tons of cargo of which over 90 percent was containerized. Major commodities handled include food stuffs, wood pulp, paper products, heavy machinery, lumber products, vehicles, and chemicals. The Port of Charleston has an official 40-foot depth for inside channels. 7 231 Port of Georgetown Georgetown, the SCSP A's designated breakbulk and bulk facility, handled a record 1.45 million tons of cargo in 1995. Salt, cement, steel, jute, and forest products are the primary cargoes handled. 8 Port Royal Port Royal is a specialty port for bulk and breakbulk commodities. Last year, it handled 62,000 tons of clay slurry, refrigerated cargoes, forest products, and steel. A seafood dock also operates at Port Royal. 9 In all, more than $20 billion worth of international waterborne cargo moved through South Carolina ports in 1995. The SCSPA estimates that international port cargo creates 78,000 jobs within the state and generates $2.1 billion in personal income and $257 million in tax revenues for South Carolinians. 10 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development The South Carolina State Ports Authority was created in 1942 in order to operate the ports of South Carolina. It presently functions as a state agency structured as a private enterprise, operating solely on its own revenues and earnings. The SCSP A board is nominated by the governor and confirmed by the state senate. 11 The authority presently raises the majority of its own capital through revenue bonds. In 1991 and 1994, the SCSP A sold a total of over $90 million in revenue bonds to complete development of the Wando Welch Tenninal at Charleston.12 The State of South Carolina has played an important role in funding capital projects at its ports. Through 1994, the State of South Carolina had contributed $165.9 million of capital to the SCSP A since its inception in 1942. Much of that funding was provided in the late 1970s, when major port improvements were undertaken. Since 1978, however, the state has not contributed to capital or operating funds of the SCSPA. The state has continued to fund dredging projects including a $31.3 million harbor deepening project that began in 1988.13 232 The South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation coordinates with the SCSPA, but has no authority over port-related issues other than landside access construction. No other state agencies play important roles in affecting the business of the ports. Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs The SCSP A has been involved in maritime education both for specialists and the general public. At the College of Charleston, the SCSP A helped fund the development of an intermodal transportation concentration in the business college. With the closing of Charleston's naval base, the SCSPA has developed a program to retrain ex-sailors for commercial maritime occupations. Finally, the SCSPA reaches out to young South Carolinians by sponsoring an annual "port week" in which they offer 4,000 elementary students from across the state a special educational program on the state's ports.14 South Carolina created the SCSP A to administer and coordinate port development strategy for the entire state. Given the predominance of Charleston and the lack of competition between the ports, this strategy has been a successful one. With its own revenues, the SCSPA has helped develop Charleston into one of the nation's premier ports. However, it has always been able to rely on the state support for major projects and initiatives. 233 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 775. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 641. 5U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .mil/ndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 6South Carolina State Ports Authority, Ports ofCharleston, Georgetown, and Port Royal Fact Sheet, Charleston, S.C., January 1996. (Brochure.) 71bid. 91bid. 1°.Ibid. nsouth Carolina State Ports Authority, Annual Report: Fiscal Year 1994 (Charleston, S.C., 1994), pp. 2-3. 12Telephone interview by Randall Kempner with Byron Miller, Public Affairs Officer, South Carolina State Ports Authority, Charleston, S.C., October 17, 1995. 13South Carolina State Ports Authority, Annual Report, p. 17; and telephone interview by Randall Kempner with Bernard S. Groseclose Jr., Director, Planning Development, South Carolina State Ports Authority, Charleston, S.C., October 17, 1995. 234 14Telephone interview by Randall Kempner with Byron Miller, March 22, 1996. 235 236 Appendix XXVI. Texas State Background Texas is the second most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 18,378,000 in 1994. The state has the 29th highest population density of 70.2 persons per square mile. 1 The major metropolitan areas include Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso, and Austin.2 Texas is the second largest state in the nation in total area with 266,807 square miles. Its topography consists of the Gulf Coast plain in the south and southeast and north central plains that slope upward with some hills. Great plains extending over the Panhandle are broken by low mountains. Finally, the Trans-Pecos forms the southern extension of the Rockies.3 The principal industries of the Texas economy include trade, services, and manufacturing. Chief agricultural crops are cotton, grain sorghum, grains, vegetables, citrus and other fruits, pecans, and peanuts. Primary manufactured goods consist of machinery, transportation equipment, foods, electrical and electronic equipment, chemicals and allied products, and apparel.4 Texas ranks first in the nation in terms of mineral production. It's natural resources include sulfur, salt, helium, asphalt, graphite, bromine, natural gas, cement, and clays.5 The Texas seaport and inland waterway system accounts for much of the state's movement of domestic and international cargo. For example, more than 170,000 Texans have jobs directly or indirectly related to water transportation, and nearly 20 percent of the state's gross national product is in some way linked to water transportation.6 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure The Texas Gulf Coast is comprised of 12 deep-draft ports and 15 shallow-draft ports or districts containing more than 1 shallow-draft port. 7 Additionally, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, a 1,300-mile-long, man-made canal, runs along the Gulf of Mexico's coastline from Texas' southernmost tip at Brownsville to St. Mark's, Florida. The Texas portion of the waterway is 423 miles long. 237 Of those ports, Houston, Texas City, Port Arthur, and Corpus Christi are among the top 20 ports (for all services) in the United States. The Port of Houston Authority is ranked number two in the United States for all services (behind Gramercy, Louisiana) and number one for tanker services. 