Portfields Interagency Initiative: Phase I€¦ · waterfront revitalization, and it may serve as a catalyst for revitalization in the broader com-munity. Cleanup can reduce health

Portfields InteragencyInitiative: Phase IFall 2003

A PUBLICATION OF ICMA’S BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM AND THE FEDERAL BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP

Portfields InteragencyInitiative: Phase IFall 2003

A PUBLICATION OF ICMA’S BROWNFIELDSPROGRAM AND THE FEDERAL BROWNFIELDSPARTNERSHIP

The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) is the professionaland educational association of more than 8,000 appointed executive administratorsserving local governments. Members manage cities, counties, towns, townships, bor-oughs, regional councils, and other local governments in the United States andthroughout the world with populations ranging from a few thousand to several mil-lion people.

Founded in 1914, ICMA pursues the mission of enhancing the quality of localgovernment through professional management. Its members turn to ICMA for infor-mation, research, and technical assistance on many issues of special interest. ICMA’smanagement assistance includes a wide range of publications, training programs,research, information, and training services.

ICMA’s Research and Development Department seeks to enhance the quality oflocal government management through information sharing, technical assistance,research, and partnership building among concerned stakeholders. The Research andDevelopment Department has been studying the role that local government can playin a variety of brownfields issues.

Other ICMA publications on the topics of brownfields and redevelopment include:

Across Local Borders

All Aboard for Revitalization: How Local Governments Can Restore America’sHistoric Train Stations

Beyond City Limits: Best Practices from ICMA’s 1998 Brownfield Peer Exchanges

Beyond Fences: Brownfields and the Challenges of Land Use Controls

Brownfields and Utility Sites: A Primer for Local Governments

Brownfields Blueprints: A Study of the Showcase Communities Initiative

Brownfields Redevelopment: A Guidebook for Local Governments and Communities—Second Edition

Coordinating Brownfields Redevelopment and Local Housing Initiatives

Building New Markets: Best Practices from ICMA’s 1999 Brownfield Peer Exchanges

Getting the Job Done: Strategies and Lessons Learned in Facilitating Brownfields Job Training

Growing Greener: Revitalizing Brownfields into Greenspace

About ICMA

ICMA Base Reuse Handbook: A Guide for Local Governments, Second Edition

Measuring Success in Brownfields Redevelopment Programs

Navigating the Waters: Coordination of Waterfront Brownfields Redevelopment

Old Tools and New Measures: Local Government Coordination of BrownfieldsRedevelopment for Historic and Cultural Reuses

Partners in Planning: Strategies from the 2001 Brownfields Peer Exchange

Putting the Pieces Together: Local Government Coordination of BrownfieldRedevelopment

Righting the Wrong: A Model Plan for Environmental Justice in BrownfieldsRedevelopment

Small Spaces, Special Places: Coordination of Rural Brownfields Redevelopment

Snapshots: A Preliminary Report on the 1998 Brownfields Showcase Communities

For more information the ICMA Brownfields Program, please contact:Danielle Miller WagnerDirector, Brownfields ProgramInternational City/County Management Association777 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 500Washington, D.C. 20002-4201

04-126

This report was written by Kathryn Whiteman, project manager in ICMA’s BrownfieldsProgram. The author would like to thank Danielle Miller Wagner, BrownfieldsProgram Director, for her valuable comments and suggestions, Riti Dhesi, for her helpin choosing and writing text boxes, and Amy Merten of NOAA for her coordinationefforts and helpful advice.

Particular thanks go to the Portfields Interagency Working Group, whose membersconducted interviews, gathered information, drafted port fact sheets, and gave valu-able feedback on the report draft.

Working Group members include:

Amy Merten, NOAA

David Holst, NOAA

Kenneth Walker, NOAA

Rosemarie McKeeby, NOAA

Joshua Sterns, NOAA

Matt Borgia, NOAA

Kara Shuster, NOAA

Tom Culliton, NOAA

Thanks also go to the local government and port officials who were interviewedand contributed greatly to this report, and extra thanks to the Ports of Houston andNew Bedford for supplying photographs that appear in the report.

Port and Local Government Officials interviewed include:

John Simpson and Rob Neely, Port of New Bedford

Evans Paul and Judy London, Baltimore Economic Development Corporation

Laura Fiffick, Port of Houston

John Thorington, Ram Kancharla, David Parsche, Miles Ballogg, Port of Tampa

Jim Mettler, Port of Toledo

Roberta Schoenholz, Jim McGrath, and Diane Heinze, Port of Oakland

Chris Foley, Port of Los Angeles

Christine Houston, Port of Long Beach

Special thanks are given to Dawn Leland and Will Kemp of the ICMA Publishingand Data Services Department for their assistance with the layout of the publicationand also to Barbara de Boinville for her thoughtful editing.

Paula Souik, NOAA

Kathleen Bailey, EPA

Lakisha Odom, EPA

Dennis Alvord, EDA

Jane Mergler, USACE

Richard Corely, MARAD

Randy Parker, DOL

Maryn Olson, DOJ

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1 Revitalizing America’s Ports: A New Interagency Initiative 1

Brief History of the Initiative 1

Phases of the Initiative 2

Goals of the Initiative 2

Benefits of Redeveloping Portfields 2

Stakeholders in Portfields Redevelopment 3

Portfields Issues 5

Conclusion 8

Chapter 2 Realizing the Benefits of Redevelopment: Portfields Projects Nationwide 9

Redevelopment Projects 9

Environmental Considerations 12

Conclusion 16

Chapter 3 Keeping Port Projects Afloat: Public and Private Resources 17

Local Government Resources 18

State Resources 19

Federal Resources 20

Nongovernmental Resources 22

Conclusion 28

Chapter 4 Summary and Recommendations 29

Benefits of Redeveloping Portfields 29

Goals of Portfields Redevelopment 29

Various Stakeholders in Portfields Redevelopment 30

Protecting the Environment 30

Recommendations 30

A Look Ahead 31

Table of Contents

Appendix Port Fact Sheets 33

Port of Baltimore: Baltimore, Maryland 33

Port of Houston: Houston, Texas 35

Port of Long Beach: Long Beach, California 37

Port of Los Angeles: San Pedro, California 39

New Bedford Harbor: New Bedford/Fairhaven, Massachusetts 41

Port of Oakland: Oakland, California 44

Port of Tampa: Tampa, Florida 47

Port of Toledo: Toledo, Ohio 50

The Portfields Initiative, a federal interagency project,focuses on the redevelopment of brownfields in andaround ports, harbors, and marine transportation hubs,with an emphasis on development of environmentallysound port facilities. Brownfields are real propertieswhere the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may becomplicated by the presence or potential presence of ahazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Manyof the estimated 500,000 brownfields nationwide areadjacent to waterways.

Portfields are brownfields in and around ports, harbors,and marine transportation hubs.

By 2020, international maritime trade is expected to double. This boom will exertpressure on coastal areas, which are already highly developed. Redeveloping brown-fields in port areas (“portfields”), where available land is often limited, can facilitatemarine transportation while providing environmental, economic, and social benefits tothe surrounding communities and regions. To accommodate the expected increases inmaritime trade, ports nationwide are addressing the problem of their aging infrastruc-ture. In addition, because of their strategic significance as gateways into the country,ports are combining infrastructure improvement projects with enhancements to theirsecurity systems.

Brief History of the InitiativeThe Brownfields National Partnership, including more than twenty federal govern-ment agencies, was created in 1996 and bolstered with passage by Congress of theSmall Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002. Inresponse to the new law, the federal partners renewed their commitment to worktogether in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reusebrownfields. The result is the Brownfields National Partnership Action Agenda. An

C H A P T E R 1

Revitalizing America’s Ports: A New Interagency Initiative

important commitment on that agenda is thePortfields Interagency Initiative led by theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). In October 2002, NOAA convened aninteragency meeting. Eight federal agencies—theEnvironmental Protection Agency, the EconomicDevelopment Administration, the U.S. MaritimeAdministration, the Army Corps of Engineers, thedepartments of Labor, Interior, Housing andUrban Development, and Justice—and the U.S.Navy, committed to working with NOAA on theinitiative. Each partner brings its own specializedexpertise to the table and contributes to the over-all goal of revitalizing port communities.

Phases of the InitiativeThe Portfields Interagency Initiative is organizedin three phases. This report explains the initiativeand information gathered during Phase I.

Phase I: To identify practices and strategies usedby ports that have successfully redevelopedbrownfields for port activities, representatives ofvarious federal agencies interviewed port authori-ties and other stakeholders in the summer of2003. The ports selected for Phase I interviewswere the port of Baltimore, Maryland; the port ofHouston, Texas; the ports of Long Beach, LosAngeles, and Oakland in California; New BedfordHarbor, Massachusetts; the port of Tampa,Florida; and the port of Toledo, Ohio. Informationgathered from these interviews is presented inthis report.

Phase II: In the summer of 2003, the portfieldsworking group also interviewed representatives ofthe port authorities and other public and privatestakeholders interested in redeveloping portfieldsto improve their capacity and efficiency, supportwaterborne commerce, improve environmentalconditions, and benefit the economy. This infor-mation will be used to determine what assistanceport communities need and want in their redevel-opment efforts so that the federal agencies maybetter serve them.

Phase III: The Portfields Interagency Initiative isplanning to implement pilot programs in three

port communities in fiscal year 2004. Federalpartners will work with port authorities and otherstakeholders during this phase to plan and imple-ment cleanup and reuse of portfields. Pilot pro-grams receiving assistance from the federalpartners will provide port communities, federalagencies, and other stakeholders useful informa-tion and strategies that can be used as models forother communities with similar issues.

Goals of the InitiativeThe Portfields Interagency Initiative hopes toimprove the delivery of partner agencies’ finan-cial and technical resources as well as to developan ongoing program for port community revital-ization. The primary goals of the initiative are asfollows:

• Expedite portfields redevelopment while balanc-ing environmental, social, and economic con-cerns, such as job creation

• Improve coordination among federal, state, andlocal partners with interests in redevelopingand revitalizing portfields

• Improve delivery of federal agency productsand services to portfields

• Identify tools, techniques, and informationneeds to improve decision making at portfieldssites

• Communicate lessons learned from thePortfields Interagency Initiative to other portcommunities.

Benefits of RedevelopingPortfieldsRedevelopment of portfields produces numerousenvironmental, social, and economic benefits.Many former industrial sites sitting idle in portareas are contaminated. By returning this land topublic use, communities remove dangerousstructures and stop or stabilize contamination inor near waterways. This also can restore naturalfunctions to watersheds, wetlands, woodlands,and habitat by improving surface-water andgroundwater quality, and by improving storm-water management systems. Redevelopment of

2 Portfields Interagency Initiative: Phase I

portfields presents valuable opportunities forwaterfront revitalization, and it may serve as a catalyst for revitalization in the broader com-munity. Cleanup can reduce health risks fornearby communities, remove eyesores, and even help to improve air quality. Redevelopmentand smart reuse of portfields, like other brown-fields sites, have far-reaching environmental,social, and economic benefits in the surroundingarea.

Reuse of portfields sites can provide jobs,goods, and services to the region and helpincrease the community’s access to, and pride in,its waterfront. By redeveloping portfields, com-munities can expand their port facilities and portactivities. This frees space for other uses ormakes it possible to separate commercial andindustrial uses of ports from tourism and recre-ational uses (for example, cruise ships and touristuses can be separated from the fishing fleet andfreight). In addition, redevelopment creates moreavailable property for sale or lease. Several portshave found that leasing redeveloped propertyprovides a constant revenue stream.

Stakeholders in PortfieldsRedevelopmentMany different stakeholders have a vested inter-est in the redevelopment and revitalization ofportfields. They include port authorities; localgovernments; community members; nonprofits,nongovernmental organizations, and educationalfacilities; state and federal agencies; and privatesector developers, lenders, and port users.Working together, these stakeholders can achievemuch better results than each could accomplishalone.

Port Authorities

In many waterfront communities, the portauthority is an autonomous government entity,authorized by the state and governed by a boardof appointed commissioners. The responsibilitiesof port authorities, which differ from port to port,include planning and development of port areas,issuing permits, leasing land to port users, boatrescue and recovery, pollution control, stormwa-

ter management, environmental stewardship,safety inspections, fire and safety protection,criminal investigation and law enforcement, andprovision of various port-related services. Someor all of these responsibilities may be shared withthe local government or state and federal agen-cies, but the Port Authority is always a majorstakeholder in port redevelopment projects.

Revitalizing America’s Ports: A New Interagency Initiative 3

Economic Impact of Selected Ports

By providing jobs and generating business,ports can have a huge impact on the local

and regional economy, as the following statisticsreported by five of the Phase I ports show.

Houston: The port of Houston employs 450 staffplus 100–300 casual day laborers. Port activitygenerates 75,487 direct jobs and 129,033 indi-rect jobs. Businesses providing services at thepublic and private marine terminals on theChannel generate $7.7 billion annually.Approximately 194 million tons of cargo movedthrough the port of Houston in 2001.

Long Beach: Trade through the port of LongBeach generates 320,000 jobs, 30,000 in LongBeach alone (one in twenty-two regional jobs ina five-county region in Southern California andone in eight local jobs). The value of cargothrough the port was $88.8 billion in 2002.

Los Angeles: The port of Los Angeles directlyand indirectly generates employment for approx-imately 260,000 people in Southern California,and it accounts for $1 out of every $23 in localincome. The port handles 123 million metric tonsof cargo representing some $102 billion.

New Bedford: Harbor-related businesses in NewBedford account for $671 million in sales and3,700 jobs in the local area. Of that, the seafoodindustry alone accounts for $609 million in salesand 2,600 local jobs.

Tampa: The port of Tampa provides over107,000 jobs in the Tampa Bay Region and paysworkers $3.74 billion in wages and salaries. Thetotal annual economic impact on the local econ-omy is $13 billion. Impacted area businesses andworkers paid an estimated $380 million in stateand local taxes. The port handled 47 million tonsof cargo and over a half million cruise passengersin 2002.

Local Governments

The role of local government officials in portredevelopment projects varies. Some local gov-ernments coordinate stakeholder and communityparticipation, assess infrastructure needs, andidentify and market waterfront brownfields. In addition, local planning departments maydevelop plans for the use of port and waterfrontproperties. Sometimes, local government officialsand port authority officials share responsibilitiesfor port development. Local governments aremore likely to be involved if the port area is anintegrated part of the city. At one end of thespectrum is the port of Houston. The city ofHouston is several miles from the port, and thelocal government’s participation in port affairs islimited. At the other end of the spectrum is theNew Bedford Harbor. This port is managed by thecity of New Bedford and the town of Fairhaven.The portion of the port that falls withinFairhaven’s boundaries is managed by theFairhaven Harbormaster and Town Department ofWaterways Resources. In addition, the TownPlanning and Economic Development Departmentand Board of Selectmen will be responsible forimplementation of the New Bedford Harbor Planin Fairhaven.

Community Members

Community members have a good deal at stakein the port redevelopment process. Port expan-

sion and redevelopment activities can positivelyaffect their lives and livelihoods. Communitymembers also have an interest in changes inpublic access to port facilities and waterways.Local governments have a responsibility to edu-cate residents about portfields and to includethem in planning for redevelopment. Reuses ofports can be tailored to the particular interests ofcommunity groups. In culturally significant areas,local cultural and historic organizations can helpto ensure that the character and heritage of theport area is not lost during redevelopment andthat historic buildings and structures are pre-served. Similarly, local fishing and boating organ-izations can help to ensure that the port area isaccessible and friendly to recreational users.

Nonprofits, NongovernmentalOrganizations, and Educational Facilities

Nonprofit organizations can have an importantrole to play in port revitalization efforts. Forexample, environmental and land use organiza-tions, as well as educational institutions, partici-pate in land use decision making and can lendneeded expertise, technical assistance, and infor-mation resources to projects. NongovernmentalOrganizations (NGOs) can often provide qualitytechnical assistance with environmental assess-ments, grant writing, and project management.Universities also make excellent partners becausetheir faculty and students are often familiar withlocal community issues and have a great deal ofdata and expertise available to them. CommunityDevelopment Corporations can provide demo-graphic and economic data, community profiles,and services of benefit in port redevelopment.


Toledo Port Authority as Landowner

In Toledo, Ohio, the port authority is themajor landholder along the riverfront and

leases land to private users. As a result, it oftenleads the planning and redevelopment processand coordinates the other stakeholders in portredevelopment. The port has the authority toissue bonds to raise funds for redevelopmentprojects. By maintaining ownership of the prop-erty and leasing it to occupants instead of sellingit, the port authority receives a constant revenuestream that not only pays off their debt but canfund new projects. The port authority has aninterest in the growth and success of the enter-prises leasing its land because the lease amountsare based on a percentage of gross earnings.

Partnering with Nonprofits in Oakland

The port of Oakland partnered with a localnonprofit organization, the Youth Employ-

ment Program, to demolish several warehousesformerly owned by the U.S. Navy. Together theytrained young, low-income adults to deconstructthe warehouses and salvage recyclable materials.The participants acquired valuable job experienceand skills in construction and salvage. The pro-gram salvaged more than 2,000 tons of timbers,doors, windows and other materials.

State Government Agencies

State government agencies can provide necessaryresources and technical assistance in port devel-opment efforts and help solicit funding from fed-eral agencies. States also disseminate federalfunds to local governments to further federal pro-gram goals and objectives. Many state environ-mental agencies run Voluntary Cleanup Programs(VCPs) for brownfields that would apply to port-fields. Other state programs can help facilitateredevelopment efforts as well. For example, theport of Houston participates in the Texas StateAccelerated Review Program under which thestate will review site assessment and closurereports within forty-five days for a set fee. Statefish and wildlife and environmental agencies arealso often involved in port issues and statecoastal zone management offices work to ensurethat natural resource and environmental qualityconsiderations are taken into account in portdevelopment.