8 The Texas seaport and inland waterway system accounts for much of the state's movement of domestic and international cargo. The state's deep-draft and shallow-draft ports accounted for over 390 million tons of cargo moved in 1993, which is half of the state's foreign imports and exports. Along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), over 100 million tons of cargo were transported in 1992, of which 70 percent of that activity occurred along the 423 miles of waterway in Texas. 9 The GIWW is the nation's third busiest waterway. 10 Description of Major Ports Port of Houston The Port of Houston, a 50-mile-long complex, is Texas' busiest and largest port in terms of tonnage and value. It is 400 feet wide and 40 feet deep. The port possesses the largest facility infrastructure on the Gulf of Mexico. Facilities include a general-cargo complex, intermodal terminal, dry-bulk facilities, material-handling plant, public grain elevator, and a deepwater basin providing access to liquid-bulk cargo facilities. The Fentress Bracewell Barbours Cut container terminal is an intermodal terminal for container, roll-on/roll-off vessels, and other cargo. The terminal has five 1,000-foot container berths (a sixth berth is currently being constructed), 20 yard cranes, and 10 container cranes. There is also a foreign trade zone located at the port.11 Port of Texas City The Port of Texas City is a private port located on Galveston Bay, 11 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico, 5 miles north of Galveston. The channel to the port is approximately 6 miles long with a 400-foot bottom width and 40-foot depth. The great majority of facilities are used to support the main commodities going through the port-petroleum and chemical products. The port contains 43 berths, with 22 being privately owned by such companies as Amoco Oil and Union Carbide. The port also provides two supertanker docks for crude petroleum and numerous tanker and barge docks. Additional features include a dry-bulk cargo facility. 12 238 Port of Port Arthur The Port of Port Arthur is located on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway between Beaumont and the Gulf of Mexico. The port is 19 miles from the open water by the GIWW. The port is actually an improved bank of the GIWW that is capable of handling numerous cargo types. Today, the Port of Port Arthur maintains its position as a sophisticated niche port specializing in forest products, iron and steel, and breakbulk. Primary breakbulk cargoes are plywood, lumber, pulp, paper, iron, and steel.13 The port is also equipped to handle containers and has regular liner service. 14 Port of Corpus Christi Operating for over 65 years, the Port of Corpus Christi moves the second greatest amount of tonnage of all Texas seaports. The port is located on the Corpus Christi ship channel, which spans approximately 36 miles with six turning basins. The port maintains facilities to accommodate petroleum, bulk minerals, chemicals, grain, containers, and general-cargo movements. Commodities moved along the GIWW include crude petroleum, , petrochemicals, and refined petroleum products. Additional port features include a public grain elevator, an industrial park comprising over 300 acres, and a foreign trade zone with oil refineries, manufacturing sites, and warehouses.15 Other Major Deep-Draft Ports In addition to the ports of Houston, Texas City, Port Arthur, and Corpus Christi, other deep-draft ports in Texas include the ports of Beaumont, Brownsville, Freeport, Galveston, Port Lavaca, Orange, Port Isabel, and Sabine Pass Harbor. A comprehensive description of these ports can be found in the 1995 report published by the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The Texas Seaport and Inland Waterway System.16 ! Port Administration Texas has no state-owned ports. They are all local public entities or privately owned. Specifically, the 12 deep-draft ports in Texas are administered as follows. The ports of Beaumont, Brownsville, and Freeport are all navigation districts, political subdivisions of the state, and are governed by elected boards. 17 The ports of Orange and Port Arthur are also governed by elected boards of commissioners.18 239 The Port of Corpus Christi falls under the auspices of a navigation district, as well, but features an appointed 17-member board, while the Port of Port Isabel is part of the San Benito Navigation District. 19 The Port of Port Lavaca is owned and operated by the Calhoun County Navigation District, which operates under a board of commissioners and a port director.20 In contrast, the Port of Galveston is a separate city utility so designated by a city charter provision of Galveston-city-owned wharf and terminal properties are overseen by the board of trustees of the Galveston wharves. 21 On the other hand, the Port of Houston is an autonomous entity authorized by a 1909 act of the Texas Legislature. Similarly, Sabine Pass Port was created in 1973 under House Bill 94, does not engage in waterborne commerce, and, instead, functions as a marina.22 Finally, the Port of Texas City is a private port that has no affiliation with any government or public agency. Major Port Organization State Agencies Involved in Port Development There are two state agencies involved in seaport development in Texas: the Texas Department ofTransportation (TxDOn and the Texas Department of Commerce (TxDOC). TxDOT produced a state transportation plan that includes ports and that places specific importance on their role as a connecting link among all modes of transportation and handles issues relating to ports through its Multimodal Operations Office. 23 The Austin­based office communicates with the five transportation districts bordering the coast through an individual representative from each district. Currently, TxDOT does not have a specific funding source dedicated to ports and does not possess bonding authority for port infrastructure improvements. 