Federal Government Agencies

As noted earlier, the Brownfields NationalPartnership program involves more than twentyfederal agencies. These partners promote brown-fields redevelopment, land preservation, habitatrestoration, and community revitalization throughprograms and funding that are available to localgovernments and communities. These programsplay an important part in redeveloping brown-fields in port areas. Agencies actively involved infinancing brownfields cleanup and redevelopmentinclude the Environmental Protection Agency, theDepartment of Housing and Urban Development,the Department of the Interior, and theDepartment of Transportation. The NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration and theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers often take leader-ship roles in coastal development issues. Forports instituting enhanced homeland securitymeasures and dealing with foreign imports andexports, the Department of Homeland Security,the Coast Guard, and the Custom Service may beinvolved.

The Private Sector

Investments of capital move projects forward.Private developers, lenders, and investors areoften the catalysts for brownfields cleanup andredevelopment. When a lender or developer iswilling to put its name and money behind abrownfields project, other investors may be con-vinced of the project’s economic viability and fol-low suit with funding. Alternatively, once privatesector investors can see that the port, the localgovernment, and state and federal agencies aresupporting redevelopment efforts, they may bemore willing to get behind them. In port revital-ization projects, the private sector may becomeinvolved in shipping and trucking projects whenthey see that a port is being renovated toincrease the flow of goods, or they may becomeinterested in commercial, recreational, and enter-tainment projects that will bring more visitors tothe waterfront. Whether leading or following, theprivate sector plays an important role in redevel-oping waterfront properties.

Portfields IssuesPortfields redevelopment has issues that distin-guish it from traditional brownfields redevelop-ment. As this section will explain, these issuesare related to port management, the environment,development, transport/commerce, homelandsecurity, and stakeholder coordination. Linkingand balancing competing interests within a singleport can be a tricky proposition for port authori-ties and other stakeholders in portfields redevel-opment. Many ports are eager to expand portfacilities, yet they want to minimize any adverseimpact of development on the environment. Aport’s ability to balance these and other concerns,can determine the success of its revitalizationefforts and the relationships between the stake-holders involved. No matter what the challengesare, stakeholders must develop a set of strategiesto face them. Specific challenges confronting theports involved in Phase I of the PortfieldsInteragency Initiative and successful strategiesthey have developed will be discussed throughoutthis report.


Port Management Issues

With projections for increased port commerce inthe coming years, ports must plan for expansionof commercial port areas. Many ports support awide variety of uses. For example, they may beused for freight, fishing, cruise ship docking,industry, public access, and non-water-dependentactivities. Therefore, port managers must findways to integrate and accommodate multipleuses. Portfields redevelopment can ensure thatidle properties are used first, before wetlands,neighborhoods, or other existing uses are affectedby expansion into areas that currently are notpart of the port. In addition to managing multipleuses, ports are dealing with aging infrastructurethat must be repaired or replaced. Some portshave found that replacing old, rotting, woodenpiers with fill has helped them to reduce oil spills,fires, and rodent problems. Redevelopment proj-ects present port managers with an opportunityto make some of these improvements in the con-text of the project, but old, working areas of theport must be maintained and upgraded as well.

Environmental Issues

Years of heavy industrial usage and the transportof hazardous materials have caused environmen-tal contamination problems at many ports. Thereare often an abundance of contaminated sitesalong the waterfront, as well as contaminatedsediments in the channels. Redevelopment ofthese ports has led to numerous environmentalbenefits such as remediation of sludge pits,removal of PCBs and underground storage tanks,and dredging of contaminated sediments, toname just a few. Pressured to deepen their chan-

nels to accommodate ever-larger vessels, portsare struggling more than ever to balance environ-mental and economic priorities. Because of theheavy industry traditionally found in port areas,and because of emissions from idling ships,numerous ports are in ozone non-attainmentareas. As a result, ports are developingapproaches to reduce emissions within theirboundaries and working with nearby communi-ties to do the same. Historic wetland loss andecosystem disturbance are other problems, sincemany ports are located on filled wetlands. Portmanagers today are looking at environmentalissues beyond their own facilities and respondingwith wetland and shallow water habitat creation,stormwater management, and overall watershedmanagement strategies to improve the water andcoastal ecosystem functions. Some ports are alsoin the process of developing and implementingenvironmental management systems to addressexisting problems and prevent new ones.

Development Issues

Port redevelopment is not easily accomplished.For portfields projects, like other brownfields proj-ects, it is often difficult to find sufficient fundingto cover the assessment and cleanup required toready sites for development. For example, at theport of Baltimore, investment to develop a largebrownfields site was lower and cleanup costswere higher than anticipated by stakeholders inthis redevelopment effort. The lack of privateinvestment delayed completion of the project. Atthe port of Baltimore and at ports nationwide,port officials must take care that the redevelop-ment projects brought in will be sustainable in


Historic Preservation at the Port of Long Beach

The port of Long Beach encountered historicalpreservation issues during the redevelopment

of a closed naval complex. It came to the port’sattention that some of the buildings at the formernaval station were designed by Paul Williams, thefirst African American licensed architect. The com-munity strongly opposed the proposed demolitionof the structures designed by Williams. A completehistoric and archaeological survey of the base, con-

ducted by the port, indicated that the originalRoosevelt Base could qualify as a historic district. Incoordination with the U.S. Navy, the AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation, the state ofCalifornia Historic Preservation Office, and localinterested parties, the port of Long Beach agreed topay $4.5 million for preservation measures, whichincluded documentation of historic buildings andestablishment of the Long Beach Heritage Fund.

the long term to avoid creating new brownfieldsin the future. Often a major employer in water-front communities, ports must try to providequality jobs for local citizens.

Transport/Commerce Issues

With projections of increased demands on mar-itime trade, ports are exploring ways to handlehigher volumes of cargo. One of these strategiesis the development on brownfields of multimodal

facilities that speed the transfer of cargo betweenship, rail, truck, and air transport. Many portsalso are dredging their channels to provide accessto larger vessels with deeper drafts. Others areredesigning roadways and overpasses along thewaterfront to facilitate access to the seaports.Many ports have found that brownfields are ideallocations for expanding their facilities to accom-modate more cargo traffic. American andCanadian ports on the Great Lakes and connected


Stakeholder Involvement in Portfields Redevelopment

Successful portfields redevelopment requiresthe active participation of stakeholders in

every stage of the planning process. Workingtogether, stakeholders can develop the vision for sitereuse, prioritize resources, and even contribute tolong-term maintenance of redeveloped sites.Through early and active involvement in planning,port authority and local government officials, federaland state government agencies, community groups,developers, lenders, and others in the private sectortake ownership of the project and have a vestedinterest in seeing it through to completion.

The Phase I ports have learned several valuablelessons based on their experience implementingredevelopment projects. The first lesson is to take aholistic rather than project-by-project approach toportfields redevelopment. Another important les-son is to establish clear goals for reuse. The leadagency should educate other groups about thesegoals and seek joint solutions to difficult issues. Anattempt should be made early on to get supportfrom community residents for the redevelopmentproject and to build trust between the variousstakeholders.

Multiple-Site Projects

Revitalization efforts at most ports involved multiplerather than single sites. Because many of the samestakeholders are involved in each project, good com-munication is particularly important. Some commu-nities create advisory councils that meet on a regularbasis to discuss current and future projects. Othercommunities prefer a more informal approach andestablish a single point of contact in each stake-holder group as the “go-to” person for that entity.An established and ongoing method of communica-tion between stakeholders facilitates the redevelop-ment process at each step. It can also reducequestions about who is responsible for what andwhich approvals are required. If stakeholders are

involved in planning from the beginning, unpleasantsurprises later on often can be avoided.

Coordination in Toledo

The Port Authority of Toledo has exemplified a col-laborative approach to redevelopment. It formedand maintained strong partnerships among thenumerous stakeholders in its ongoing revitalization.Representatives of the city, county, and port meetonce a month to discuss all of the projects withwhich they are involved.

In addition, a brownfields working group com-posed of the city, county, and port representatives,regional growth partnership representatives, environ-mental consultants, and other stakeholders meetsperiodically to discuss available grants, projects, andstrategies. From the beginning of a brownfields proj-ect, they work together. By coordinating theirefforts, basic problems such as which group shouldsubmit which grant application, are resolved.Stakeholders also combine resources to completeprojects more quickly. The community has gained apositive reputation with funders because it is knownas a good place to invest brownfields funds. Thecoordination and community support help guaran-tee that projects will get done and the money willnot be wasted. Having several partners makes proj-ects much less overwhelming because no oneagency or organization is carrying all of the weight.

Finally, Toledo has formed a legislative consor-tium that meets once a month. This group includesrepresentatives from the city, county, port, chamberof commerce, university, community college, andregional growth partnership. They joined together todevelop priorities for the region, and then the con-sortium hired a lobbying firm to pursue its agendafull time at the state and federal levels. These coordi-nation efforts keep a wide variety of stakeholders upto date with growth, development, and redevelop-ment taking place in the region.

rivers are working together to encourage expan-sion of the St. Lawrence Seaway to accommodatelarger ocean-faring ships. This would enable theships to bring their cargo farther inland.

Homeland Security Issues

Since September 11, 2001, homeland securityhas become a high priority in the United States.As strategic gateways into the country, ports arerevamping and strengthening their security sys-tems in accord with new federal regulations.Many are taking advantage of portfields redevel-opment projects to implement new security meas-ures. Ports are attempting to become more securein a variety of ways. For example, they are usingbetter lighting, implementing new surveillancemeasures, conducting random checks on cargo,utilizing x-ray scanners, and tightening access toport facilities. Some ports are also requiring clear-ance and background checks for those who entercertain areas of the port.

Stakeholder Coordination Issues

Port authorities, local government officials, com-munity residents, state and federal agencies,members of nonprofits and nongovernmental

organizations, developers, lenders, and port usersare among the many stakeholders in the redevel-opment of portfields. Ports across the country arediscovering the challenge of bringing stakehold-ers to the table, sorting out their priorities andassumptions, and coordinating their efforts. Portsthat have had successful redevelopment projectshave usually had extensive upfront planninginvolving all stakeholders. As a result, buy-infrom the community has been greater and resist-ance to plans less.

ConclusionThe history, phases, goals, and federal partnersin the Portfields Interagency Initiative begun in2002 have been explained. The benefits ofredeveloping portfields and the wide array ofstakeholders in the process also have been dis-cussed. Regardless of location, ports share con-cerns related to management, the environment,development, transport/commerce, homelandsecurity, and stakeholder coordination. The pre-ceding survey of these issues leads to a closerlook, in the next chapter, at specific port projectsnationwide.


Redevelopment ProjectsBecause of historic patterns of industrial development,many brownfields exist along the nation’s waterwaysand coastal areas. Communities nationwide areattempting to revitalize these portfields without sacri-ficing natural coastal areas and other greenspace. Oneof the benefits of redeveloping existing port facilities isthat it reduces the need for ports to expand into sensi-tive, unused areas.

Portfields revitalization and redevelopment projectsvary widely from community to community, but thegoals that drive them are surprisingly similar every-where. Increasing port commerce while minimizing the

environmental impact of redevelopment seems to be the most important goal of portstoday, followed closely by economic development, job creation, environmentalcleanup and restoration of land and water, and improved transportation systems.Many ports also cite the importance of improving harbor access and access to existingport facilities. Depending on its main business or industry, a port’s more specific goalsmay include increasing tourism, revitalizing fishing and seafood industries, attractingcommercial development, expanding distribution capabilities, and encouraging “greendevelopment.”

This chapter describes the various types of projects and environmental considera-tions of Phase I ports in the Portfields Interagency Initiative. Recent projects at thePhase I ports can be divided into the following categories: port-related industrial proj-ects; transportation projects; recreational, environmental, and nonport commercialprojects; residential projects; and security-related projects. Many of the projects atPhase I ports fall into more than one of these categories.

Port-related Industrial Projects

Since many working waterfronts are largely industrial areas, it is no surprise thatredevelopment projects often maintain traditional industrial uses. Some Phase I portshave redeveloped their portfields into industrial parks, with uses such as stone cuttingand construction businesses or other manufacturers, others have encouraged maritime

C H A P T E R 2

Realizing the Benefits of Redevelopment:

Portfields Projects Nationwide

and related businesses or other water-dependentuses specific to a port. Examples of port-specificprojects of Phase I ports include expanding con-tainer terminals; improving cargo storage andtransfer areas; extending wharf and berthingareas for fishing, cargo, excursion, charter, andcruise vessels; developing freight ferry terminals;and building bilge recycling facilities. Maritimeindustrial projects include development of ship-yards, maritime trade facilities, an industrial parkdedicated to seafood processing, and supportbusinesses for the seafood industry.

Transportation Projects

A large number of port revitalization projectsimprove transportation systems, particularly themovement of cargo through the port and themovement of goods to their destinations.Communities are designing and constructingroads, railways, overpasses, and bridges to maketruck and/or rail access to the port more efficient.Providing unencumbered access has helped sev-eral Phase I ports to alleviate traffic problems,such as trucks idling at freight rail crossings. Theports of New Bedford, Oakland, and Long Beach


Green Building at the Ports of Toledo and Oakland

arena. The Green Building pilot assistance will beused to aid in planning for stormwater managementand other sustainable building practices.

The port of Oakland is also venturing into greenbuilding. It intends to design and construct a newairport passenger terminal and associated parkingarea as a green building, certified by the nationallyrecognized Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED) Green Building Rating System. Portstaff have worked closely with the architect through-out the design process to incorporate green buildingfeatures. In addition, the rapid transit system is con-structing an extension with a stop at the new airportparking garage. Transit engineers estimate that theconnector, which takes passengers to the airport,will significantly lower air emissions by replacing 52million vehicle miles driven annually.

The site of a former coal-fired power plantwith two large fly-ash pits along the riverfront

in Toledo has been named as a pilot community forthe Green Building on Brownfields initiative of theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Each pilotreceives expert consultant assistance (valued at up to$15,000) in the form of technical, financial, plan-ning, outreach, and/or design expertise. The portauthority is redeveloping one half of the property,and the city of Toledo the other half. The powercompany that formerly occupied the site is also apartner. It donated the land and $4.2 million forremediation. The plan is to remediate the site andclear all but the old power plant building—a large,attractive, red brick structure that will be renovatedand reused. The site will likely be developed into aresidential/entertainment district including a sports

Preserving New Bedford Harbor’s Maritime Character

New Bedford, Massachusetts, was a center forwhaling and later for commercial fishing. Its

active fishing fleet and large seafood processingindustry have earned New Bedford the title “SeafoodCapital of the Northeast.” To maintain its maritimecharacter, the port is developing maritime andseafood industries and related businesses. For exam-ple, it is developing an entire industrial park dedi-cated to seafood processing. The city has also usednautical, fishing, and whaling themes in the restora-tion and reuse of historic areas and to promotetourism. An excellent example of this commitmentto preserve local history is the New Bedford Whaling

National Historical Park, created in 1996. The park,which includes historic buildings and ships, museumcollections, a visitors’ center, and archives commem-orates the whaling port heritage of New Bedford.

are taking advantage of large brownfields andnearby rail lines to develop or improve intermodaltransportation.

Port transportation projects are connecting, invarious combinations, freight and commuter railservices, commercial and passenger marine trans-portation systems, and truck, bus, and air trans-portation. Some projects focus on rail transferfacilities or warehousing. In areas that no longerhave active rail lines, the major task is to removeand redevelop old rail yards. Some ports have thegoal of expanding their distribution capabilities.To help achieve this goal some ports are develop-ing “just-in-time” facilities. These facilities manu-facture or store manufacturing components that

can be shipped where they are needed when theyare needed. The necessary units are produced inthe necessary quantities at the necessary time,thus reducing overproduction, unneeded inven-tory, and transport and waiting time. Finally,many Phase I ports are embarking on dredgingprojects to maintain and deepen navigation chan-nels, turning basins, and berthing areas and toremove contaminated sediment.

Recreational, Environmental, and NonportCommercial Projects

Communities may see their ports, not just ascommercial areas, but as destinations for localresidents and tourists to relax and enjoy the

Realizing the Benefits of Redevelopment: Portfields Projects Nationwide 11

Harbor and Channel Dredging

grading projects, the port isolated contaminatedsediment dredged from the former naval complexand used the sediment over thirty acres to expand acontainer cargo facility. The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency gave the port of Long Beach anaward for innovative sediment reuse.

Oakland: To deepen its channel to the target depthof forty-two feet, the port of Oakland in the mid-1990s excavated a large amount of sediment. Mostof the dredged material was not contaminated, andabout half of it was used to construct a 320-acre

tidal wetland in Sonoma Countycalled the Sonoma Baylands. About700,000 cubic yards of contami-nated material was used to cap anold landfill that had never beenproperly closed. A new golf courserecently opened on top of thatlandfill.

Houston: Redfish Island was afavorite anchorage for boaters until

it subsided. When the ship channel was deepenedfrom forty feet to forty-five feet, the Port of HoustonAuthority (PHA) used the dredged material from thechannel bottom to rebuild the island. Today it isagain a favorite boating destination as well as a birdhabitat and rookery. Work on the island also has re-established it as an oyster reef. In this same project,PHA will used dredged material to expand marsh-land in Galveston Bay by up to 4,250 acres, protect-ing marine life and providing bird watching andfishing opportunities.

Toledo: Toledo Harbor requires more dredg-ing than any other location in the Great Lakes.

In fact, 25 percent of all dredging in the Great Lakestakes place in the Toledo Harbor. The sediment isvery fine silt, resulting in dredge material that is adifficult-to-manage consistency. The dredge materialis so fine, and there is so much of it, that it is hardto find a place to dump it or to find uses for it. TheS&L Fertilizer Company mixes the dredge sedimentwith municipal biosolids (solids removed from waste-water) to make “New Soil,” a Grade-B topsoil.(Grade B is not for use in residen-tial areas.) Despite this use, there isstill an overabundance of dredgematerial from Toledo Harbor.

New Bedford: New BedfordHarbor is in the midst of aSuperfund cleanup necessitated byyears of dumping of polychlori-nated biphenyls (PCBs) into theharbor. The cleanup will take manyyears. Dredging of approximately450,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment isexpected. Dredging to maintain channels and berthswill also be taking place, and use of clean sedimentfor fill will eventually result in the creation of moreland for marine industrial use within the harbor plan-ning area.