24 Complementing the focus of TxDOC to coordinate programs that promote the growth and retention of businesses in the state, the agency is involved in several activities that help market ports. For example, TxDOC frequently provides information to relocating companies about Texas' infrastructure (including port statistics). Additionally, ports can take advantage of the trade shows currently being coordinated by TxDOC. TxDOC has 240 two types of trade shows that focus on 1) marketing exported products moving from Texas to other countries, and 2) attracting companies to locate in Texas.25 Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs The Texas A&M University at Galveston (TAMUG) has developed curricula in marine science and marine studies. T AMUG's Center for Marine Training and Safety offers specialized training for those who work on inland waterways, oceangoing vessels, and petrochemical facilities located inland and offshore. Program topics embrace sea survival, deck skills, engineering skills, and emergency operations. The center also offers U.S. Coast Guard-approved courses on handling hazardous materials. Moreover, about 190 students matriculate in T AMUG's Texas State Marine Program, which provides courses in maritime systems engineering, marine engineering technology, maritime administration, marine transportation, marine biology, and marine sciences. This program prepares students for a U.S. Coast Guard's third mate's or third assistant engineer's license.26 In 1995, the Texas Legislature authorized the establishment of the Center for Ports and Waterways (CPW) to serve as a research, education, and technology-transfer organization. The CPW, based at T AMUG, consists of a consortium of research universities operating under the umbrella of the Texas Transportation Institute. Consortium members include Texas A&M campuses at College Station and Galveston, University ofTexas campuses at Austin and Brownsville, and Lamar University. "Concentrating on an intermodal research approach, the CPW is studying all facets of the marine industry with an eye toward developing a seamless transportation system. "27 241 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nforrruition Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 777. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 643. 5/nforrruition Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook, p. 777. 6"Governor Signs off on New Center for Ports and Waterways at TIT," Researcher, vol. 31, no. 2 (Summer 1995), p. 7. 7Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The Texas Seaport and Inland Waterway System, Policy Research Project Report Series, no. 114 (Austin, Tex., 1995), p. 1. 8U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, U.S. Oceanbome Foreign Trade Routes, October 1992 (Washington, D.C., 1993), pp. 128-33. 9u.S. Anny Corps ofEngineers, Your GulfIntracoastal Waterway, 1992. (Brochure.); and Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), The Gulflntracoastal Waterway in Texas, 1995 (Austin, Tex., 1994), p. 2. (Brochure.) 1°TxDOT, "The Texas Transportation Plan: The Multimodal Transportation System," Austin, Tex., 1994 (discussion draft), p. ill-38. 11Port of Houston Authority, The Houston Ship Channel: Economic Lifeline to the World, Houston. (Brochure.) 12Texas City Terminal Railway Company, Texas City Terminal Railway Company, 1994, Texas City, Tex. (Brochure.) 242 13Interview by Brandon Lobb with Floyd Gaspard, Deputy Port Director, Port Arthur Navigation District, Port Arthur, Tex., March 21, 1995. 14Port Arthur, "Port of Port Arthur, Texas," Port Arthur, Tex. (Document.) 15Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The Texas Seaport and Inland Waterway System, p. 24. 16Ibid., pp. 149-291. 17Port of Brownsville, The Port ofBrownsville, Your Door to the U.S., Mexico, and the World, Brownsville, Tex. (Pamphlet.); and Port of Beaumont, Facts, Port ofBeaumont, Beaumont, Tex. (Pamphlet.) 18Interview by Brandon Lobb with Roger P. Richard, Director and CEO, Orange County Navigation and Port District and Industrial Development Corporation, Orange, Tex., March 21, 1995; and interview by Lobb with Gaspard. 19l>ort of Corpus Christi Authority, Project Cargo and Heavy Lift Facilities and Services: Information and Reference Manual (Corpus Christi, Tex., June 1994), p. 3. 20Calhoun County Navigation District, General Purpose Financial Statement (Point Comfort, Tex., June 30, 1994), p. 5. 21Port of Galveston, "Location," in Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ofthe Board ofTrustees ofthe Galveston Wharves, December 1993 (Galveston, Tex., 1994), p. 12. 22Port of Houston, Facts about the Port ofHouston, Fact Sheet, Houston, Tex. (Brochure.); and letter from J.M. DuBose, Director, Sabine Port Authority, Sabine Pass, Tex., to Brandon Lobb, March 20, 1995. 23Interview by Sarah de la Fuente with James Randall, Director of Multimodal Operations Office, and Joann Riester, Waterway Planner of Multimodal Operations Office, TxDOT, Austin, Tex., November 3, 1995. 2Yfelephone interview by Laurie Bowler with James Randall, Austin, Tex., March 15, 1996. 26Port of Houston Authority, "Supporting the Maritime Industry," Port ofHouston Magazine (June 1996), pp. 3-5. 243 27Texas Transportation Institute, Centerfor Pons and Waterways, College Station, Tex., 1996. (Brochure), p. 2. 244 Appendix XXVII. Virginia State Background Virginia is the 12th most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 6,552,000 in 1994. The state has the 15th highest population density of 165.5 persons per square mile.1 The major metropolitan areas include Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Richmond, and Newport News.2 The South Atlantic state ranks 36th in the nation in total area with 40,767 square miles. The topography of Virginia includes the Blue Ridge Mountains and valleys in the west. To the east is a rolling piedmont plateau and the tidewater, or coastal, plain. 