Long Beach: The port of Long Beach developed aninnovative approach to the disposal of contaminatedsediment: it buried contaminated soil and sedimentsbeneath a concrete cap. As part of its fill and major

waterfront. To this end, areas in and around portsare being used for public parks, greenways, riverwalks, bike trails, and marinas, and for betterpublic access to the waterfront. Former industrialsites are being redeveloped into stadiums, sportsarenas, restaurants, festival marketplaces, andentertainment districts. Historic structures arebeing incorporated into visitors’ centers.Environmental restoration projects are enhancingthe public’s access to the shoreline. Historic ships,charter boats, and cruise ships docked in the har-bor enhance many ports’ appeal. Working portsalso have tourist attractions. At these ports, cre-ative solutions, such as pedestrian promenadesfor visitors to view and bypass the port withoutimpeding commercial operations, are accommo-dating varied uses. Old industrial sites are some-times used for large corporate offices or fordestination attractions such as museums oraquariums with educational displays, researchand education space, offices and meeting rooms,

retail and concession areas, and other relatedcommercial uses.

Residential Projects

Some communities have large waterfront sitesthat are not needed for port-related uses. Thesesites make very desirable locations for housing.Water-view condominiums may be placed onsuch a property. If the site is very large, single-family homes, townhouses, or mixed-use devel-opments may be suitable. For example, Toledo’sport authority is transforming an old industrialfacility into a mixed-use development with anentertainment district, waterfront housing, and amarina.

Homeland Security Projects

Security improvements are being made at portfacilities around the country. Several of the PhaseI ports are instituting new security measures tohelp identify suspicious activities. The ports of


Cleanup and Redevelopment at the Port of Long Beach

When the naval complex (including a naval sta-tion, supply depot and shipyard) at the port of

Long Beach was closed in the early 1990s, it wasturned over to the Long Beach Harbor Department forcivilian port use. Prior to transferring the complex tothe port, however, the U.S. Navy was required to cleanup areas of contamination. It identified a number ofareas requiring remedial action, because of hazardousand radioactive materials, contaminated sediments,and soil and groundwater contamination. Necessaryremedial action also included removal of storage tanks.Recognizing the substantial time that it would take todemolish the existing facilities at the naval complex(over 200 buildings) and the time it would take toconstruct the large new container terminal that wasproposed, the port decided to proceed with designand construction of new port facilities concurrentlywith the navy’s environmental cleanup, and prior toidentification of the terminal tenant.

A BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) CleanupTeam (BCT) was established with representatives fromthe navy, EPA, California Department of Toxic Sub-stances Control, and the port. The result was a strongpartnership and coordinated activities. With the port’sdevelopment schedule, the navy could target key prop-erties for cleanup. Good communication with the navyand BCT was the key to the success of this project.

The port also worked with the CaliforniaRegional Water Quality Control Board on surface-water and groundwater issues, in particular, thecleanup of petroleum hydrocarbons. During theredevelopment, the port encountered an endan-gered species issue. A large colony of endangeredblack-crowned night herons was relocated from theformer naval station to a protected area in the port.Approximately fifty ficus and olive trees, a nestingarea for the herons, were moved. The port also cre-ated approximately twenty-two acres of shallow-water habitat as a foraging area for anotherendangered bird, the California least tern. Theseactions were taken in exchange for development ofthe former naval station. The port is monitoring thenew habitat in accordance with an agreement withthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. When grading orutility excavations uncovered localized soil andgroundwater contamination, the port enlisted itsown cleanup contractors to remediate the probleminstead of waiting for the navy to do furthercleanup. This process saved the navy money andkept the port’s redevelopment on schedule. ByOctober 2001, more than half of the naval complexwas cleaned to industrial standards and deemed suit-able for transfer to the city of Long Beach with deedrestrictions.

New Bedford and Long Beach are improving theirlighting and using surveillance video monitorsand perimeter cameras. Tampa is controllingaccess to the port by including new fences andinstalling gates with “smart card” recognitionsystem technology. Houston has eliminated pub-lic tours of port facilities during high securityalerts. The port of Oakland and other ports areincreasing security checks of incoming containersby using x-ray scanners or making randomchecks of cargo. To “tighten down” security,some ports plan to spend several million dollarson security infrastructure.

Environmental ConsiderationsPorts nationwide are being redeveloped for rea-sons related to industry, transportation, recre-ation, tourism, housing, and security. Thecatalyst for port redevelopment also can be envi-ronmental considerations. This section describesremediation of past contamination as well asenvironmental stewardship to ensure that portredevelopment does not create brownfields in thefuture.

Environmental Remediation

Because of their prior industrial uses, many port-fields are contaminated and will require environ-mental remediation before they can be reused.Time, expertise, and money should be allotted forthe site assessment and cleanup. In some casesthe hiring of consultants will be needed toaddress environmental issues. For some proper-ties, a responsible party, such as the companywhose factory contaminated the site, will con-tribute cleanup funds. On other properties, therewill not be a responsible party available.Companies that are no longer in business or arein bankruptcy proceedings may hold the title tothe portfields property. In this situation, theresponsible party cannot contribute to cleanupcosts. The port of Los Angeles found itself in thissituation when the Todd Shipyard ceased opera-tion, leaving 6,000 workers without jobs. Thesite was contaminated with a variety of haz-ardous substances, but the bankrupt companycould not provide cleanup funds, so the port took


Environmental Cleanup in Los Angeles

In 1990, the port of Los Angeles removedtwenty-two acres of contaminated land

jutting into the turning basin. This improved thetraffic flow of vessels and accommodated largervessels in the port. Chevron, which had beenusing the site as a bulk liquid terminal, decidedto terminate its lease. Before vacating the site,Chevron spent $30 million to remove pipelinesand storage tanks and to conduct thermal treat-ments and bioremediation. Contamination hadalso entered the groundwater, and a plume trav-eled off-site, so groundwater was remediated aswell. The port is still in litigation with Chevron torecover additional cleanup/in situ costs.

At about the same time that the Chevronproject was under way, Todd Shipyard, the occu-pant of an adjacent site, went bankrupt and ter-minated its lease. Six thousand jobs were lost.The property that the shipyard had occupied wascontaminated with asbestos, solvents, metals,and various petroleum hydrocarbons. The portpaid a private salvage company to sell off theabandoned shipyard shop and remediated theproperty with funds from the sale. Federal moneywas used only for dredging of contaminated sed-iments. The port has used Contained AquaticDisposal (CAD) sites for placement of contami-nated sediments from these projects and hotspots around the harbor. Between these twoprojects, eighty acres have been redeveloped tomeet the port’s container terminal needs and tostimulate economic development in that area.Uncontrolled releases of contaminants have beenreduced as well.

From its cleanup efforts, the port of LosAngeles has learned the following important lessons: Work with regulators to reach an agree-ment about leaving or containing an acceptablelevel of contamination on the site rather thantransporting the contaminated material as statehazardous waste. Spend the extra money inmonitoring and oversight. Develop close work-ing relationships with the appropriate federal,state, and local agencies as well as stakeholdersin the private and nonprofit sectors. Throughthe Chevron and Todd Shipyard projects, theport developed close working relationships withthe Regulatory Water Control Board, the countyof Los Angeles, Tetra Tech, Inc., the Army Corpsof Engineers and the local fire department. Italso created a community advisory committeeto build community support for mitigation projects.

action to clean up the site and redevelop it asquickly as possible.

On sites where there is a party responsible forthe environmental damage that can be identified,some ports have met resistance, especially if thecompany’s actions were legal at the time (that is,before current environmental regulations), or ifthe contamination occurred in the very distantpast. Responsible parties may also be concernedabout future liability issues. The port authority inToledo found that it achieved better results coop-erating with the responsible parties to achieve amutually beneficial outcome, rather than blamingthem or approaching them with a “punitive atti-tude.” Sometimes the port authority may help theliable party to get public funds to clean up thesite. In return, the site is sold or donated to theport authority to use for maritime trade. The portauthority agrees to own and lease the site insteadof selling it, and the port authority takes on anyfuture liability. As a result, if a future tenantbreaks through a cap, releasing contamination,the original responsible party is not liable foranother cleanup of the same site. Deed restric-tions and land use controls should be used when

contaminants are being contained on-site, how-ever, to avoid just such a situation.

Before cleanup of a site begins, it is prefer-able, although not always possible, to know theend use of the site. Several ports have found ithelpful to use multi-disciplinary teams for thecleanup (for example, groundwater contamina-tion specialists, remediation and geo-technicalexperts, and geologists). If this (on-staff or con-tracted) team works from the beginning with thearchitects and engineers designing the newdevelopment, the designs for the site can incorpo-rate cleanup, on-site retention/containment, and


Using Recycled Materials at the Port of Oakland

The port of Oakland has made a commitmentto reuse and recycle a variety of materials in

order to reduce the amount of debris it sends tolandfills. The Board of Port Commissioners adopted aresolution that requires reduction and recycling ofconstruction and demolition debris. Port contractorsmust reuse, recycle, and salvage at least 50 percentof construction and demolition debris generated byport projects. The port has salvaged and crushedmore than 1 million tons of concrete for reuse as

base rock in marine terminal construction. Millionsof cubic yards of dredge material have been used toraise the elevations of marine and rail terminals andto cap a landfill to prepare it for redevelopment as agolf course. At one project alone, 87 percent of thedebris was reused or recycled. All of the asphalt andconcrete were reused on-site, and other materialswere recycled. Another project salvaged more than2,000 tons of doors, windows, and other materialsmade from old growth redwood and Douglas fir.

Environmental Management at the Port of Houston

While developing its environmental manage-ment system (EMS), the Port of Houston

Authority asked port employees for suggestions onhow to reduce air emissions. One employee sug-gested using Purinox fuel in port machinery. Uponimplementation, use of this cleaner burning fuel hasreduced the port’s nitrous oxides (NOx) emissions

by 25 percent. Getting employees involved in find-ing creative solutions has boosted morale at the portand had a beneficial impact on the environment.Due to voluntary EMSs implemented at two facilities,the port of Houston became the first U.S. port toachieve compliance with ISO 14001, an internationalstandard for environmental management.


Maryland’s State Critical Area Program

The state of Maryland’s Critical Area Programhas several requirements affecting development

within 1,000 feet of the water’s edge on theChesapeake Bay and tidal tributaries. A naturalizedshore is required, and runoff must be reduced by 10 percent relative to the runoff level before develop-

ment. There are some exceptions for port areas. Forexample, with a port end use, a naturalized shore isimpossible. While allowed to proceed with develop-ment in some cases, port developers must pay a largefine or sometimes construct new wetlands elsewhereinstead.

building. This coordination can result in creativeand efficient plans. Completely clearing a site andremoving all contamination to make it ready forany kind of development may take longer andcost more than a project where the cleanup planand the design for the new development are inte-grated. In many states the level of cleanuprequired depends on the end use of the site. Forexample, a residential use would require a moreextensive cleanup than a commercial or industrialuse. Jurisdictions can save significant time andmoney by having an idea of the site’s new use.Integration of cleanup and redevelopment planscan result in numerous innovations. A parkinglot could cap a hot spot, monitoring systemscould be incorporated into a redeveloped port-fields site, materials could be reused on-site, andbuildings and other structures could be located tooptimize the safety of future users of the site.

Environmental Stewardship

Ports today are attempting not only to clean uppast contamination when redeveloping brown-fields but also to prevent future environmental

problems. By incorporating environmental safe-guards into designs for new developments, portscan avoid or minimize stormwater runoff, erosion,and destruction of wetlands. Operating ports mustprevent new contamination if possible and, if con-tamination occurs, respond quickly. One option isto encourage reporting of suspicious activities byport tenants, and for port staff to carry out inspec-tions to find and address contamination. It isimportant to locate new sources of contaminationbecause the longer it continues, the more expen-sive and time consuming the cleanup will be.Some ports have found it beneficial to offercleanup assistance to tenants and work with themto help prevent future contamination.

Contamination is not the only environmentalproblem that ports need to address. Because ofindustrial uses, proximity to large metropolitanareas, and exhaust from idling ships, trucks, andport machinery, many ports are in nonattainmentareas for ozone. Fuel spills near the port and onland can lower water quality. Port developmentalso can cause erosion and loss of wetlands andother habitat for wildlife. Finally, invasive aquatic

Bilge and Ballast Treatment

As ships travel, they take on water that col-lects in the bottom of the ship (bilge water).

They also purposely take on water to weight theship appropriately (ballast water). Bilge and ballastwater is often taken on in one location and emptiedat another. This practice has introduced invasiveaquatic species in water bodies around the world.For example, zebra mussels were introduced to theGreat Lakes in this way and have proliferated. Theport of New Bedford has targeted part of one largebrownfields project as the future site for a bilge recy-cling facility. This facility will help improve the envi-

ronmental conditions of the port, minimize the riskof invasive species being introduced, and shouldprovide sufficient revenue to become self-support-ing. The port of Oakland is looking specifically forways to prevent the introduction of invasive speciesfrom ballast water. The port received a grant toinstall an experimental ballast water treatment uniton a containership. It also managed a study to inves-tigate the feasibility of treating ballast water onshoreand committed funds to the SmithsonianEnvironmental Research Center for a study on vari-ous biological aspects of ballast water.

species have been known to enter waterwaysthrough ships’ ballast and bilge water. By out-competing native species, they can create ecologi-cal havoc. In addition, the propulsion systems ofships can disturb bottom sediments and associ-ated organisms living on or near them.

ConclusionPhase I ports in the Portfields InteragencyInitiative have projects under way in a variety of

categories: port-related industrial projects; trans-portation projects; recreational, environmental,and nonport commercial projects; residential proj-ects; and security-related projects. This chapterhas described the specific characteristics of theseprojects and the environmental considerationsthat are essential in portfields redevelopment. Asnoted earlier, redevelopment must include notonly environmental remediation of past contami-nation but environmental stewardship to preventfuture brownfields.


In order to clean up and redevelop portfieldssites, waterfront communities require resourcesat the following six stages: assessment, plan-ning, remediation, site assembly, constructionor development, and maintenance.

• Assessment. The evaluation of the site forcontamination. With waterfront projects,assessment may be complicated by a highwater table, the migration of contaminationoff-site or into groundwater or surface-water,and the potential need to do testing not onlyon land but also in the sediment. State andfederal environmental agencies may also beinvolved at this stage.

• Planning. The process by which stakeholders provide input and make decisionsabout the site’s future use or uses. Resources may need to be expended for commu-nity outreach, staff time, and planning assistance. For example, the port may needto hire planning, architecture, and/or engineering consultants.

• Remediation. The actual cleanup of the site to enable future use of it while ensuringthat any remaining contamination does not pose unacceptable risks to humanhealth and the environment. Remediation may include a variety of cleanup and sitepreparation measures such as soil removal, dredging, containment of contaminants,demolition or deconstruction of structures, and bioremediation. Contaminated mate-rials are sometimes transported off-site for disposal, and sometimes they are capped(for example with uncontaminated fill or topsoil).

• Site assembly. The piecing together of different parcels of land to create a contigu-ous site for redevelopment. A jurisdiction may need to acquire properties, cleartitles, and legally assemble them into one large property.

• Construction or development. The building or other actions required for the newuse. The construction or development stage includes site preparation (for example,grading the site, stabilizing the riverbank) and installation of materials (such asbuildings, piers, plants, and fencing).

• Maintenance. The ongoing upkeep of the site to ensure its long-term viability.

C H A P T E R 3

Keeping Port Projects Afloat:Public and Private Resources

This includes not only building and infra-structure maintenance but also—for projectswhere contaminants were contained in place—themaintenance of containment structures, and bar-riers and the upkeep of other land use controls.

Leveraging in-kind and cash resources fromstakeholders for the preceding expenses can alle-viate the financial costs for the port authority orlocal government and foster a greater sense ofcommunity collaboration and accomplishment.Even with contributions from stakeholders, how-ever, portfields redevelopment projects usuallyrequire outside funding and technical assistance.

Fortunately, communities interested in revi-talizing their ports can turn to many sources ofassistance, including local, state, and federalagencies, as well as private investors and non-profit organizations. Not every program is appli-cable to every portfields project. In fact, manytools and resources are targeted to specific typesof projects, such as those addressing waterissues, recreational access, or habitat restoration.Local government officials, port officials, andcommunity members, however, should cast awide net in seeking support for their projectsbecause programs that may not have the“brownfields,” “port,” or “waterfront” label maynevertheless be appropriate. Communities shouldseek out all possible funding sources, includingthose from all levels of government as well asfrom nongovernmental organizations.

Local Government ResourcesLocal funds or incentives can supplement theassistance communities receive from federal andstate agencies to redevelop their portfields.Federal and state resources are rarely sufficient totake a project from start to finish. Moreover, fed-eral and state funding is often dependent uponthe availability of matching contributions fromother sources. Local governments can employ amyriad of financing tools to fund projects or stim-ulate a flow of capital to them. These toolsinclude

• Development impact fees

• General obligation bonds

• Revenue bonds

• Tax increment financing

• Tax abatements and exemptions

• Special taxing districts

• Zoning and permitting.

Development Impact Fees

Many local governments impose fees on develop-ers of new construction to raise revenue for capi-tal facilities that benefit the development. Thesefees are known by various names includingdevelopment impact fees, user fees, benefitassessments, and connection charges. The feesare often used to pay for new roads, public trans-portation, and utility infrastructure, or to improveexisting facilities to accommodate the new devel-opment. Revenues from impact fees can also beapplied toward the creation and maintenance ofparks, the preservation of open space, the con-struction of greenways and trails, or the improve-ment or creation of libraries and schools. Forexample, the city of Long Beach, California,charges developers park fees on all residentialdevelopment. The fees can be used to mitigatethe adverse environmental effects of new devel-opments.

General Obligation Bonds

General obligation bonds are secured by theissuer (for example, the local government) andare supported by the issuer’s taxing power. Theygenerally require the approval of voters or thelegislature. The benefit of general obligationbonds is that they provide all of the funds upfront to facilitate the purchase of properties, andthe costs are repaid from tax revenues over sev-eral years. However, local governments are lim-ited in the amount of debt they can assume andcompetition between the various local priorities inneed of financing can occur. As their nameimplies, general obligation bonds are not tied to aspecific project. For this reason, taxpayers oftenfrown upon them.

Revenue Bonds

Unlike general obligation bonds, revenue bondsare based on taxes levied for a specific project oron revenues anticipated from future user fees. Forexample, the port of Toledo issues revenue bonds


to pay for its brownfields projects. It then main-tains ownership and leases the property, with thelease revenues helping to pay off the bond debt.Revenue bonds are not limited by a debt ceiling.The borrowing costs of revenue bonds are higherthan those of general obligation bonds.

Tax Increment Financing

Local governments use tax increment financing(TIF) for economic revitalization efforts, usuallyin distressed areas. This financing mechanismrelies on the assumption that tax revenues col-lected from a given area or district in the futurewill be higher than those collected today becauseproperty values will be higher as a result of eco-nomic revitalization. Bonds are issued to raisecapital to fund redevelopment activities, and thenew tax revenues generated from the project areearmarked to redeem the bonds. When a localgovernment or redevelopment agency defines aredevelopment district, local tax assessors thenfreeze property values in the designated district toestablish the revenue base. This revenue baseremains in effect for a given period of time, usu-ally ten to twenty-five years. The local govern-ment agrees to raise taxes at an incremental rate,as opposed to all at once following propertyimprovements. However, the taxes received bythe local government remain at the predevelop-ment rate, and the revenues from the incrementaltax increases are used to service the debt andrepay cleanup and redevelopment costs. Becauserepayment of the bonds relies on taxes, the reusemust include taxable uses like a factory, marina,or warehouse.

Special Taxing Districts

Cities can create special service areas or taxingdistricts in order to raise funds for services,improvements, or facilities to benefit the desig-nated area. In a special taxing district, propertyowners agree that a real estate levy or special feewill be imposed on them that will benefit themwith services or improvements. Special taxing dis-tricts could be used to fund the cleanup of a port-fields site and its conversion into a waterfrontpark. Businesses surrounding a portfields propertycould decide that the site is an eyesore hurtingtheir business so they agree to tax themselves toclean it up and turn it into something that wouldbe attractive to potential customers.

Special Use Districts

Local governments can use planning tools suchas special use districts and overlays to encouragespecific types of development. For example, somecommunities create waterfront or port overlaydistricts that offer various incentives to propertyowners. Through the Massachusetts Coastal ZoneManagement Program, New Bedford has estab-lished Designated Port Areas (DPAs), a type ofspecial use district. New Bedford’s “SupportingDPA Use Eligibility Credit Program,” is designedto function like a transfer of development rightsprogram. In order to develop non-water-depend-ent uses within the DPA, property owners mustpurchase “eligibility credits.” The revenue fromthese credits is distributed to owners of propertiesdevoted to water-dependent industrial uses. Inthis way a substantial amount of assistance forthe port economy is raised.

Keeping Port Projects Afloat: Public and Private Resources 19

New Shipyard in the Port of Tampa

The port of Tampa initiated the redevelopmentof Port Ebor, a former Department of Defense

site. Plans for the sixty-acre site include developmentof a shipyard and warehouses, and operations areexpected to begin between 2006 and 2010. Thecontaminated site is now cleaned up with the excep-tion of about 500 cubic yards of soil contaminatedwith oil. This portion of the site is being bioremedi-ated with the use of microbes. Having obtained a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of

Commerce’s Economic Development Administration,the port has reconstructed 1,200 linear feet of bulk-head on the site. Expanding port commerce whileminimizing the environmental impact of redevelop-ment is a top priority, and the port has gone beyondenvironmental requirements on this site by installingan advanced stormwater treatment system with baf-fle boxes. The boxes remove sediment and suspendparticles and associated pollutants from the stormwa-ter before it is released.

State ResourcesFederal funding is often funneled through stategovernments before grants are allocated tomunicipalities. Many state governments are alsoable to offer grants for economic developmentand revitalization, including environmentalassessment, site planning, technical assistance forsite remediation, and liability assurances. A mul-titude of state programs designed to promotebrownfields redevelopment and related activities,and various state agencies play a role in theseredevelopment efforts.

One common type of state program is theVoluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). In manystates, VCPs have become instrumental in theredevelopment of contaminated sites. VCPs allowvoluntary parties, such as site owners or develop-ers, to approach state governments and initiateenvironmental cleanups. These programs provideincentives to voluntary parties to clean up sitesrather than rely on enforcement orders to accom-plish remediation. Incentives to participate differfrom state to state, but most VCPs include condi-tional exemptions for property owners fromfuture state liability. Other common features arestreamlined investigation and cleanup procedures,more expedient and economical cleanup alterna-tives, and cleanup standards that vary based onthe future use of the site. The assurances areoften issued as a “No Further Action” certificateor “Certificates of Completion,” acknowledgingthat contaminated properties have been treated tolevels sufficient to meet VCP standards. In othercases, legal contracts in the forms of CovenantsNot to Sue are issued to protect site owners and

developers against future liabilities should unan-ticipated environmental hazards be discoveredlater.

In addition to Voluntary Cleanup Programs,most coastal states, including those on the GreatLakes have a Coastal Zone Management Pro-gram, that may offer resources and assistance toport communities. The Coastal Zone ManagementProgram (CZMP) is a federally approved stateprogram administered at the federal level by theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). The program offers financial assistance,mediation, technical services and information,and participation in regional, state, and localforums. The CZMP leaves day-to-day manage-ment decisions to state-level offices in the thirty-four states and territories with federally approvedcoastal management programs. State and federalefforts in coastal zone management are guided bythe CZMP’s Strategic Framework, which is organ-ized around three major themes: sustain coastalcommunities, sustain coastal ecosystems, andimprove government efficiency.

Table 3-1 presents state governmentresources available for port projects in Massachu-setts, Ohio, Florida, Maryland, and California.The programs listed are not exhaustive. Ratherthey exemplify the types of state programs thatare available for the redevelopment of ports.

Federal ResourcesFor assistance with portfields redevelopment proj-ects, communities can turn to the following fed-eral agencies: the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), the National Oceanic and


Bringing Port Liberty Back to Life in Baltimore

Used for shipbuilding during World War II, thethirty-acre Port Liberty site in Baltimore has

extensive lead contamination. A private developeracquired the site in the 1980s for an industrial park,but the plan never came to fruition and the site satvacant for the next several years. In 2001, the sitewas redeveloped to accommodate three businesses:an auto importer, a cable company, and a stone cut-ting company. Remediation, including soil removaland capping, was required to prevent lead runoff

into the harbor. Monitoring for leaks and capintegrity will be ongoing. The Baltimore Develop-ment Corporation helped with cleanup and assess-ment financing. Through them, the Port Libertyredevelopment project was able to receive a$400,000 grant from the Maryland Department ofBusiness and Economic Development (DBED) Revital-ization Program a $400,000 loan from the HUDEmpowerment Zone Brownfields Incentive Programloan, and other incentives.


Table 3-1 State Resources for Port Redevelopment

$200 million for greenspace preservation. There arefour initiatives under the fund, which was approved ina ballot initiative in 2000:

• The Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund for brownfieldscleanup and redevelopment

• The Clean Ohio Green Space Conservation Programfor preservation of open spaces, sensitive ecologi-cal areas, and stream corridors

• The Clean Ohio Trails Fund for creation and com-pletion of trail systems and the preservation of nat-ural corridors

• The Clean Ohio Agricultural Easement PurchaseProgram for the preservation of farmlands throughthe purchase of development rights.

Urban Redevelopment Loan Program. Providesloans to municipalities or nonprofit economic devel-opment organizations for real estate activities, suchas site remediation, in distressed areas.

Water Pollution Control Loan Fund. Issues low-interest loans for water-related brownfields activities.

Ohio Water Development Authority. Extends loansto public or private entities for brownfields redevel-opment and to projects dealing with drinking water,stormwater, sewage, water pollution, coastal erosioncontrol, and several other development issues.

Competitive Economic Development Program.Offers grants to cities of fewer than 50,000 residentsfor business expansion and retention. Cities mayloan some of the funds to businesses to be spent onbrownfields remediation projects that will create orretain jobs.

Florida

Waterfronts Florida Partnerships Program. Providestechnical assistance and training to create community-based, special area management plans. The programalso provides limited financial assistance for implemen-tation over two years. Through this program, theFlorida Department of Community Affairs and theDepartment of Environmental Protection are workingwith local partners to restore economic vitality toworking waterfront areas.

Florida Brownfields Redevelopment Program.Reduces public health and environmental hazards oncommercial and industrial sites that are abandonedor underused due to these hazards; creates financialand regulatory incentives to encourage voluntarycleanup and redevelopment of sites; sets cleanup

(continued)

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Brownfields Program. Offers genericliability protection to eligible persons and tenants whodid not cause contamination and to site owners whohave contamination problems on their property thatoriginated off-site.

Brownfields Redevelopment Fund. Provides low-interest loans for eligible persons for site assessmentand cleanup in economically distressed areas. Cities,redevelopment authorities, and community develop-ment corporations can seek grants instead of loans.

Reclamation Pay Back Fund. Provides loans for siteassessment and cleanup to cities or towns that cer-tify that they will pay back the loan with half theproperty taxes generated by the redevelopment.

Brownfield Redevelopment Access to Capital(BRAC) Program. Subsidizes environmental insur-ance (up to half of the premium) for unanticipatedcosts associated with an approved cleanup. This pro-gram protects lenders from defaults on private loansmade for cleanup and redevelopment.

Massachusetts Economic Development Incentive.An incentive geared toward properties in EconomicOpportunity Areas. It includes a five percent invest-ment tax credit and a ten percent abandoned build-ing tax deduction.

Brownfield Credit for Rehabilitation ofContaminated Property. Innocent parties who cleanup sites in economically distressed areas receive taxcredits ranging from 25 percent to 50 depending onthe level of cleanup and the new use of the site.

Back Taxes Negotiation. Municipalities are allowedto negotiate away back taxes on contaminated sitesif the new owner makes a commitment to clean andrestore the site to tax rolls.

Seafood Loan. Provides fixed asset financing for thepurchase of land, buildings, and equipment forseafood facilities and for the construction or renova-tion of seafood facilities. Direct loans are also avail-able for facility expansions.

Redevelopment Assistance. Small grants (less than$25,000) that support early-stage economic devel-opment projects. Applicants must match state fundsdollar for dollar.

Ohio

Clean Ohio Fund. Authorizes the state to issue $200million for brownfields redevelopment activities and


Table 3-1 State Resources for Port Redevelopment (continued)

target levels and a process for obtaining a “NoFurther Action” letter using Risk-Based CorrectiveAction principles; and promotes environmentalequity and justice. Financial incentives include lowinterest loans to clear the property’s title, sales taxcredit on building materials for housing or mixed-use projects, and state loan guarantees.

Voluntary Cleanup Tax Credit. Encourages volun-tary cleanup of sites contaminated by dry cleaningsolvent or brownfields sites in designated “FloridaBrownfield Areas.” An eligible applicant can receiveup to 35 percent of the costs of its voluntarycleanup activity. These tax credits can be appliedtoward the state corporate income tax or intangiblepersonal property tax.

Brownfield Redevelopment Job Bonus Refund.Encourages redevelopment and job creation byoffering up to $2,500 for every new job created in adesignated brownfields area. Refunds are basedupon taxes paid by the business.

Maryland

Maryland Voluntary Cleanup Program. Provides amenu of cleanup options, including uniform risk-based standards, site-specific risk assessment, fed-eral/state soil standards or water quality standards,and other federal and state standards. It offers a NoFurther Requirements Determination or Certificate ofCompletion. The Maryland Department of theEnvironment also conducts site assessments, at nocost, for publicly owned brownfields sites.

Brownfields Revitalization Incentive Program.Offers five-year tax credits to offset increases in

property tax due to remediation. Specifically, it offersa 50 percent state tax credit and a 20 percent localtax credit. These tax credits may be extended to tenyears in designated Empowerment Zones. Thisincentive is available in jurisdictions that agree tocontribute 30 percent of the property tax increase tothe state’s Brownfields Revitalization Incentive Fund.

Brownfields Revitalization Incentive Fund. Offerslow-interest loans and grants to persons conductingenvironmental site assessments and voluntarycleanups of brownfields.

California

California Voluntary Cleanup Program. Helps cor-porations, real estate developers, and local and stateagencies to restore properties. California’s VCP isadministered under the California EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s Department of Toxic SubstancesControl (DTSC), Those entering into the VCP fundthe cleanup and DTSC’s work on the project. DTSCsupplies the expertise of a team of on-staff scientists,engineers, industrial hygienists, and other specialists.The team manages and cleans up the site, coordi-nates with other agencies, and offers assistance incomplying with related laws.

Cleanup Loans and Environmental Assistance toNeighborhoods Loan Program. Provides low-inter-est loans for environmental assessments and cleanupand removal of hazardous materials.

Mello-Roos Districts. A district designation thatallows the community to abate property taxes andissue bonds to capitalize a revolving loan fund forsite assessment and cleanup.

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and theEconomic Development Administration (EDA) ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce, the ArmyCorps of Engineers (the Corps) of the U.S.Department of Defense, the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA), the U.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT), the National Institute ofEnvironmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services,the U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD), the Fish and WildlifeService (FWS) and the National Park Service(NPS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior, andthe U.S. Departments of Labor, Justice, and

Treasury. Table 3-2 presents just a sampling ofthe federal programs that are available. It shouldnot be considered an exhaustive list.

Nongovernmental ResourcesMultiple nongovernmental sources of funding andtechnical assistance (for example, from founda-tions, local and national nonprofit organizations,and educational institutions) support variousaspects of port redevelopment. Local govern-ments and port authorities should tap into thesesources when appropriate, along with the publicsources discussed earlier. One other excellent


Table 3-2 Federal Resources for Port Redevelopment

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), thefederal government leader in brownfields cleanupand redevelopment, has many programs of benefitto communities that want to revitalize their ports. EPA heads the Interagency Working Group onBrownfields and coordinates the multiple federalpartners in the Brownfields National Partnership.This partnership links environmental remediation,economic development, public health, and commu-nity revitalization efforts to address the multifacetednature of the brownfields problem.

Brownfields Assessment Grants. Provide funding toinventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planningand community involvement related to brownfieldssites.

Brownfields Cleanup Grants. Provide funding toclean up brownfields sites.

Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants. Providefunding to capitalize a revolving loan fund.Subgrants are available for cleanup activities atbrownfields sites.

Brownfields Job Training Grants. Help train andempower residents in brownfields communities. Thefunding brings together community groups, jobtraining organizations, educators, investors, lenders,developers, and other affected parties.

Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund. Low-interest loans that may be used for site assessments,reduction of non-point-source pollution, construct-ing wetlands, and other purposes including propertyacquisition.

Brownfields Technology Support Center. Providestechnical support to federal, state, and local officialsfor investigation and cleanup of brownfields sites.The Center can help decision makers evaluate strate-gies to streamline the site investigation and cleanupprocess, identify and review information about com-plex technology options, evaluate contractor capabil-ities and recommendations, explain technologies tocommunities, and plan technology demonstrations.

Hazardous Substance Research Centers-TOSC/TAB. Thirty universities nationwide form anetwork of five Hazardous Substance ResearchCenters (HSRCs), each serving one to three EPARegions. They are funded by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy,and the Department of Defense, with additionalfunding from academia, industry, and other state

and federal government agencies. The TechnicalOutreach Services for Communities (TOSC) programis a service of the HSRC program. TOSC uses univer-sity resources to help community groups understandthe technical issues involving the hazardous wastesites in their midst. It encourages communities toparticipate in the decision-making process regardingtheir hazardous substance problems. TechnicalAssistance to Brownfields Communities (TAB) helpscommunities to clean and redevelop properties thathave been damaged or undervalued by environmen-tal contamination. The purpose of these efforts is tocreate better jobs, increase the local tax base,improve neighborhood environments, and enhancethe overall quality of life.

U.S. Department of Commerce, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) isthe primary coastal stewardship agency and a leaderin promoting safe navigation. To revitalize urbanestuaries and port areas while improving coastalhabitat, NOAA is engaged in brownfields redevelop-ment from a number of perspectives. With its sisteragency, the Economic Development Administration,NOAA is attempting to balance environmental andeconomic priorities for U.S. ports and other marinetransportation systems.

Coastal Zone Management Program. Providestechnical and financial assistance in voluntary part-nerships with states. The program helps states withNOAA-approved Coastal Management Plans to pro-tect and revitalize coastal resources. Funds can beused for feasibility studies, site assessments, andmaster plan development.

Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R ).Protects and restores contaminated coastal resourcesand habitats through cost-effective environmentalcleanup and restoration solutions at brownfieldssites. OR&R provides a NOAA employee to the cityof New Bedford to bring enhanced federal resourcesto bear on brownfields and portfields sites.

National Marine Fisheries Service and ScienceCenters (“NOAA Fisheries”). Administers NOAA’sprograms on domestic and international conserva-tion and management of living marine resources.NOAA Fisheries supports domestic and internationalfisheries management operations, fisheries develop-ment, trade and industry assistance activities,

(continued)


Table 3-2 Federal Resources for Port Redevelopment (continued)

enforcement, protected species, and habitat conser-vation operations, and, through Science Centeroffices, the scientific and technical aspects of NOAA’smarine fisheries program. NOAA Fisheries providesevaluations, consultations, and permits, includingnavigational and environmental dredging.

National Ocean Service (NOS). Develops the foun-dation for coastal and ocean science, management,response, restoration, and navigation. NOS main-tains its leadership role in coastal and ocean stew-ardship by bridging the gap between science,management, and public policy in the followingareas: healthy coasts, navigation, coastal and oceanscience, and coastal hazards. This office includes theCoastal Zone Management Program and the Officeof Response and Restoration.

U.S. Department of Commerce, EconomicDevelopment Administration

The Economic Development Administration (EDA)within the Department of Commerce generates newjobs, help retain existing jobs, and stimulates indus-trial and commercial growth in economically dis-tressed areas. EDA assistance is available to rural orurban areas experiencing high unemployment, lowincome, or other severe economic distress. Since1997, EDA has identified brownfields as strategic pri-orities for the projects that it funds at the local level.Generally, EDA provides communities with funds tomake infrastructure improvements and to begin cap-italized revolving loan funds, as well as other formsof support.