3 The principal industries of the Virginia economy include services, trade, government, manufacturing, tourism, and agriculture. Chief agricultural crops are tobacco, soybeans, peanuts, winter wheat, com, tomatoes, apples, and summer and sweet potatoes. Primary manufactured goods consist of textiles, transportation equipment, electric and electronic equipment, food processing, chemicals, and printing.4 Coal mining accounts for roughly 75 percent of Virginia's mineral output, and lime, kyanite, and stone are also mined.5 Virginia ranked 16th among U.S. states in total tonnage moved by waterborne commerce in 1994, with 72.1 million tons handled. 6 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure The Hampton Roads Harbor, located only 18 miles from the Atlantic Ocean and formed by the James, Nansemond, and Elizabeth rivers, remains ice free year-round and is home to the deep-draft ports of Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake. The Thimble Shoal Channel, Norfolk Harbor Channel, Newport News Channel, and James River are all vital navigable links to the state's port infrastructure. 7 Deepening the Norfolk Harbor and the Newport News Channel to 55 feet, as well as constructing a new 60-foot-deep channel in the Atlantic, were approved in 1986. The first phase of this project, the construction of a 50-foot outbound channel, began in 1987. Deepening the Norfolk Harbor to 45 from 40 feet and its southern branch from 35 to 40 feet and the construction of a deep-draft anchorage in Hampton are planned.8 245 In 1994, total cargo passing through the Virginia Port Authority's (VPA) ports totaled 8 million tons, an increase of 16 percent over 1993. Container tonnage in the same period was 6,926,690 or an increase of 20.5 percent over the previous year, while breakbulk cargo dropped off 17 .5 percent and totaled 631,490 tons.9 Description of Major Ports Port of Newport News The Newport News Marine Terminal handles containers, breakbulk, and special project cargo, and features an automotive processing and storage facility. The port is serviced by trucking companies and rail, features a minimum of 35 feet mean low water level, and provides bonded warehouse space. 10 Port of Norfolk Norfolk International Terminals, the largest container terminal in the Port of Hampton Roads with four berths that are serviced by the industry's first three semiautomatic Kone dual-hoist container cranes, boasts 96 acres of paved and lighted storage for containers. Also, the facility can handle break, package, heavy lift and bulk cargoes, tobacco, and double-stack railcars. It features cold and tobacco storage facilities and efficient highway access, as International Terminal Boulevard, a road improved much like an interstate highway, connects the port to Interstate 64.11 Port of Portsmouth Portsmouth Marine Terminal, run by the Virginia Port Authority, maintains ultramodern container and general cargo capabilities and a roll-on/roll-off platform. An adjacent rail yard can handle more than 2,000 freight cars. The port also has direct access to federal highways.12 Sea-Land Service also has a terminal at Portsmouth. The terminal is capable of handling all types of cargo and its Atlantic-class container ships, the most modem in its fleet and some of the world's largest, dock there each week.13 Port of Richmond The Port of Richmond, located adjacent to the James River and Interstate 95, is also efficiently connected to the state's intermodal transportation system, as interstates 64 and 85 and the Richmond International Airport are all nearby. Furthermore, the port is directly 246 connected to rail service and serviced by over 25 trucking lines. U.S. Customs, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a livestock export facility, and a fumigation facility are all on­site. A niche port handling livestock, bulk, breakbulk, and containerized cargo, the port handled 514,565 tons of cargo in 1994-95. Imports include tobacco, chemicals, newsprint, forest products, liner board, beer, and consumer goods. Exported through the port were tobacco and associated products, chemicals, forest products, refractory, com soya, wastepaper, project cargo, machinery, scrap iron, and aplite. 14 Virginia Inland Port Located strategically in Front Royal, just minutes from the intersection of interstates 81 and 66 in a locale that allows users to reach 50 percent of the nation's population within 48 hours by train, the Virginia Inland Port serves as an intermodal container hub, attracting trucks from a region of 200 miles in radius. Cargo is transferred from rail to the trucks or from the trucks to rail for shipment between the inland port, the marine terminals at Hampton Roads, and the central and southeast United States.15 The port has proved an engine of economic growth, as 95 percent of its business since its 1989 opening has been from new customers. It handled more than 13,621 containers from January to November, 1995 alone.16 Port Administration In Virginia, ports are operated either locally, as in the case of Richmond, or by the Virginia Port Authority (VPA). The VP A formed a private terminal company, Virginia International Terminals, Inc., which operates its terminals. This arrangement contrasts with most publicly owned ports, which lease facilities to operating companies. 17 Virginia International Terminals handles operations at Newport News Marine Terminal, Norfolk International Terminals, Portsmouth Marine Terminal, and the Virginia Inland Port. In contrast, the publicly owned Port of Richmond, a division of the city of Richmond, is operated by a private firm, Meehan Overseas Terminal, Ltd.18 247 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development The Virginia Port Authority owns and operates the three cargo terminals at Hampton Roads and the Virginia Inland Port. As ofDecember, 1995, the authority is a division of the Department ofTransportation. Formerly, the authority resided under the Department of Commerce and Trade.19 Other Public and Private Sector Organizations The Hampton Roads Maritime Association has been an active player in the development of the Hampton Roads ports for over 75 years. The 600-plus member organization publishes The Port ofGreater Hampton Roads Annual: 1996, a detail~ 238-page directory that catalogs the ports' levels oftrade, natural attributes, and facilities. Also, a full account of liner, air, railroad, motor freight, government, and passenger cruise services is given, as are special attributes of the communities, educational institutions, and industries in the area.20 The State of