Public Works and Economic DevelopmentFacilities Program. Allows EDA to bolster economicdevelopment efforts in disadvantaged communitiesintended to attract local, private sector, and publicsector funding for redevelopment projects. In manycases grant funding is used to develop or revampdeteriorated infrastructure on brownfields sites thatare well suited for industrial or commercial redevel-opment or both. In addition, this program allowsspecial infrastructure and property enhancements forspecific industries. Job training and job creation areother features of the program.

Planning Assistance for Economic DevelopmentDistricts, Indian Tribes, and Redevelopment Areas.Strengthens local economic bases in disadvantagedareas including Indian communities and designatedeconomic districts. Funding is provided through plan-ning grants to generate and retain jobs as well as tostimulate industrial and commercial growth.

Short-term Planning Grants for States, SubstateRegions, and Urban Areas. Provide distressed urbanmetropolitan areas as well as states with funding toencourage widespread economic revitalization.These planning grants are aimed at revitalizing com-mercial and industrial growth for an intrastate regionor an entire state.

Local Technical Assistance Program. Provides fund-ing and technical assistance to a broad range of com-munities and interest groups through state and localgovernments, educational institutions, and public-private institutions; promotes economic revitalizationthrough comprehensive planning strategies includingsustainable development and brownfields reuse.

U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps ofEngineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) offersplanning and technical consultation on brownfieldsredevelopment projects to communities and to otherfederal agencies. Many of those services focus onwaterfront or waterway projects. The Corps providesappraisal, title, and deed restriction services; per-forms market impact studies and cost-benefit analy-ses; shares laboratory and field research data;develops environmental and structural frameworksfor projects with contractors in pilot communities;and carries out projects to protect, restore, or createaquatic and ecological habitats related to the dis-posal of dredged materials.

Federal Navigation Projects. Maintain and improvechannels by dredging to specified depths and widthsand removing impediments like logjams. The naviga-tion program includes all of the nation’s deep draftharbors as well as hundreds of smaller harbors thatserve a variety of recreational and commercial pur-poses.

Flood Control. Efforts ranging from small local protec-tion projects (levees or nonstructural flood controlmeasures) to major dams. Through its Flood PlainManagement Services, the Corps advises communities,industries, and property owners on protection meas-ures (such as zoning regulations, warning systems, andflood proofing,) that they can take themselves.

Environmental Programs. Ecosystem restorationprograms to re-establish the attributes of a natural,functioning, and self-regulating ecosystem; environ-mental stewardship programs; environmental andnatural resource management programs and compli-ance programs.



Wetland and Waterways Regulation. Regulateactivities in navigable waterways through grantingpermits. The Corps has regulatory authority overdumping of trash and sewage, as well as dredgingand filling, in the “waters of the United States,”including many wetlands. The Corps also determineswhich areas qualify for protection as wetlands.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) supportsbrownfields and other development initiativesthrough its many agencies and regional offices.USDA is the primary agency working in ruralAmerica, but its Forest Service promotes restorationand conservation of forested land and open space inboth rural and urban areas.

Urban Resources Partnership. Provides federalresources to community-based and community-driven environmental projects in traditionally under-served neighborhoods of metropolitan areas.Working with federal, state, and local agencies, andstakeholders in the private sector, USDA contributesfunding and technical assistance to education andrestoration efforts in cities throughout the country.This partnership promotes the reuse of brownfieldsand other blighted properties.

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise CommunityInitiative. Emphasizes the revitalization of disadvan-taged communities. Rural and small communityEZ/EC efforts are run by USDA and urban EZ/EC pro-grams are administered by the Department ofHousing and Urban Development. Due to the his-toric location of industry and the location of work-ers’ housing near waterways, many portfieldsprojects are within EZ/EC communities.

U.S. Department of Transportation

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) seeksto advance national growth through efficient, acces-sible, and convenient transportation and to protectthe natural environment from adverse impacts ofDOT-funded activities.

U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD). Overseesthe interests of U.S. domestic and internationalwaterborne commerce, including the maintenanceof a safe and environmentally sound maritime trans-portation system and the promotion of nationalsecurity and economic growth through maritimeendeavors. MARAD is able to contribute to water-front redevelopment through economic and techni-cal assistance. It recognizes the importance of

shipyard revitalization and upkeep and has devised anumber of programs to streamline operations in thisindustry. Those programs do not address redevelop-ment in the conventional sense. Rather they encour-age financial stability and bureaucratic efficiency inshipbuilding industries.

Congestion Mitigation and Air QualityImprovement Program (CMAQ). Reduces trans-portation-related pollution. CMAQ funds are avail-able to a wide range of government and nonprofitorganizations. These organizations often plan orimplement air quality projects as well as provideCMAQ funding to others to implement projects.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century(TEA-21). Seeks to counteract the negative effectson communities of highway construction. It allowsstates to apply up to 40 percent of federal surfacetransportation funds to enhancements such as bicy-cle and pedestrian facilities, safety and educationalactivities for pedestrians and cyclists, conversion ofabandoned rail corridors into greenways and trails,preservation of historic and archeological sites, andconservation of ecologically sensitive and scenicareas. TEA-21 funds can be used for planning grants,implementation grants, bicycle and pedestrian walk-way projects and research to investigate the relation-ships between transportation, community, andsystem preservation.

U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, National Institute of EnvironmentalHealth Sciences

The National Institute of Environmental HealthSciences (NIEHS) strives to reduce human illnessthrough investigating and understanding healthissues resulting from environmental causes. NIEHSconducts community outreach, prevention, interven-tion, research, and education, and it supportsbrownfields redevelopment through worker training(for example, administration of the BrownfieldsMinority Worker Training (MWT) program) andthrough research conducted by the Superfund BasicResearch Program.

U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment

The U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD) has been a leader in supportingbrownfields cleanup and redevelopment at the locallevel. It has a network of regional and field offices

(continued)



with professional expertise in community and eco-nomic development, transportation, public health,housing, and a number of other fields by which itextends technical assistance to local governmentsand community organizations.

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG).Develop viable urban communities by providingdecent housing and a suitable living environment andexpand economic activities for low- and moderate-income communities. The annual funding allotmentsfor these grants are split between states and localjurisdictions with populations of 50,000 and above.CDBG funds may be used for a wide variety of activi-ties that could be useful in portfields projects, includ-ing site assessment, remediation, redevelopment, and planning, as long as the activities benefit low-and moderate-income persons, prevent or eliminateslums or blight, or have a particular urgency becauseexisting conditions in the community pose a seriousand immediate threat to the health or welfare of theresidents.

Section 108 Guaranteed Loans. Act as a second-tierfunding mechanism to recipients of CDBG financingand are designed to stimulate private investment inredevelopment communities. Entitlement communi-ties and states may use these secured loans tofinance large-scale redevelopment projects that oftenaddress multiple facets of community revitalization.These funds must address community needs as spec-ified in CDBG financing.

Brownfields Economic Development Initiative(BEDI). Finances projects that contribute to near-term economic benefits for low- and moderate-income communities by creating jobs or increasingthe tax base. BEDI funds are very flexible and canbe used for the full scope of brownfields activities.For example, BEDI funds help communities acquirebrownfields sites, demolish existing buildings, installneeded infrastructure (water and sewer lines,roads), construct or rehabilitate structures, conductjob training, provide business loans, create publicfacilities, and attract business start-ups and expan-sions.

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise CommunityInitiative. Help revitalize disadvantaged communi-ties. HUD administers urban EZ/EC programs; USDAadministers rural and small community EZ/EC pro-grams. Due to the historic location of industry andthe location of workers’ housing near waterways,many portfields projects are within EZ/EC communi-ties.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish andWildlife Service

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) relies onmore than 700 field units within seven geographicregions to regulate activities throughout the UnitedStates. It also fosters partnerships among govern-ment, public, and private institutions to encouragevoluntary conservation efforts on private properties.In addition, USFWS has been involved in numerouschanneling and dredging projects. Working with theappropriate state or federal agencies and the respon-sible parties, USFWS tries to minimize the negativeenvironmental impacts of brownfields. When appro-priate, a covenant not to sue can be granted, or inextreme circumstances the USFWS can undertake aNatural Resource Damage Assessment (working inconjunction with other Natural Resource Trustees) toensure that threatened and endangered species,migratory birds, anadromous fish, and their habitatsare restored.

U.S. Department of the Interior, NationalPark Service

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), the gov-ernment’s principal conservation agency, managesthe majority of publicly owned lands in the UnitedStates, including the national park system. DOI ischarged with protecting and providing access tonatural and cultural resources.

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Helpscommunities acquire parkland, water resources, andopen space for conservation and recreation. Statescan use LWCF matching grants to acquire anddevelop lands with high recreation potential, tobuild or redevelop recreation and park facilities, tocreate riding and hiking trails, to enhance access torecreation, and to conserve natural resource areas.

Rivers, Trails, and Conservation AssistanceProgram. Provides technical assistance to local gov-ernments, nonprofit organizations, communitygroups, tribes, and states to conserve rivers, preserveopen space, and develop trails and greenways.Example projects include enhancing ecological habi-tat, restoring urban forests, and creating greenways.

Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program(UPARR). Provides funding and technical assistanceto economically distressed urban communities with-out adequate recreation opportunities. Grants areprovided to local governments to rehabilitate exist-ing recreation facilities and to encourage compre-hensive planning, operation, and maintenance of

source of information and programs specific toports is the American Association of PortAuthorities. It has, for example, a new programto train port staff how to develop EnvironmentalManagement Systems.

Foundations’ grants and loans that could beused for port redevelopment projects often dependon the end use. For example, the KelloggFoundation has a loan fund for high-risk busi-ness development. Sports foundations, such asMajor League Baseball and the National SoccerFoundation, offer grants to build fields or facilitiesfor their specific sports. Other foundations sup-

port different uses based on their mandates. TheUrban Parks Initiative of the Wallace Reader’sDigest Funds provides aid to increase the qualityand quantity of parks for public use, especially inunderserved neighborhoods. In a mixed-use portarea, these funding sources may be appropriate,although they would not be available if all of thedevelopment is for maritime industry.

Local and national nonprofit organizationscan also offer funding or technical assistance forcertain types of port redevelopment projects. The Trust for Public Land, the Rails to Trails Conservancy, the National Recreation and Park



recreation programs. Some of the UPARR grants canbe used to develop programming for recreation (forexample, environmental education or interpretiveprograms) and to improve amenities, (for example,security features and lighting) at urban parks.

U.S. Department of Labor

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) fosters, pro-motes, and develops the welfare of working peopleby improving working conditions and enhancingopportunities for profitable employment. It offers joband life skills training that complements environ-mentally focused training programs designed to helpassess and clean up brownfields. Together these pro-grams ensure that the community residents mostaffected by brownfields will directly benefit fromtheir redevelopment.

Job Training Partnership Act. Provides job-trainingservices for economically disadvantaged adults, dis-located youth, and others who face significantemployment barriers. It seeks to move jobless indi-viduals into permanent, self-sustaining employment,and it promotes stakeholder participation in brown-fields redevelopment.

Adult Training Programs. Increase participants’employment retention and earnings as well as occu-pational skill attainment. This program aims toimprove the quality of the workforce, reduce welfaredependency, and enhance the productivity andcompetitiveness of the nation’s economy.

U.S. Department of Justice

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in the U.S.Department of Justice (DOJ) focuses on justice issuesat the state and local levels. Two divisions of OJP, the

Executive Office of Weed and Seed and theCommunity Relations Service, are involved in activi-ties that support brownfields redevelopment.

Executive Office of Weed and Seed (EOWS).Implements a strategy that “weeds out” violentcrime, gang activity, drug use, and drug traffickingin targeted neighborhoods then “seeds” the areawith social and economic revitalization programs.EOWS recognizes the importance of linking federal,state, and local law enforcement programs withsocial services, the private sector, and communityefforts to maximize the impact of existing programsand resources

Community Relations Service (CRS). Addressesenvironmental justice concerns in communities andneighborhoods where brownfields redevelopmentissues are prevalent. The CRS is dedicated to pre-venting and resolving perceived and actual discrimi-nation in local communities. It educates leaders ofminority and impoverished communities about tech-niques to resolve disputes, as well as about thefinancial merits of brownfields revitalization efforts.

U.S. Department of Treasury

The Brownfields Tax Incentives program of the U.S.Treasury leverages private sector investments forbrownfields redevelopment projects. Taxpayers candeduct environmental remediation expendituresunder certain circumstances. Projects in eligible dis-tricts include EZ/EC communities, EPA BrownfieldsDemonstration Assessment Pilot communities, com-munities identified as having poverty rates of 20 per-cent or higher, or those with fewer than 2,000residents in which more than 75 percent of lands arezoned for commercial or industrial uses.

Association, and other organizations committedto recreation and open space preservation mayoffer support for the development of greenways,trails, parks, and interpretive materials. Others,like the Audubon Society, help to restore andmaintain habitat areas. Organizations with anhistorical or cultural preservation focus, such asthe National Trust for Historic Preservation, orlocal organizations (like New Bedford’s Water-front Historic Area League) can assist ports inpreserving historic areas or help with identifica-tion of local historic structures. Local nonprofitorganizations, with their smaller budgets thanthose of national nonprofits, are more likely tooffer technical assistance or training programsthan money. For example, the Youth Employ-ment Program in Oakland trained young, low-income adults to deconstruct warehouses at the port of Oakland and salvage recyclable materials.

Academic institutions often can provide acommunity with resources that it may not haveaccess to otherwise. Using university students asinterns or for technical assistance can benefit thecommunity, the student, and the university.Students receive hands-on, tangible work experi-ence, and the community or local governmentreceives services that it may not have the time orresources to undertake. Partnerships open thedoor for an ongoing dialogue between the univer-sity and surrounding community. Establishingthese lines of communication can lead to otheropportunities for collaboration. University staffcan lend their expertise to a local project, stu-dents can provide technical assistance as part oftheir coursework, or interns can research andwrite grant applications for new sources of fund-

ing. All communities can benefit from a univer-sity’s involvement in port redevelopment, butinternships or technical assistance programs areespecially helpful to local governments in smallcommunities with a few staff members.

Another nongovernmental resource is envi-ronmental insurance, which can be used to limitliability for contamination, to quantify risk, andto lessen financial unknowns. An individualproperty owner, a consortium of owners of con-tiguous properties that share contamination, oran outside entity, such as a local government orport authority, can purchase environmental insur-ance. The insurance can be used as an economicincentive to stimulate brownfields redevelopmentby attracting potential developers and investors.Or the insurance can be used to encourage cur-rent landowners to make their brownfields sitesavailable for redevelopment. For example, at aformer U.S. Navy site at the port of Oakland, thenavy funded the cleanup. It paid environmentalinsurance premiums in case unexpected contami-nation was detected (pollution legal liability) or tocover cost overruns (cost cap insurance).

Conclusion A continued commitment by public and privatestakeholders is needed to keep port projectsafloat. The cleanup and redevelopment of port-fields require resources at six stages: assessment,planning, remediation, site assembly, construc-tion or development, and maintenance. Thischapter has described these stages and the finan-cial and technical resources available to port com-munities from local, state, and federalgovernment sources as well as the private sector.


The Portfields Interagency Initiative is a federal proj-ect focusing on the redevelopment and reuse ofbrownfields in or around ports, harbors, and marinetransportation hubs. Its emphasis is on the develop-ment of environmentally sound port facilities. PhasesI and II have been completed, and the last phase willimplement pilot projects that can be used as modelsfor other communities redeveloping their portfields.

Benefits of Redeveloping PortfieldsThe benefits of portfields redevelopment are many. Redevelopment can remove or sta-bilize dangerous structures and contamination in or near waterways; restore healthand natural functions to watersheds by improving surface-water and groundwaterquality; remediate and restore wetlands, woodlands, and habitat; improve stormwatermanagement systems; reduce health risks for nearby communities and waterwayusers; remove eyesores; and help improve air quality. Reuse of these sites can providejobs, goods, and services and help increase the community’s access to, and pride in,its waterfront.

By redeveloping portfields sites, communities can expand their port facilities,increase commercial port activity, and provide economic development opportunities.Space is made available for various uses, and more property is available for sale orlease, providing ports with a source of revenue.

Goals of Portfields Redevelopment The goals that drive port revitalization are surprisingly similar nationwide. Increasingport commerce while protecting the environment and human health seems to be themost important goal of ports today, followed closely by economic development, jobcreation, environmental cleanup and restoration of land and water, and improvedtransportation systems. Phase I ports also cited the importance of improving harboraccess and access to existing port facilities. Increased tourism, revitalized fishing andseafood industries, commercial development, expanded distribution capabilities, and“green development” are other goals.

C H A P T E R 4

Summary and Recommendations

Various Stakeholders inPortfields RedevelopmentSuccessful redevelopment of portfields requiresthe active participation of stakeholders in everystage of the planning process. They develop thevision for site reuse, prioritize resources, andeven contribute to long-term maintenance ofredeveloped sites. Stakeholders with a vestedinterest in the redevelopment and revitalization ofports include the port authority, local governmentofficials, state and federal agencies, communitymembers, nonprofit organizations, and privatesector developers, lenders, and port users. If part-nerships among these various stakeholders arecreated, waterfront communities can achievemuch better results than would be possible ifeach party with a vested interest in redevelop-ment acted alone. It is often very challenging toensure that all stakeholders are coordinated, thattheir interests and priorities are considered, andthat they are able to participate fully in theprocess, but they all have an important role toplay in improving ports. Ports that have had suc-cessful redevelopment projects have found exten-sive upfront planning involving all stakeholdersto be very valuable. Getting everyone together atthe beginning resulted in development of jointsolutions and greater buy-in.

Protecting the Environment After many years of heavy industrial usage andtransport of potentially dangerous materials, portsface numerous environmental challenges. Theseinclude cleaning up contaminated sites along thewaterfront as well as contaminated sediments inthe channels. Wetland loss and ecosystem distur-bance are other recurring problems, since manyports are located on filled wetlands. Numerousports are in ozone nonattainment areas due toindustrial uses and emissions from idling ships.These ports are developing approaches to reducetheir own emissions, and they are working withnearby communities to do the same. Ports todayare attempting not only to clean up past contami-nation when redeveloping portfields sites, butalso to prevent future contamination. With wet-

land creation, management of contaminated sedi-ment, stormwater management, and overallwatershed management strategies, ports areseeking to improve both water and coastalecosystem functions. In short, environmentalconsiderations have played a major role in therevitalization of portfields by Phase I ports.

RecommendationsThe federal agencies partnering in the portfieldsproject are looking at ways to coordinate theirefforts for the benefit of port communities. Theports interviewed for this report offered severalsuggestions about how these federal agenciescould better serve them.

Some of the suggestions addressed basicneeds of ports, such as help with permitting,funding, and technical assistance/expertise. Someport communities advocate a more proactive rolefor federal agencies. They would like the agenciesto ask them what they need and explain whatthe agencies can do for them. One port represen-tative recommended outreach materials that usedsimple stories to present complex issues and inthis way gain public understanding and buy-in toportfields projects. Another suggested improvedinformation sharing among ports throughout thecountry, possibly through workshops or meet-ings.

Many communities are not fully aware of thefederal resources available to them, or they donot have a mechanism for accessing them. Onerecommendation is for agencies to match theircapabilities to ports’ specific needs. Ports need toknow which of the agencies’ programs are appli-cable and available. This suggestion implies morethan a list of federal programs. An understandingis needed at the agency level of an individualport’s plans and problems. The agency can thenoffer assistance that is tailored to the relevantissues. This could be accomplished through facili-tated dialogues, forums, or meetings between fed-eral agency officials and port representatives.

Another suggestion is the formation of spe-cial permitting teams that could respond to proj-ects flexibly and quickly. Since many permitsare administered by state agencies, they would


have to work with the federal partners. Stafffrom the appropriate agencies could cometogether on these teams and focus on a particu-lar project, concentrating on all of the permittingissues and necessary approvals for that projectbefore moving on to another project. Currently,projects can get tied up in the permittingprocess, with different permits in various stages at the different agencies. Consequently,approvals can be delayed. The special permittingteams proposed above could speed up thisprocess.

An additional suggestion is the creation of apartnership funding stream dedicated to brown-fields and/or portfields projects. Some communi-ties find that a project may meet criteria forvarious federal assistance programs, but they donot have the time or staffing to pursue them all.With a dedicated partnership program, one appli-cation could receive the attention of several agen-cies. For example, a portfields project may meetgrant criteria of EPA, HUD, and NOAA. Instead ofapplying to the one agency the port thinks itwould have the best chance of receiving a grant

from, it would apply to this partnership fundingstream in the hopes of getting a larger aggregateamount.

The Portfields Interagency Initiative grew outof the success of the Brownfields ShowcaseCommunity model, which included a grant and atwo-year Interagency Personnel Assignment, sothis model will be used as a guide for partneringand serving port communities.

A Look AheadBy 2020, international maritime trade at U.S.ports is expected to double, exerting pressure onhighly developed coastal areas. Phase I ports areimproving their aging infrastructure to handlethis anticipated increase in development andtrade. Portfields redevelopment will facilitate theimprovements that are essential in marine trans-portation and trade in the twenty-first century. Inaddition, revitalization of America’s portfields willprovide environmental, economic, and social ben-efits, as well as an opportunity to make home-land security improvements.

Summary and Recommendations 31

Port of BaltimoreBaltimore, Maryland

The port of Baltimore on the Chesapeake Bay hasnumerous privately owned and operated marineterminals and six public terminals that handle

general cargo and are administered by the Maryland Port Administration (MPA).Located inland and with good access to both I-95 and I-70, Baltimore is closer tomany major cities in the East, South, and Midwest than are the other major ports inthe mid-Atlantic region, including Philadelphia, New York, and Norfolk. More than 30million tons of cargo move though the port of Baltimore annually. It is the numberone port in the nation for roll/on, roll/off cargo and number four for containers. It alsohas facilities for a wide range of bulk, breakbulk, and various other types of cargo.Cargo handling is the predominant activity at the port, but there is some recreationalboating and cruise ship activity. The port of Baltimore is a significant economic enginefor the entire region, generating $1.4 billion in revenue annually and employingnearly 126,700 Marylanders in maritime-related jobs. These direct impacts on thelocal economy have extensive multiplier effects on the economy of the entire state.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the port has enhanced securityby adding perimeter barriers, controlling access, and increasing the presence of security and police personnel. On legislation affecting seaport security, the port ofBaltimore has worked with the American Association of Port Authorities, theMaryland Congressional Delegation, and various federal agencies. Stakeholders’ maingoal is to ensure security without impeding the efficient operation and commercialactivity of the port.

Depth of Channel: 35 feetCargo: Over 30 million tons per yearMajor Activities: mixed cargo, recreational boating, cruise ship terminalURL: http://www.mpa.state.md.us

A P P E N D I X

Port Fact Sheets

Port RedevelopmentUsing the manufacturing and waste disposal pro-cedures of the time, the industrial production thatsupported Baltimore’s growth left behind manycontaminated land parcels that were perceived asunusable and encumbered by heavy liabilities. In1996, the governor appointed a task force toinvestigate ways to return the vacant and under-utilized land fronting the port to productive use.Acting on the recommendation of the task force,the General Assembly in 1999 passed House andSenate Bills that created the Port Land UseDevelopment Zone Advisory Council and author-ized the preparation of a Master Plan to guide theredevelopment of lands in a development zonewithin 3,000 feet of the waterfront.

Most of the Maryland Port Administrationterminals are currently operating at or nearcapacity and there is little land with deepwateraccess available in the harbor. As a result, theMPA tracks the waterfront real estate market,making quick decisions when land becomesavailable. MPA is assessing land on either side ofits existing terminals so decisions about expan-sion can be made. It also is working with the cityand county to ensure that waterfront property isreserved for water-dependent uses and water-borne commerce.

Many port development projects require envi-ronmental mitigation. The port has been involvedin oyster reseeding and tree planting projects, andit is managing the design and construction oftidal wetlands within the Chesapeake Bay. Itscommitment to preserve the environment hasbeen demonstrated by protecting wetlands habi-tat, cleaning up contaminated properties andreturning them to productive use, creating a con-servation easement, and funding a shipboarddemonstration of ballast water treatment technol-ogy to manage risk from invasive aquatic species.

More than 2 million cubic yards of silt aredeposited in the Chesapeake Bay each year. Tomaintain safety and navigation, the MPA cariesout an active dredging program. Finding disposalsites for the large amount of material that mustbe dredged is challenging. The port has engagedstakeholders in reaching dredge disposal solutions

and in establishing a long-term strategic manage-ment plan for the dredge material.

VisionThe MPA has a long-term vision for the manage-ment and activities of the port of Baltimore. Itwants to remain a major catalyst in the growth ofinternational trade, and it wants to be competitiveor dominant in all international cargo flowsthrough East Coast ports. The port, sustained bystrong public and private sectors, is committed togood stewardship of Maryland’s natural environ-ment.

GoalsThe Port Authority’s top three goals are (1) jobcreation, (2) environmental cleanup/restoration,including cleanup or containment of contamina-tion and reduction of runoff, and (3) port com-merce. The port authority hopes to solidify theport’s position as the leading roll on/roll off portin the country. It also wants to add to the diver-sity of businesses operating in the port.

Redevelopment Initiatives Former Port Liberty Site

The thirty-acre Port Liberty site was used forshipbuilding during World War II, and later it wasused by Bethlehem Steel for making oil tanks. Aprivate company decided to purchase the site inthe late 1980s, with the intention of developing amaritime-related industrial park. No tenants werefound, and the land sat vacant for ten years untilearly 2001 when three new tenants moved in:American Port Services (an auto importer),Caldwell Cable, and a small stone-cutting com-pany. Job creation was the Port Authority’s lead-ing goal in the redevelopment of the former PortLiberty Site. Fewer than 100 new jobs, however,were created. Since the land had been used forshipbuilding/shipbreaking, it was heavily con-taminated (for example, with sealants and lead-based paint). There was not heavy runoff intothe harbor before redevelopment, but preventingnew runoff was a major thrust of the cleanup


operations. The major use proposed for the sitewas auto importing. Constructing a cap was eas-ily done because the site was to be a parking lot.Pier removal and bulkhead improvements werealso accomplished.

Masonville Marine Terminal

The first phase of development of the MasonvilleMarine Terminal has been completed. The forty-five inland acres of this large waterfront site havebeen redeveloped with an $11 million investmentto provide 100 painting and detailing jobs. Thesecond phase of development is planned for anadjacent 40-acre dredge-spoil site. Cleanup isrequired, since some of the dredge material usedfor fill was contaminated. The channel aroundthe site will also need to be deepened and a bulk-head built to complete the terminal. The projectcost is estimated at $7 million. The creation ofapproximately 100 additional jobs is anticipated.

Key Stakeholders inRedevelopment• Baltimore Development Corporation

• Maryland Port Administration

• Maryland Department of the Environment

• Maryland Department of Business andEconomic Redevelopment RevitalizationProgram

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• U. S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment

Financial and TechnicalAssistance ( for Port Liberty site)

• The Baltimore Development Corporation (aquasi-governmental agency) helped the ownerto find sources of funding for assessment andcleanup. The owner also used funds from pri-vate sources (banks). The total remediationcosts were estimated at $2.4 million.

• Maryland Department of Business andEconomic Redevelopment Revitalization

Program provided a $400,000 grant forcleanup.

• The U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment provided Empowerment Zonefunds: specifically a $400,000 loan from theBrownfields Incentive Program and a $500,000loan from the Business Incentive Fund.

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyawarded various grants and had RCRAinvolvement for sites on the National Priorities List.

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided fill-ing and renovation of piers and bulkheads.

Port of HoustonHouston, Texas

The port of Houston, Texas, is a twenty-five-mile-long complex of diversified public and pri-vate facilities located just a few hours of sailingtime from the Gulf of Mexico. The channelextends fifty miles to Galveston Bay and the Gulfof Mexico, with port facilities all along the chan-nel but primarily clustered inland twenty-fivemiles. The port is ranked first in the United Statesfor foreign waterborne commerce and second fortotal tonnage. Approximately 194 million meantons of cargo moved through the port of Houstonin 2001. A total of 6,613 vessel calls wererecorded at the port during that year.

The port of Houston is an autonomous gov-ernmental entity authorized in 1927 by an act ofthe Texas legislature. The port authority serves asthe local sponsor of the Houston Ship Channeland is responsible for fire and safety protectionalong the channel. The port authority is governedby a board of seven commissioners appointed bylocal government officials from the municipalitieslocated along the Ship Channel. These commis-sioners serve without pay.

Area: 3,000 acresDepth of Channel: 45 feetCargo: 194 million mean tons in 2001Major Activities: cargo terminals, cruise ship terminalURL: http://www.portofhouston.com

Appendix: Port Fact Sheets 35

The port of Houston encompasses about9,000 acres: about 3,000 acres used by the portauthority and its tenants, 4,500 acres of wet-lands, 1,500 acres that are inactive, and 1 acrefor recreation.

Port Redevelopment The port has redeveloped numerous brownfields.Some of them are parcels of land the tenant hasbeen anxious to lease; in other cases the port haspurchased a contaminated piece of property onthe ship channel or discovered contamination onexisting acreage while working on infrastructureimprovements or maintenance.

With the aide of the state of Texas, the portof Houston initiates the cleanup and redevelop-ment of these brownfields sites. The port partici-pates in a state-accelerated review programwhereby the port pays the state $100 an hour toreview the assessment and closure reports of theredevelopment efforts within forty-five days.

The process for redeveloping and maintainingall brownfields sites is the same: soil, water,health, and safety assessment, followed by reme-diation and redevelopment. Contractors are oftenutilized to assess and remediate the brownfieldssites. If a tenant or adjoining property ownercauses the contamination, the port holds thisparty responsible for remediation costs.

VisionThe port of Houston, one of the largest andbusiest ports in the United States, will continue togrow. Its 2020 master plan includes a newBayport container terminal among other develop-ments. The port is also involved in the develop-ment of the state coastal zone plan. Overall, theport’s priority is to become self-sufficient, withoutrelying on bond money for project funding.

GoalsThe most significant goal for the port of Houstonis job creation. Port activity generates 75,487direct jobs and 129,033 indirect jobs, but anincrease in jobs due to increased port commerce

is expected. While expanding its commerce, theport is committed to minimizing the impact ofdevelopment on the environment.

Redevelopment Initiatives Sims Bayou Site

The port acquired the Sims Bayou site, a petro-leum refinery in the 1950s, in a land swap. Since1985, the site has been redeveloped as a petro-leum/coke rail transfer facility. The redevelopedarea covered thirty to fifty acres. The most con-taminated part of the property was an acre con-taining two sludge pits. The assessment took anextended period of time because of groundwatercontamination. The sludge pits, solidified nowwith cement and fly ash, must be monitored overten years. The new tenant, ARCO/BP has occu-pied the site with a rail transfer facility. ARCO/BPcost-shared 50 percent of the $4 million cleanupcosts and co-directed the consultants and con-tractors with the port. There are still other sludgepits on the property with lower levels of contami-nation; as they are cleaned up and restored,ARCO/BP will take over the property.

Peavey Street and Wingate Sites

Peavey Street and Wingate are adjacent water-front properties covering seven acres of land inan economically depressed community on theship channel. The population of that communityis primarily Hispanic. Peavey Street’s contami-nants included PCBs in the soil. The Wingate sitehad chromium in the groundwater, because itwas a former tannery operation. In the mid1990s, the city of Houston and the EconomicDevelopment Administration (EDA) approachedthe port to develop these parcels into a maritimebusiness park or industrial park. Although theport hired a consultant to write an EPA brown-fields assessment grant proposal, funding wasnot granted because of a lack of community out-reach in the proposal. The port was, however,awarded a million dollar EDA grant, which it didnot accept because of EDA requirements. Forexample, a lien on the property noted that thegrantee must fulfill ownership for twenty years.Lease income details had to be recorded and


other provisions complied with. The port contin-ued with the cleanup process at a cost of$300,000, but unfortunately there are no plansfor economic development at this time.

Key Stakeholders inRedevelopment ( for Sims Bayou Site)

• Port Authority of Houston

• Various state agencies

• BP (formerly ARCO)

Financial and TechnicalAssistanceThe port of Houston and ARCO/BP, the tenant ofthe redeveloped site, provided financial and tech-nical assistance.

Port of Long BeachLong Beach, California

The port of Long Beach, located in San PedroBay, is the nation’s second busiest container portand a leading U.S. gateway for Asian trade.Founded in 1911, the port encompasses 7,600acres of harbors, shipping channels, wharves,cargo terminals, roadways, and rail yards. Alltypes of cargo (petroleum, lumber, steel,newsprint, cooking oils, cement, and other prod-ucts shipped in cargo containers) move throughthe port. It can accommodate the largest con-tainer ships in the world. The Long Beach Boardof Harbor Commissioners governs the port.Commission members are appointed by themayor and confirmed by the city council. They inturn appoint the executive director of the HarborDepartment, a 300-person department of the cityof Long Beach.

Area: 7,600 acresDepth of Channel: 42 feet to be deepened to 50 feetCargo: 65.5 million metric tons in 2002Major Activities: container and other cargo terminalsURL: http://www.polb.org

Long Beach is the tenth busiest containercargo port in the world. If combined, the port ofLong Beach and the port of Los Angeles wouldbe the world’s third-busiest port complex. Thevalue of cargo through the port was $88.8 billionin 2002. That year, more than 4.5 milliontwenty-foot-long cargo container units (TEUs)moved through the port of Long Beach. EastAsian trade accounts for more than 90 percent ofthe shipments through the port. Trade throughthe port generates 320,000 jobs (one in twenty-two regional jobs in a five-county region inSouthern California) and 30,000 Long Beach jobs(one in eight local jobs).

Container throughput has increased by 175percent since 1990 and is expected to increase inthe future. To handle the projected cargo growth,the port is planning to redevelop seven of eightexisting container terminals and to build at leasttwo new terminals as part of the Mega-TerminalDevelopment Plan. The new terminals will havedockside rail facilities that allow cargo to betransferred directly between ships and trains.Proactive in transportation planning, the portinvested $200 million in the $2.4 billionAlameda Corridor, a twenty-mile railway connect-ing the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles andSouthern California’s major railheads.

Port Redevelopment In 1987, the port of Long Beach adopted the SanPedro Bay Ports 2020 Plan, a comprehensiveplan to meet projected cargo handling needs ofthe ports through the year 2020. This plan was acollaborative venture involving the port of LongBeach, the port of Los Angeles, and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. The plan providedcargo estimates for the San Pedro Ports through2020, and it called for new cargo terminals, on-dock or near-dock intermodal transportation facil-ities, and 1,200 acres of landfill in the LongBeach Harbor.

The port of Long Beach Facilities Master Plan presents different strategies for growth inthe port of Long Beach through the year 2020,focusing on potential development projects andgeneral patterns of land use within the port.


It incorporates the latest cargo forecasts andcapacity estimates, explores a wide range of con-solidation and minimum-landfill developmentoptions, and addresses both cargo and noncargoland uses.

To meet the land requirements that are pro-jected for the year 2020, the port would have tomore than double its container terminal acreageand build on-dock railyards and other port-relatedinfrastructure to serve the additional terminals.The port of Long Beach has refocused itsapproach to meeting future needs. By emphasiz-ing projects that use existing land more efficiently,it hopes to minimize the needs for major filling.Under the Mega-Terminal Development Plan, theport will consolidate and redevelop seven of itseight container terminals into five larger terminals,each exceeding 300 acres in size.

VisionFacilities Master Plan:

• Complete the identified near-term developmentprojects that have been identified and imple-ment the strategies in the Mega-TerminalDevelopment Plan. This plan allows for expan-sion and growth of cargo facilities withoutcausing major land, environmental and regula-tory impacts.

• Continue to work with port tenants to ensureefficient utilization and operation of port assets.By maximizing its assets, the port will delaythe need for major fill projects.