Virginia, Old Dominion University, the city ofNorfolk, and the South Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers forged a public-private partnership in the form of the Center for Advanced Ship Repair and Maintenance at Old Dominion.21 Other entities involved in port promotion and management in the state include the Chesapeake Port Authority; the Portsmouth Port and Industrial Commission; the Department ofEconomic Development, and the industrial development authorities ofthe cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Suffolk; Forward Hampton Roads; the Virginia Peninsula Economic Development Council; and the Department ofEconomic Development of the City ofVirginia Beach.22 Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs In addition to its duties as principal offour ofthe state's ports, the Virginia Port Authority aids in the development of other Virginia ports. The Port ofRichmond has recently completed an $8.6 million capital improvement project. Six million dollars ofthe project was attained through a 1988 bond issue by the Virginia P~rt Authority through its Commonwealth Port Fund23 248 Also, the authority is charged with the marketing of its ports and does so through the publication of a magazine, Virginia Maritimer. With field offices in New York/New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, Front Royal, and Kentucky in the United States and in Brussels, Sao Paulo, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Seoul overseas, the authority furthers its marketing mission. 24 The state in general is very supportive of the port industry. Exemplified in its commitment to maritime education, programs are offered at Old Dominion University, the Virginia Institute ofMarine Science at William and Mary at Gloucester Point, state-operated community colleges, and city-operated vocational training centers. Additionally, courses are offered at SEACOM, the Special Educational Advisory Committee on Maritime and International Trade, and a collaboration of 18 Hampton Roads-area trade organizations, and Old Dominion serves as the Commonwealth Center ofExcellence in Coastal Physical Oceanography.25 The International Maritime, Ports, and Logistics Management Institute in the College of Business and Public Administration at Old Dom.inion University in Norfolk, one of the few such English-speaking programs in the world, "provides comprehensive programs focusing on graduate education, non-credit workshops and seminars, and applied research to address specific [port] issues and meet regional needs. "26 New or Proposed Programs Commissioners of the authority adopted at its November 28, 1995, meeting the ''2010 Plan," a long-term development plan that resulted from a consulting study by the firm of Vickerman, Zachary, Miller. The plan projects tonnage through the authority's ports to increase to 16,000,000 from the 1994 volume of 8,000,000. The plan identified $335 million in development needs, and the commissioners approved a resolution ofintent to issue $103 million in revenue bonds for the Norfolk International Terminals-North project. Bond issuance must be approved by the governor's office and by the Virginia General Assembly. Furthermore, $33.2 million in projects for terminals at Newport News and Portsmouth were proposed for the near future.27 249 Notes 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 779. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 644. 5lnformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook, p. 779. 6U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc. usace.army .mil/ndc/wcstaton.txt; INTERNET. 7Hampton Roads Maritime Association, The Port ofGreater Hampton Roads Annual: 1996 (Norfolk, Va., 1996), pp. 5; 16, 11. 8Ibid., p. 17. 9virginia Port Authority, "Virginia Port Authority Announces Ports' Continued Growth, Adopts Long­ Term Development Plan for the Port of Virginia," The Virginia Maritimer, vol. 15, no. 1 (December 1995/January 1996), p. 5. 1°Hampton Roads Maritime Association, The Port ofGreater Hampton Roads, p. 35. 111bid.• p. 36. 121bid., p. 39. 13Ibid.• pp. 41, 42. 141bid., p. 40. 15Virginia Port Authority, "How Virginia's Inland Port Is Launching a World of Opportunity for All of 250 Us," Virginia Maritimer, vol. 15, no. 1, (December 1995/January 1996), pp. 7, 15. 16Interview by Chris Baker and Buck Breland with Patrick Jones, Executive Director, Washington Public Ports Association, Olympia, Wash., February 15, 1996. 17Hampton Roads Maritime Association, The Port ofGreater Hampton Roads, p. 48. 18Ibid., p. 40. 19virginia Port Authority, "Virginia Port Authority Oversight Transferred to Secretary of Transportation," Virginia Maritimer, vol. 15, no. 1 (December 1995/January 1996), p. 3. 20Jlampton Roads Maritime Association, The Port ofGreater Hampton Roads, pp. 3, 16. 21"About CASRM" (cited April 11, 1996); available from http://www.odu.edu/gnusers/miatc_v/,aritg.htm; INTERNET. 22Hampton Roads Maritime Association, The Port ofGreater Hampton Roads, p. 134. 23Virginia Port Authority, "Currents," Virginia Maritimer, vol. 15, no. 1 (December 1995/January 1996), p. 10. 241bid., inside cover. 25Hampton Roads Maritime Association, The Port ofGreater Hampton Roads, p. 127-28. 26Ibid., p. 127. 27Virginia Port Authority, ''Virginia Port Authority," p. 5. 251 252 Appendix XVIII. Washington State Background Washington is the 15th largest state in the nation, with an estimated population of 5,343,000 in 1994. The state has the 26th highest population density of 80.2 persons per square mile.1 The major metropolitan areas include Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, and Everett.2 The Evergreen State ranks 20th in the nation in total area with 68, 139 square miles. Its topography consists ofboth mountains and lowlands. The Olympic Mountains and the Cascade Mountains lie in the western and central part of the state respectively. Mountains also lie in the southeast. Finally, the Puget Sound lowland has flat terrain. 3 The principal industries for the Washington economy include aerospace, forest products, food products, primary metals, and agriculture. Chief agricultural crops are hops, spearmint oil, raspberries, apples, wheat, mi1k, hay, asparagus, pears, cherries, peppermint oil, and potatoes. Primary manufactured goods consist of aircraft, pulp and paper, lumber and plywood, aluminum, and processed fruits and vegetables.4 Washington is recognized as a leading lumber producer with its many stands of Douglas fir, hemlock, ponderosa and white pine, spruce, larch, and cedar.5 With 104.6 million tons of cargo handled in 1994, Washington was the eighth largest U.S. state in terms of total waterborne tonnage. 