• Continue advance planning for a major fill proj-ect within the West Basin. If all of the near-term development projects are implemented andfuture cargo demand is consistent with the lowforecast, the port will not need to acquire moreland until after 2020. However, if future cargodemand exceeds the low forecast, or if the portcannot implement enough of the near-termdevelopment strategies, then a major areawithin the West Basin would need to be filledbefore 2015.

• Consider the need for additional capacity in thelong term. Cargo growth will not stop in theyear 2020. In addition to the near-term projects

and West Basin fill project, the port might needto implement other projects to meet demands ofthe post 2020 period.

GoalsThe main redevelopment goal is to increase thecontainer terminal capacity to meet the port’s cur-rent and long-term needs. To handle projectedcargo growth, the port is implementing the Mega-Terminal Development Plan. The following proj-ects are planned for the next decade:

• Complete a 375-acre Pier T container terminalon Terminal Island

• Construct a 160-acre Pier S terminal on a for-mer Terminal Island oil field

• Consolidate Pier G and Pier J container termi-nals, and fill a proposed twelve acres of land

• Build a deepwater, liquid bulk terminal on PierT to serve larger tankers

• Replace four-lane Gerald Desmond Bridge witha taller bridge that has at least six lanes.

Redevelopment InitiativeDescribed below is one redevelopment projectthat has been particularly successful.

Pier T (Former Naval Complex)

Over the past decade, the port of Long Beach hasundertaken a variety of capital improvement proj-ects to enhance and enlarge terminal facilities andthe local transportation network. The port activelyinvestigates and redevelops contaminated prop-erty through its ongoing port improvements. Aspart of the San Pedro Ports 2020 Plan, the portplanned to create new land with fill and develop anew container terminal, but the opportunity toredevelop the navy site became available. Reuseof the naval complex was viewed as an excellentopportunity to provide the region with additionaldeep-water marine terminal facilities.

The Pier T Marine Terminal is a 375-acrecontainer terminal developed by the port on thesite of the former Long Beach naval complex.PIER T is the port’s largest container cargo facilityand the first in a series of mega-terminal projects


planned over the next decade. PIER T has twelveof the largest and fastest Gantry cranes, a mile ofmodern deep draft berths, and the largest on-dock rail yard in the nation.

The redevelopment of Pier T has been amodel for reuse of military bases elsewhere. Thesuccess of this project is largely attributable to theport’s decision to proceed with development atthe same time that the navy was conductingenvironmental remediation of the property. ALease in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC),established between the city of Long Beach andthe navy, allowed development to commenceprior to the completion of the navy’s environ-mental cleanup.

Before transferring the naval station complexto the port, the navy was required to identify andclean up areas of contamination. The port deter-mined that remedial action was needed in a num-ber of areas, including hazardous materials,storage tanks, radioactive materials, radon, stor-age tank removal, contaminated sediments, andsoil and groundwater contamination. Recognizingthe substantial time that it would take to demol-ish more than 200 buildings and to construct thelarge, new container terminal, the port decided toproceed with design and construction concur-rently with the navy’s environmental cleanup.

A BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT) was establishedwith representatives from the navy, EPA, andCalifornia Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC). The port attended the BCT meeting,which led to a strong partnership and coordinatedactivities. The navy was able to use the port’sdevelopment schedule to target key properties forcleanup.

During the development of Pier T, the portencountered historical preservation issues andconducted environmental mitigation. The portrelocated a large colony of black-crowned nightherons, an endangered species, from the formernaval station to a protected area in the port. Theport also created approximately twenty-two acresof shallow-water habitat as a foraging area forthe endangered California least tern. The portdeveloped an innovative way to dispose of con-taminated sediment: contaminated soil and sedi-ments are buried beneath a concrete cap withinfill or major grading projects.

Key Stakeholders inRedevelopment• City of Long Beach

• California Department of Toxic SubstancesControl

• California Regional Water Quality Control Board

• State Historic Preservation Office

• Advisory Council on Historical Preservation

• National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration



• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• U.S. Maritime Administration

• U. S. Navy

Financial and TechnicalAssistanceThe Pier T project cost $576 million and wasfinanced through revenue bonds. The land wasgiven to the port by the navy at no cost.

Port of Los AngelesSan Pedro, California

The port of Los Angeles is located in San PedroBay, approximately twenty miles south of down-town Los Angeles. The port occupies 7,500 acresof land and water along forty-three miles ofwaterfront. The port of Los Angeles, which han-dles 3,000 vessels a year, is the busiest containerport in the United States and seventh busiest inthe world. A department of the city of LosAngeles, the port of Los Angeles is operated andmanaged under the State Tidelands Trust thatgrants local municipalities jurisdiction over ports.

Area: 7,300 acresDepth of Channel: minimum depth of 45 feetCargo: 123 million metric tons per yearMajor Activities: cargo terminals, cruise ship terminalURL: http://www.portoflosangeles.org


The port is not subsidized by tax dollars. Ratherit is maintained through generated revenues.

The port has thirty major cargo terminals,including facilities to handle automobiles, con-tainers, dry bulk products, and liquid bulk prod-ucts. Combined, these terminals handle morethan 120 million metric tons of cargo represent-ing $102 billion. Two major railroads serve theport, and it lies at the terminus of two major free-ways within the Los Angeles freeway system.Subsurface pipelines link the port to many majorrefineries and petroleum distribution terminalswithin the Los Angeles Basin. The port’s WorldCruise Center is the largest and busiest passengerterminal on the West Coast. A dozen cruise linescall at the port, serving more than 1 million pas-sengers each year.

The port of Los Angeles combined with theadjacent port of Long Beach forms the thirdbusiest container port in the world. About onequarter of all products arriving in the UnitedStates move through the ports of Los Angelesand Long Beach. The port of Los Angeles has aneconomic impact not only on the city of LosAngeles and the county of Los Angeles, but alsoon the surrounding area. Indeed, it supports oneof every twenty-four jobs in Southern California.

Port RedevelopmentIn 1987, the port of Los Angeles adopted the SanPedro Bay Ports 2020 Plan, a collaborative ven-ture involving the port of Los Angeles, the port ofLong Beach, and the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers. The plan provided cargo estimates forthe San Pedro Ports through 2020 and called fornew cargo terminals and on-dock or near-dockintermodal transportation facilities. The 2020 planhas been changed several times to update theforecasts of container cargo growth. Growth pro-jections are vastly higher than previously esti-mated. The growth forecasts from the 2020 planhave been incorporated in the port’s Master Plan.To keep pace with the evolving global trade indus-try, the port has undertaken numerous develop-ment projects, including channel deepening, railimprovements, and the building of PIER 400, thesite of the nation’s largest container terminal.

VisionGrowth in cargo volumes at the port of LosAngeles is unprecedented, and it is projected tocontinue because of the tremendous boom ininternational trade. Conservative estimates call forannual volume increases through the port of 5percent to 7 percent, with an overall doubling ofcargo over the next ten years. The port’s vision isto accommodate this projected increase in cargo,and to meet the changing demands of shippersand carriers. Development is planned to take careof the growing volumes of imports and exportswith even greater efficiency. The port is also com-mitted to improving intermodal cargo transporta-tion. Significant investments in infrastructure arecontinually being made. The port of Los Angelesinvested funds in the Alameda Corridor, a ten-mile railway connecting the ports of Los Angelesand Long Beach and Southern California’s majorrailheads.

GoalsThe main goal for site redevelopment is to meetthe port’s current and future needs for containerterminal space. In response to the dramaticincrease expected in cargo volume the port ismodernizing existing facilities and developingnew terminals, keeping in mind the importance ofincorporating environmental measures. Develop-ment is to be carried out in an environmentallyresponsible manner. Carefully balancing growthand development with environmental considera-tions is a challenge. The port accomplishes thisgoal through more efficient cargo-handling opera-tions, improved infrastructure, and biological,industrial, and internal environmental programs.

Redevelopment InitiativesFormer Chevron Site

In 1990, the port of Los Angeles decided toremove twenty-two acres of contaminated landjutting into the turning basin to improve vesseltraffic flow and better accommodate larger vesselsin the port. Chevron had been using the site as abulk liquid terminal, but decided to terminate itslease. Before vacating the site, Chevron spent


$30 million to remove pipelines and storagetanks, and to conduct thermal treatments andbioremediation. Contamination had also enteredthe groundwater, and a plume traveled off-site, sogroundwater was remediated as well.

Todd Shipyard

At about the same time, Todd Shipyard, the occu-pant of an adjacent site, went bankrupt and ter-minated its lease. Six thousand jobs were lost.The property that the shipyard had occupied wascontaminated with asbestos, solvents, metals,and various petroleum hydrocarbons. The portpaid a private salvage company to sell off theabandoned shipyard shop and remediated theproperty with funds from the sale. Federal moneywas used only for dredging of contaminated sedi-ments. In total, eighty acres have been redevel-oped to meet the port’s container terminal needsand to stimulate economic development in thatarea. It has also reduced uncontrolled releases ofcontaminants from these two sites, and has usedContained Aquatic Disposal (CAD) sites for place-ment of contaminated sediments from these proj-ects and other hot spots around the harbor.

Some of the success of this redevelopmentcan be attributed to the port’s close working rela-tionships with the California Regulatory WaterControl Board, the county of Los Angeles, TetraTech, Inc., the Army Corps of Engineers, and thelocal fire department.

Key Stakeholders inRedevelopment• Port of Los Angeles

• Los Angeles Fire Department

• California Regional Water Quality Board


• Chevron Corporation

Financial and TechnicalAssistanceChevron Corporation financed the assessment andcleanup of its site. The port financed the redevel-opment of the sites.

New Bedford HarborCity of New Bedford/Town of Fairhaven,Massachusetts

Considered “the seafood capital of the Northeast,”New Bedford Harbor in southeastern Massachu-setts has a rich whaling and fishing history. Theharbor is one of the safest in the eastern UnitedStates because of to its 3.5-mile hurricane barrier,which in heavy weather protects 1,400 acres ofdensely developed land. Administration of theharbor is shared by the city of New Bedford andthe town of Fairhaven and they work together onprojects affecting the harbor.

A 1998 study showed that harbor-relatedbusinesses provide approximately $671 million insales and 3,700 jobs to the local economy. Theseafood industry (including harvesting, process-ing and wholesaling) alone accounts for $609million in sales and 2,600 jobs.

In addition to the fishing fleet and seafoodoperations, the port has freight and passengerferry service, export shipping, recreational boating,and cruise ship docking. Support industries alsoexist for all of these above activities. There is con-venient air, rail, and trucking access. The port ispart of the New Bedford Foreign Trade Zone(FTZ), which provides importers and exportersduty-free manufacturing opportunities. Portions ofthe waterfront in New Bedford and Fairhaven areclassified as Designated Port Areas (DPAs) under aprogram to preserve and promote maritime indus-try. Several brownfields sites at the water’s edgeare targeted for port expansion, commercial, andtransportation initiatives. The Harbor DevelopmentCommission (HDC) manages port properties forthe city of New Bedford, advises on brownfieldsand underused properties to support goals of portrevitalization, and works on developing, market-ing, and promoting the harbor and city.

Tidal Area: 13.2 square milesDepth of Channel: 30 feetCargo: 818,000 short tons in 2001Major Activities: active fishing fleet, seafood pro-cessing, freight and passenger ferry service, cruiseship docking, recreational boatingURL: http://www.portofnewbedford.org


Port RedevelopmentNew Bedford Harbor is viewed as a single brown-fields site rather than many separate sites.Comprehensive and regional plans are based onthis concept. The plans connect the port’s brown-fields properties to water-borne activities.

The city of New Bedford and the common-wealth of Massachusetts initiated port redevelop-ment and created a harbor master plan, the NewBedford/Fairhaven Harbor Plan. Approved inSeptember 2002, the plan took four years ofpreparation and includes five- and ten-yearimplementation plans. It also provides guidanceto state regulators in making permitting deci-sions. Multiple state and city agencies, nonprofitorganizations, and private companies are closelyinvolved in the harbor’s planning and redevelop-ment.

VisionThe New Bedford/Fairhaven Harbor Plan incorpo-rates four overriding principles:

1. Develop traditional harbor industries by pre-serving seafood-related industries; maintainthe “Seafood Capital” identity.

2. Improve tourism and recreational uses of theharbor by taking advantage of economic andcommunity development opportunities suchas the Oceanarium project and the NationalPark designation.

3. Upgrade infrastructure essential to the suc-cess of port development and tourism, includ-ing dredging and rail and pier improvements.

4. Enhance the harbor environment by furtherdeveloping the harbor as an asset for localcommunities and the region, and improvingpublic access and enjoyment of the water-front.

GoalsGoals for the redevelopment of New BedfordHarbor include the following:

• Port commerce. Protect and expand theseafood industry by providing affordableberthing, lengthening operating hours for

twenty-four hour operation, and upgradingfacilities and infrastructure. Encourage a widermix of uses for the port (for example, ferries,cruise ships, recreational boat slips). Increasethe movement of imports and exports.

• Tourism. Use harbor as both a working portand a tourist destination by creating open space and commercial destinations. Improvevisual and pedestrian links between the downtowns and the harbor.

• Job creation. Maintain current port-relatedjobs while expanding and diversifying the jobbase in transportation, retail, and hospitalityindustries. The harbor plan anticipates the cre-ation of 700 to 800 private sector jobs.

• Transportation issues. Improve harbor accessthrough redesign and redevelopment of a majorartery connecting New Bedford to the regionalhighway, to reduce barriers between the water-front and downtown. Relocate and rebuild anobsolete and unreliable harbor bridge. Create acommuter rail link and develop an intermodaltransportation hub.

• Environmental cleanup and restoration.Link port development and restoration. Preparecontaminated waterfront properties for reuse totake advantage of the opportunities that willcome after the EPA Superfund cleanup.

Redevelopment InitiativesStandard Times Field

The city of New Bedford and HDC have preparedthe site for a marine industrial park, preferablyfor businesses related to seafood processing, thatcould reach 300,000 to 500,000 square feet. Asof 2003, seven of the ten lots had been sold forseafood-related businesses, and one lot was tar-geted as the site for a bilge recycling facility. Thepark will help to improve the environmental con-dition of the port, minimize the risk of introduc-tion of invasive species, and it should providesufficient revenue to become self-supporting.

South Terminal

The twenty-five-acre South Terminal site is amarine industrial area mostly occupied by


seafood processing facilities. It also houses multi-ple support industries including fishing gear, pro-visioning, and paper products for processors,vessels, or tradespeople. The local job basedepends on these support industries to maintain alarge fishing fleet and seafood processing com-modities. Future plans include the continueddevelopment of South Terminal as a major centerfor the seafood industry and as a place whereother port-related uses can be implemented.

Oceanarium

A power plant was previously located on the83,000 square foot site that will house a newstate-of-the-art oceanarium. The oceanariumcould become a major cultural and educationalattraction in the region. It will contain educa-tional displays, research and education space,offices and meeting rooms, restaurants, retail andconcession areas, parking, and other related com-mercial uses. Reuse of this site would expandmarine industrial uses at the water’s edge andseparate cruise ships and tourist uses from thefishing fleet and freight.

State Pier and Central Waterfront

The Central Waterfront area is adjacent to down-town New Bedford, and it includes State Pier andneighboring wharves. Potential enhancements inthis area include wharf extensions for fishingvessels and berthing areas for cargo, excursion,charter, and cruise vessels. A roll on/roll offfreight ferry terminal has been constructed atState Pier. Plans for this area also include spacefor a seasonal market and special events.Historical structures will be reused for visitorservices. A pedestrian promenade for visitors toaccess interpretive information and view a work-ing seaport without impeding operations will alsobe developed.

New Bedford Intermodal Center

The centerpiece of New Bedford’s revitalizationefforts is the redevelopment of a former railroaddepot into an intermodal transportation center.The North Terminal 2010/New BedfordIntermodal Center Initiative involves the remedia-tion of a twenty-five-acre brownfields site for

reuse as an intermodal transportation node con-necting commuter and freight rail service, pas-senger and commercial marine transportationsystems, highways, and regional bus service.

Key Stakeholders inRedevelopmentLocal Government

• City of New Bedford

• Town of Fairhaven

• New Bedford Harbor Development Commission

• New Bedford Economic Development Council

• New Bedford Office of Tourism and Marketing

State Agencies

• Executive Office of Environmental Affairs

• Executive Office of Transportation andConstruction

• Department of Conservation and Recreation

• Department of Environmental Protection

• Division of Marine Fisheries, Department ofFish and Game

• Office of Coastal Zone Management

• Schooner Ernestina Commission

• Seaport Advisory Council

Federal Agencies

• National Park Service

• National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration


• U.S. Coast Guard

• U.S. Custom Services


Non-profit Organizations

• Azorean Maritime Heritage Society

• Buzzards Bay Action Committee

• Coalition for Buzzards Bay

• Community Boating Center

• New Bedford Oceanarium

• New Bedford Port Society


• New Bedford Whaling Museum

• New England Steamship Foundation

• Waterfront Historic Area League

Educational Institutions

• Northeast Maritime Institute

• School for Marine Science and Technology(SMAST)—University of Massachusetts atDartmouth

• U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary

Private Sector

• Many diverse private businesses, especiallymarine related

Financial and TechnicalAssistance• EPA provided Brownfields grants, Brownfields

Showcase Community pilot award, Superfundcleanup including harbor dredging of contami-nated sediment.

• New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council (Membersinclude NOAA, USFWS, MassachusettsExecutive Office of Environmental Affairs) pro-vided natural resource restoration and funded apublic access plan.

• NOAA provided a staff person or a two-yearposition through the Showcase Communitypilot program.

• Massachusetts Seaport Advisory Council recom-mended commonwealth of Massachusetts bondfunding for many New Bedford projects, includ-ing pier improvements, dredging, ferry terminalconstruction, harbor plan development, geo-technical services and other planning services.

• Massachusetts Office of Coastal ZoneManagement provided technical assistance dur-ing harbor plan development and grants over-sight of harbor plan coordinator funding. CZMcontinues to support the city and HDC in har-bor plan implementation.

• Massachusetts Department of EnvironmentalProtection assigned an ombudsman from theSoutheast Regional Office to assist New Bedfordwith brownfields projects.

• Massachusetts Department of Housing andCommunity Development provided grant fundsfor demolition and cleanup.