6 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure The watetway system in Washington includes navigation channels in Puget Sound, at coastal ports, and in the Columbia and Snake rivers. The Columbia-Snake River System has a 40-foot-deep, 600-foot-wide navigation channel from the mouth of the Columbia River at Ilwaco, Washington to Vancouver, Washington. From there, a barge channel with a minimum draft of 14 feet continues upstream toward the eastern border of Washington and into Idaho.7 There are ten deepwaterports in Washington. 253 With regard to employment, Washington is the most trade dependent state in the nation. One out of every five jobs, about 500,000 total, comes from the international trade subeconomy. The two largest ports in Washington, Seattle and Tacoma, directly employ about 23,000 people in marine commerce and help support another 200,000 jobs around the state.8 Description of Major Ports Port of Seattle The Port of Seattle develops and manages commerce through the Seattle harbor, Fisherman's Terminal, Shilshole Bay Marina and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac). Seattle is the top U.S. port in container tonnage exports to Asia, the fifth largest container port in the United States, and the 20th largest container port in the world. The port has 28 commercial marine terminals, with 24 container cranes, a modem deep­draft grain terminal, a warehouse complex/distribution center, a customs examination station, and a 1,400-acre foreign trade zone that includes all of the port's marine operations and all of Sea-Tac's air cargo areas.9 Port of Tacoma The Port of Tacoma, located on south Puget Sound's Commencement Bay, has 25 ship berths, 14 container cranes, and 34 straddle carriers. It is the only port in the United States with two on-dock intermodal rail facilities for the quick transfer of containers between ship and rail. 10 The Port of Tacoma is the sixth largest container port in North America and among the top 25 container ports in the world. Container activity accounts for nearly 72 percent of cargo that moves through the port. 11 Tacoma also handles other commodity types, including breakbulk, automobiles, logs, grain, and other dry and liquid products. Japan is the port's leading trade partner, followed by Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, and Korea.12 Port Administration Ports in Washington are administered by independent municipal corporations known as port districts. Each of the 7 6 port districts in Washington are headed by a port commission, the body "responsible for making the discretionary policies and decisions of the district in both internal and external matters."13 Port commissions, which consist of 254 three or five members depending on the population size of the district, have the power to levy taxes and special local improvement assessments. Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development The Department of Transportation, the Department of Ecology, and the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development are the state agencies primarily involved with seaport development in Washington.14 The Department of Transportation and, more specifically, its Division of Freight Mobility and Economic Partnerships function as a state government liaison with the port community. Agency staff also interact with the federal, local, and other state governments to advocate on behalf of the Washington ports. A primary focus of the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development is to market the transportation, logistics, and trade services that are available through Washington ports. As the state's environmental regulatory agency, the Department of Ecology issues shoreline and water quality permits. Other Public and Private Sector Organizations Authorized by the Washington Legislature in 1961, the Washington Public Ports Association (WPP A) is the coordinating organization for all public port districts in the state of Washington. The association is instructed by statute to carry out studies common to all ports, exchange helpful operational information, promote port development, encourage commerce and transportation, and serve as a communications channel between ports and the legislature. 15 The association employees six full-time staff and benefits from significant committee work and volunteer help from the ports themselves. Currently, 68 of the 76 port districts are members of the WPPA.16 255 Port-Related Programs, Projects, and Trends Existing Programs State-Funded Reports Beginning in 1975 and about every five years since, the Washington Department of Transportation in partnership with the WPPA and its major port members have funded one or more reports on the port system or some aspect ofit. For the 1993-95 biennium, the state allocated a total of $45,000 to complete two reports. The first, entitled The 1995 Marine Cargo Forecast Technical Report, cost $78,000 to complete and publish. 17 Ofthis amount, the state paid $20,000 and the federal government and a consortium of ports in Washington contributed the remaining balance. The state paid $25,000 and was the sole sponsor for the second one, The 1995 Private Port and Pipeline Forecast Final Report.18 School of Marine Affairs Established in 1972, the University ofWashington's School ofMarine Affairs offers an internationally recognized master's degree program for launching careers in marine policy and administration. A Trend toward Port Diversification Cargo business at most ofthe small deepwater ports in Washington has dropped significantly since 1989. In response, many of these small ports are diversifying their base ofbusiness. For example, the Port ofEverett is developing a plan to build a $42 million, 17 4-acre industrial park and cold-storage facility; constructing a new multipurpose warehouse to store dried lumber, pulp, and fruit; and importing alumna, the processed ore for making aluminum, and fuselages for the Boeing 777.19 256 Notes 1U.S. Department ofCommerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 779. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 645. sInformation Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook, p. 780. 6u.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Navigation Data Center, ''Waterborne Commerce Statistics: Estimated Internal Commerce CY 95 and Final Annual Summaries CY 94," Washington, D.C., March 1996, available from: http://www. wrc-ndc.usace.army .mil/ndc/wcsta.ton.txt; IN1ERNET. 7BST Associates, 1991 Washington Ports and Transportation Systems Study, Final Report (Olympia, Wash., 1991), p. 24. 81>ort ofTacoma, Pierce County's Economic Engine, Tacoma, Wash. (Brochure.); and Rob Tucker, ''Getting the Rails in Shipshape," News Tribune (August 20, 1995), p. Gl. 9City of Seattle, Office ofIntergovernmental Relations, '1ntemational Commerce," in Seattle Quick Facts; available from http://www.pan.ci.seattle. wa.us/seattle/oir/facts.html#intemational; INTERNET. u>clifford Gerhardt, "Northwest Ports: A Tale of Two Cities," Alaska Business Monthly, vol. 10, no. 8, sec. 1(September1994), p. 54. 11Port ofTacoma, Pierce County's Economic Engine. 12Bridget Thomas, "Tacoma Port," World Paper, vol. 220, no. 3 (March 1995), p. 38. 13Robert F. Hauth, P.S., Knowing the Waters: Basic Legal Guidelines for Port District Officials (Olympia, Wash.: Washington Public Ports Association, July 1991), p. 3. 257 14Telephone interview by Christopher Baker with Ralph Wilhelmi, Manager, State Transportation Policy Plan, Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, Wash., March 4, 1996. 15Washington Public Ports Association, 1996 Port Directory (Olympia, Wash., 1996), p. i. 161nterview by Christopher Baker and Buck Breland with Patrick Jones, Executive Director, Washington Public Ports Association, Olympia, Wash., February 15, 1996. 17Telephone interview by Christopher Baker with Patrick Jones, April 8, 1996. 18Interview by Baker with Wilhelmi, March 4, 1996. 19Larry Liebman, ''The Log Jam's Not What It Used to Be," Puget Sound Business Journal, vol. 14, no. 48, sec. 1 (April 15, 1994), p. 27. 258 Appendix XXIX. Wisconsin State Background Wisconsin is the 18th most populous state in the nation, with an estimated population of 5,082,000 in 1994. The state has the 24th highest population density of 93.6 persons per square mile. 1 The major metropolitan areas include Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, and Racine.2 Wisconsin ranks 26th in the nation in total area with 56,153 square miles. In the southeast, its topography consists of three broad parallel limestone ridges running north-south that are separated by wide and shallow lowlands. To the southwest lies the Western Upland. Finally, the narrow Lake Superior lowland plain is met by the Northern Highland, which slopes gently to the sandy crescent central plain. 3 The principal industries of the Wisconsin economy include manufacturing, trade, services, government, transportation, communications, agriculture, and tourism. Chief agricultural crops are com, beans, beets, peas, hay, oats, cabbage, and cranberries. Primary manufactured goods consist of machinery, foods, fabricated metals, transportation equipment, and paper and wood products.4 Maritime Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure Wisconsin has 13 ports of 27 feet in depth or more and 4 shallow-draft ports.5 The Mississippi River and Lake Superior provide excellent navigable resources, especially those servicing bulk commodities, large machinery, and steel. For barges and freighters, the Great Lakes furnish access to Canadian and other American cities, as well as the Atlantic Ocean by way of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. For barges, the Mississippi affords a gateway to the Gulf of Mexico and thus the Central and South American markets. The Illinois River is also an important wateiway for the state, providing the Port of Milwaukee with direct access to the Mississippi. 6 259 The state's transportation plan, Translinks 21: A Multimodal Transportation Plan for Wisconsin's 21st Century, forecasts an increase in waterborne shipping tonnage for the state from 34 million in 1992 to 51 million by 2020. 7 Description of Major Ports Port of Duluth/Superior Located on the western tip of Lake Superior, the Port of Duluth/Superior is the world's largest deep-draft freshwater port in terms of total tonnage. The port moves some 40 million metric tons of cargo a year. Of this amount, which is exceeded by only 17 other ports in the U.S., over 90 percent consists of domestic shipments of grain, coal, and iron ore. The port's largest foreign export commodity is grain. In 1995, international grain exports from Duluth/Superior totaled 3. 7 million tons. 8 The Port of Duluth/Superior, which annually pumps $240 million into the economy, has also created over 3,000 jobs because of its operations.9 Port of Milwaukee The Port of Milwaukee, located on the southwestern edge of Lake Michigan, moves over 3 million tons of freight a year. Io Its terminals handle containers, general cargo, roll-on/roll­off vehicles, dry and liquid bulk, and heavy machinery, as well as intermodal connections to all Midwest cities. A ruling by the U.S. Coast Guard in 1992 to allow river hopper barges to move across Lake Michigan between Milwaukee and the mouth of the Illinois River provides the ports of Milwaukee and Wisconsin with a direct water trade route to the inland waterway system. The port considers this an important complement to its traditional east/west overseas trading routes.II Port of Green Bay As the westernmost port on Lake Michigan, the Port of Green Bay offers the most direct route for cargo traveling between the Midwest and the world. In 1995, 143 vessels moved approximately 2 million metric tons of cargo through the port. Nearly all of the total tonnage consisted of bulk cargo, especially coal, limestone, and cement. The Port of Green Bay contributes over $53 million and 1,000 jobs to the local economy.12 260 Port Administration Ports in Wisconsin are owned by the city or county government. The top executive for each governing body, that is, the mayor or county executive, appoints a board of harbor commissioners to administer port operations. However, any budgetary decisions made by the board are subject to the approval of the local legislative body. 13 Major Port Organizations State Agencies Involved in Port Development There are four state agencies in Wisconsin that have a role in port development: the departments of transportation, natural resources, development, and administration. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), and, more specifically, its Harbors and Waterways Section, is responsible for issue analysis and policy development for the state's river and Great Lakes' water transportation system. WisDOT also manages the state Harbor Assistance Program. The Department of Natural Resources has regulatory authority for the placement of structures in, and the filling or excavation of, the state's water. The agency also provides grants to local governments for dredging and local shoreline erosion projects. The Department of Development works with WisDOT to promote the state's multimodal freight transportation network and facilities, including ports and harbors. The Department of Administration houses the Coastal Zone Management program.14 Other Public and Private Sector Organizations The Upper Mississippi Waterway Association is a private, non-profit special interest association established to promote the use of water transportation on the Upper Mississippi River, disseminate information, provide assistance and advice to policy makers, and furnish its members with a variety of business services.15 Comprised of state officials, legislators, and governors' appointees from eight states, the Great Lakes Commission functions to secure a strong economy, a clean environment and a high quality of life. In this regard, one of the commission's top priorities is to promote the use, development, and maintenance of the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence transportation system. Services carried out by the commission's professional staff and many task forces 261 include policy development, regional advocacy, communications, coordination, and research. Other organizations that have influence on the state's water transportation system include the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, the Midwest Area River Coalition 2000, the American Great Lakes Ports Association, and the American Waterway Operators. Port-Related Programs and Projects Existing Programs The Harbor Assistance Program is budgeted at $4 million per biennium.16 Grants from the program may not exceed 80 percent of the moneys expended by the applicant for harbor improvements.17 Preference is given to applicants with high volumes of handled tonnage and waterborne transportation.18 Eligible applicants include counties, municipalities, towns or agencies thereof, and harbor commissioners organized in accordance with state law .19 Maintenance dredging, to which no aid is being supplied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, dockwall repair or maintenance, dredging within an area or project covered by the Corps, and new development of a publicly owned transportation facility where development includes any of the preceding three types of projects are considered, in ranked descending order, top priority for the program. 20 As of August 1995, the program has funded 29 projects and spent over $17 million. Recent projects include grants of $204,800 to the town of Bell for a commercial fishing dock rehabilitation, $1,000,000 to Milwaukee, and $2,295,200 to Green Bay, both for dock rehabilitation. 21 New or Proposed Programs The Port of Green Bay has begun to charge tonnage fees to fund the disposal of dredging materials. 22 WisDOT expects to increase total funding of the Harbor Assistance Program to $125 million over the next 25 years. The agency also intends to expand the list of projects that are eligible for HAP funding to include those that involve landside storage and intermodal facilities, internal roads and rails, storm-water management structures, and land acquisition. In addition, WisOOT is considering a plan to offer loans to privately owned docks.23 262 In Translinks 21, WisDOT mentions its desire to alleviate problems associated with dredging and proposes to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on dredging material remediation and alternative uses. 24 WisDOT has begun to collaborate with the Wisconsin Department of Development on a marketing campaign for the state's ports and for the continued improvement of the Great Lakes/Saint Lawrence Seaway System and the locks and dams system of the Mississippi River.25 Notes 1U .S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995 (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 28-29. 2/nfonruition Please Almanac Atlas and Yearbook (New York, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), p. 780. 3The World Almanac and Book ofFacts (New York, N.Y.: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1993), p. 646. 5Telephone interview by Christopher Baker with Ellen Fisher, Chief, Harbors and Waterways Section, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, Wis., November 14, 1995. 6Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Translinks 21: A Multimodal Transportation Plan/or Wisconsin's 21st Century (Madison, Wis., February 1995), pp. 83-84. 7Ibid., p. 84. 8 Telephone interview by Christopher Baker with Richard F. Lambert, Director, Ports and Waterways Section, Minnesota Department of Transportation, March 5, 1996. 9 Seaway Port Authority of Duluth, Port Facts, Duluth, Minn. (Brochure.) 1°I>ort of Milwaukee, 1994 Annual Report (Milwaukee, Wis., 1995), p. 2. 12Port of Green Bay, 1995 Annual Report (Green Bay, Wis., March 20, 1996), p. 1. 13Telephone interview by Baker with Fisher, November 14, 1995. 15Telephone interview by Baker with Lambert, March 5, 1996. 16Telephone interview by Baker with Fisher, November 14, 1995. 264 17Wisconsin Statutes, Department of Transportation, 85.095(2)(a), (1993-94). 181bid., (2)(b ). 191bid., ( 1 )(a). 20Wisconsin Register, no. 350, ch. 28, p. 39, sec. 28.05, sec. 2, a, b, c, and d (February 1985). 21 Wisconsin Department of Transportation, "Harbor Assistance Project Status Report," Madison, Wis., August 1995 (internal document). 22 Telephone interview by Baker with Fisher, November 14, 1995. 23 Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Trans links 21, p. 84. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 265