• Massachusetts Office of the Attorney Generalgave legal and financial support to brownfieldsprojects, negotiated and executed an assess-ment and cleanup agreement with a responsibleparty, provided financial support for assessmentactivities.

• University of Massachusetts partnered with thecity of New Bedford on brownfields redevelop-ment and job training projects.

• New Bedford Health Department issuesapproval on building and occupancy permitapplications for brownfields.

• New Bedford Economic Development Councilprovides access to financial packages, includingincentives, for redevelopment projects.

Port of OaklandOakland, California

The port of Oakland is located on the easternshore of San Francisco Bay. The city of Oaklandis considered an economically distressed area,with the port being a major revenue source,employer, landowner, and social steward. Theport redevelopment project generated work for1,500 construction workers, some of whom weretrained under the port’s Youth EmploymentProgram. The project also created 2,000 perma-nent, full-time jobs with an annual payroll equal-ing $300 million. Thus, the port is a majoreconomic engine for the city of Oakland and sur-rounding communities.

Oakland is the fourth busiest port in theUnited States. It has nineteen miles of shoreline,twenty-five active deepwater berths, and thirty-

Area: 760 acresDepth of Channel: 42 feetCargo: Imports 3,455,905 metric tons per yearand exports: 3,900,481 metric tons per yearMajor Activities: Container port that processes98 percent of container cargo coming into north-ern CaliforniaURL: http://www.PortofOakland.com


three gantry container cranes. There are hun-dreds of acres of developable former industrialproperty along the waterfront. Major importsinclude automobiles and parts, computer equip-ment, processed foods, clothing, toys/games,industrial materials, household goods, and rawmaterials. Major exports include fresh produce,meat products, chemicals, industrial machinery,crude materials for fertilizers, animal feed, cerealproducts, and raw materials. The major role ofthe port is to maintain its competitiveness in con-tainer commerce. Recreational opportunities atthe port for community residents and Bay areavisitors also are important. Restoration of thenatural shoreline and bottom habitat are incorpo-rated by the port in its improvement projects.

The port is strategically positioned in the pop-ulated San Francisco Bay area with convenientaccess to major rail and highway arteries.Through its development efforts, the port canoffer state-of-the-art container facilities includingdeep berthing, cold ironing facilities, and air miti-gation pilot programs. The port has a mission tobe environmentally sustainable, and it is in theprocess of establishing an environmental man-agement system (EMS). The port attributes itssuccess in redeveloping brownfields and in meet-ing other environmental challenges to a large in-house environmental staff. Recreationalopportunities have improved in recent years. Aformer naval facility was transformed into athirty-eight-acre park. The port considers publicoutreach important. It offers public tours andworks with the local community to improveaccess to the waterfront. It also supportsincreased use of the trail network.

Port RedevelopmentThe overall vision for the port is to accommodateall container shipping and maintain competitive-ness in the global shipping market while improv-ing environmental conditions through the port’sredevelopment projects. The port plans to deepenits channel to 50 feet from the current 42-footdepth. Clean sediment in the channel will be usedfor filling holes and deep areas in embayments tocreate shallow water habitat, including restoration

of eelgrass beds. The port also plans to extendexisting terminals and to move the railyard fromits current location on an old navy base to aclosed army base site. This will allow for morewaterside yard space. A consolidated intermodalterminal will facilitate the movement of goodsand people in and out of Oakland, and it willimprove the efficiency of port operations. A saferavenue for commuters to use the train terminalwill be provided.

The port has a strong environmental stew-ardship record in addition to its contribution tothe local and regional economy. The port’s bestmanagement and local hiring practices encouragesustainability of the environment as well as ben-efit the community. As part of the Strategic Planfor 2002 and beyond, the port is implementingan environmental management system toincrease the efficiency of its operations and toreduce environmental impacts. The port viewsthe redevelopment of portfields as means formeeting its expansion needs, and it incorporateshabitat restoration components into its revitaliza-tion and redevelopment projects.

GoalsGoals for redevelopment of the port of Oaklandare in four categories: job creation, port com-merce, environmental cleanup and restoration,and historic preservation. Accomplishments ineach of the areas will be discussed.

The redevelopment project generated work for1,500 construction workers, some of whom weretrained under the port’s Youth Employment Pro-gram. It also created 2,000 permanent, full-timejobs. The annual payroll recently equaled $300million. Through increased capacity for containerstorage and operations (including four newmarine terminals to service larger container ships,and one tugboat marine terminal), the expansionof the port has contributed $45 million annuallyto state and local taxes. Port redevelopment pro-vided 120 acres of wildlife habitat in the Bay andthirty-eight acres of parkland along the water’sedge. During the expansion, the port movedforty-four acres of land and reconfigured the cur-rent dock and berthing system to accommodate


larger ships and improve the safety of the exist-ing infrastructure. The project widened the chan-nel to reinforce pier walls. Some of the clean fillwent toward shallow-water-habitat creation andeelgrass restoration, a critical component in therestoration of San Francisco Bay. Contaminatedsediments were used for filling in berths, andthen capping and paving for encapsulation of thesediments and expansion of the port containerspace.

To preserve the history of the naval facility,the parkland has a memorial and educationalkiosks. Public access to waterfront activities hasbeen improved. Visitors can now see panoramicviews of the San Francisco skyline and surround-ing area.

Redevelopment InitiativeDescribed below is one redevelopment projectthat has been particularly successful.

U.S. Navy Fleet and Industrial SupplyCenter, Oakland (FISCO) Facility

The FISCO site is located along the Oakland InnerHarbor Channel/Estuary on 580 acres of primewaterfront land. Prior to redevelopment, the sitewas the navy’s largest West Coast industrial sup-ply center. It contained 125 structures, mainte-nance and heavy equipment repair shops, andother industrial uses. The hazardous waste sitesstored on the site contributed to soil and ground-water contamination. As an integral part of“Vision 2000,” the port’s major strategic plan forrevitalization, the U.S. Navy FISCO facility wassuccessfully cleaned up and redeveloped forexpanded container operations, enhanced inter-modal facilities, and environmentalmitigation/restoration.

In 1911, the State Lands Commission grantedthe majority of the FISCO property to the port ofOakland as “tideland trust land.” Tideland trustland must remain as property available for publictrust uses, namely commerce, navigation, andfisheries. In 1940, the navy paid the port ofOakland $1.00 for the FISCO property andrecorded a deed with a reversionary clause. Thereversionary clause was the key that allowed the

port to receive the land back from the navy underspecial legislation from Congress.

In 1996, new early-transfer legislationallowed the title to the land to be transferred fromthe federal government to private entities prior tocompletion of environmental cleanup. The U.S.Navy closed FISCO in 1998, and this was thefirst project in which the navy transferred land toa private entity before the environmental cleanupwas completed. In 1999, the port agreed toaccept liability and conclude the navy’s remedialactivities under its direct control. The navyfunded the cleanup including environmentalinsurance premiums in case unexpected contami-nation was detected (pollution legal liability) ordue to cost overruns (cost cap insurance). Themajor redevelopment took place from 1999 to2003, resulting in 270 acres for container opera-tions, 85 acres for an intermodal facility, and 38acres for a shoreline park. The port has enhanced120 acres of the Bay for wildlife habitat.

The port used several innovative approachesin redeveloping the FISCO site. These includedreusing concrete demolition debris from navybuildings and other materials on-site; traininglocal workers in construction, assessment, andcleanup technologies; using pavers instead ofimpervious surface for the container yards; andincorporating historical preservation and environ-mental restoration components into the redevel-opment. There were also several key items thataided redevelopment of the FISCO site to supportport expansion and revitalization. The port hadclearly defined goals for the reuse project. Thesite was historically industrial, and the proposedport plans kept the site industrial. There werelimited stakeholders and clear ownership of theproperty. The port had additional financial sup-port from the Department Of Transportation’sISTEA funds. Tenants were ready to occupy thenew container facilities as soon as they weredeveloped. Finally, cooperation with the StateDepartment of Toxic Substance Control and theRegional Water Quality Control Board helped theport to carry out the redevelopment project.

The port of Oakland learned important les-sons about port redevelopment during work onthis project. First, support for project goals from


the community is essential. In Oakland, a task-force focused on the mitigation park (recreationand habitat creation area) as a way to improverecreation and environmental conditions in andaround the port community. Workshops wherethese improvements were discussed were used togarner support for port expansion. A second les-son is to adhere to clear standards on cleanup.Although the major proposed use for the site wasindustrial, the port conducted a risk assessmentusing residential cleanup standards. Many of theareas under investigation met the residentialstandards. Those that did not, now have restric-tions on use in those areas. By conducting athorough risk assessment, the port built trustbetween the community and government agen-cies involved in the redevelopment.

Key Stakeholders inRedevelopmentPort Authority

• Port of Oakland

Local Government

• City of Oakland

State Agencies

• Bay Conservation and DevelopmentCommission

• California Department of Fish and Game

• Regional Water Quality Control Board

• State Department of Toxic Substance Control

Federal Agencies

• NOAA Fisheries- National Marine FisheriesService


• U.S. Department of Defense

Nonprofits and Community Groups

• Audubon Society

• Restoration Advisory Board

• Save San Francisco Bay Association

Financial and TechnicalAssistanceRevenue bonds have been instrumental in theredevelopment of the port of Oakland. The U.S.Navy provided cleanup (early transfer) funding.It also paid premiums on environmental insur-ance. The U.S. Department of Transportation pro-vided ISTEA funds.

Port of TampaTampa, Florida

The Tampa Port Authority is an autonomous gov-ernmental entity authorized in 1945 by the stateof Florida. A board of five commissioners governsthe port authority, including a county council-man, the mayor of Tampa, and three commis-sioners appointed by the governor. Tampa isFlorida’s largest seaport, handling nearly half ofall seaborne commerce that passes through thestate. It is the twelfth largest cargo port in thenation, handling 37,000 vessels and 47 milliontons of cargo with an estimated value of $13 mil-lion annually. It is also a major cruise port.Currently, the port provides over 107,000 jobs inthe Tampa Bay Region: $3.74 billion go intowages and salaries. Twenty thousand workers areemployed directly by the port’s four main indus-tries: the cruise, shipping, transportation, andphosphate/chemical industries. The total annualeconomic impact on the local economy is $13 billion.

The Tampa Port Authority has a well-func-tioning Workforce Board and One-Stop CareerCenter. The Tampa Bay Workforce Alliance(TBWA) is the local Workforce Investment Board

Area: 2,500 acres, plus a 200-acre mitigation site.Fewer than 200 acres are available for develop-ment.Depth of Channel: 43 feetCargo: 47 million tons in 2002Major Activities: bulk and general cargo, trans-portation, cruise ship terminals, marine industries,fisheries, retail/entertainment uses,phosphate/chemical industriesURL: http://www.tampaport.com


for the Tampa/Hillsborough County area.Previously known as the Private IndustryCouncil, which administered the Job TrainingPartnership Act, the TBWA is the administrativeentity for Region 15.

Port RedevelopmentContamination, both real and perceived, has sig-nificantly inhibited the successful redevelopmentof this area. Several brownfields properties arelocated on a federally recognized OutstandingWaterway and national estuary. Water quality inthis area is of critical concern. These sites, alllocated in economically disadvantaged areas ofthe community, have reduced property valuesand limited employment opportunities. Theassessment and cleanup of these brownfieldsproperties, which are surrounded by predomi-nantly minority neighborhoods, will help promoteenvironmental justice.

The port makes careful stewardship of theenvironment a priority and is committed to therestoration, improvement and protection ofTampa Bay. The port created an award-winningmitigation site. This 276-acre wetland has highand low salt marshes, mangrove swamps, tidalchannels, and salt flats. The mitigation site, onPendola Point, has been established as a naturalpreserve to offset the impact of filling in sixtyacres at William Hooker’s Point Berthing Facility.

Vision and GoalsBrownfields redevelopment is identified as a goalin the Tampa Port Authority Master Plan, lastupdated in August 2000. The TPA’s brownfieldsredevelopment program began with the designa-tion of its property as a State Brownfields Area inJanuary 2001. The following year, the city ofTampa’s EPA Brownfield Target Area wasexpanded to include the port properties. The portis located within the City of Tampa EnterpriseCommunity and Federal Enterprise Community.The port is also part of another designated area—the Federally Significant Estuary within a FloridaOutstanding Waterway. With all of these designa-tions, brownfields redevelopment has a critical

role in the economic and environmental health ofthe immediate Tampa Bay community.

The port’s main goal is expanding port com-merce while minimizing the adverse environmen-tal impact of development. Preliminaryenvironmental assessments have been conductedon several project sites in order to rank them forcleanup and redevelopment. Sites that have rede-velopment potential or potential end users havereceived top priority. Brownfields redevelopmentwill support waterborne commerce in the portthrough increased capacity and the expansion ofexisting and new port businesses. Import andexport businesses are at the forefront of theexpansion plans, which will undoubtedly expandoverall tonnage and value of cargo currently real-ized by the port.

Redevelopment InitiativesHookers Pt.-Port Ebor, Berth 250–252

The sixty-acre site was contaminated and is nowalmost completely cleaned up with the exceptionof about 500 cubic yards of soil contaminatedwith oil that is being bioremediated with the useof microbes. With a $1 million grant from theU.S. Department of Commerce’s EconomicDevelopment Administration, the port has recon-structed 1,200 linear feet of bulkhead on the site.Plans for the site include development of a ship-yard and warehouses. The site is expected to beoperating between 2006 and 2010.

The port has gone beyond environmentalrequirements on this site by installing anadvanced stormwater treatment system with baf-fle boxes. The boxes remove sediment and sus-pend particles and associated pollutants from thestormwater before it is released.

Port Ybor Redevelopment

This site encompassing more than thirty-threeacres is currently vacant, and the soil andgroundwater are contaminated with petroleum,solvents, and metals. Past uses included an ironworks, submarine building, general industrial,warehousing, recycling facility, machine shops,marine repair, asphalt and recycling facility, oiltanks, pickling tanks and metal working facilities.


The Tampa Port Authority has conductedextensive assessment activities on the Port Yborproperty to prepare the site for redevelopment. Itis anticipated that an additional $50,000 ofassessment funding will be required to completethe assessment of petroleum impacts to the prop-erty and $150,000 for nonpetroleum assessment.The proposed development will contain fivebuildings including a general cargo warehouseand several office and commercial buildings. Thisredevelopment, projected to generate about 1,100new jobs, will rejuvenate a long neglected andunderused area of Tampa.

Tampa Scrap Processors, Inc.

This ten-acre site, submerged until 1976, oper-ated as a scrap yard with an automotive shredderon the site from 1980 to 2000. Currently, the siteis vacant. The soil is contaminated with petro-leum, solvents, and metals. The site is being pre-pared for redevelopment for a port-related landuse that will likely include general cargo.Redevelopment will create welcome new jobssince the property has been abandoned becauseof environmental issues and stigma. The TampaPort Authority has completed a Phase IEnvironmental Assessment under the City ofTampa Brownfields Program for this property.Once the environmental predevelopment activitiesare completed, the TPA will make the propertyavailable to a leaseholder. The leaseholder willmake the necessary improvements to the prop-erty to complete the redevelopment.

Tampa Bay Shipbuilding & Repair Co.

Tampa Bay Shipbuilding and Repair Companycurrently employs over 300 people on a forty-acre site that has had shipbuilding and repairactivities on it since World War II. Additional jobcreation is anticipated through expansion to areaswhere the soil and groundwater are currentlycontaminated with petroleum, solvents and met-als. The resources for this expansion will comefrom Tampa Bay Shipbuilding and Repair. TheTampa Port Authority will assist by providingenvironmental and economic development assis-tance for this project. TPA has entered into aBrownfields Site Rehabilitation Agreement for the

assessment and remediation of the Tampa BayShipbuilding and Repair Company property. Thereis a limited site assessment that is currentlyongoing. It has been funded through the City ofTampa Brownfields Program. Because of theextensive shipbuilding and repair operations onthe site since World War II, an additional assess-ment to delineate petroleum contamination isanticipated.

Key Stakeholders inRedevelopment• City of Tampa

• Port Authority of Tampa

• Florida Department of Environmental Protection

• Various federal agencies involved in brown-fields redevelopment

• Various private investors

Financial and TechnicalAssistanceIncentives under the Florida BrownfieldsProgram include:

• Private development partnerships

• Voluntary cleanup tax credit for up to 35 per-cent of cleanup costs

• State Brownfields Loan Guarantee Program

• Expedited regulatory review

• Brownfields Job Bonus Refund (up to $2,500per employee)

• Risk-based cleanup

• Low interest loans for clearance of liens andback taxes on brownfields properties

• Lender and cleanup liability protection

Tax incentives and credits under the City ofTampa Enterprise program include:

• Community contribution tax. Allows a 50 per-cent tax credit for donations to qualified localdevelopment projects.

• Enterprise Zone jobs tax credit. Allows 10 per-cent tax credit on wages paid to new employ-ees from qualified target groups.


• Enterprise Zone property tax credit. Equal to 96percent of ad valorem taxes paid on eligiblenew or expanded property for five years (up to$50,000 annually).

• Credit against sales tax for job creation. Allowsa 10 percent tax credit on wages paid to newemployees in eligible target groups.

• Sales tax exemption for building materials usedin an Enterprise Zone. Allows a refund on salestaxes paid for building materials used to reha-bilitate Enterprise Zone property.

• Sales tax exemption for business property usedin an Enterprise Zone. Allows a refund on salestaxes paid for business property used exclu-sively in an Enterprise Zone property.

Port of ToledoToledo, Ohio

Northwest Ohio is an intermodal region that islinked to the nation and the world through a net-work of transportation systems (air, highway,rail, pipeline, and water). The port of Toledo,located on Lake Erie in Northwest Ohio, is thelargest international tonnage seaport of the GreatLakes. Between 1999 and 2002, an average of11.5 million short tons of cargo moved throughthe port annually. Iron ore, general cargo, grain,and coal comprise the port’s primary cargo. Twomajor issues that affect the port’s ability to dobusiness are: (1) the size of the St. LawrenceSeaway, which restricts vessel size; and (2) sea-sonality, which restricts the shipping season.Additionally, 20 percent of all dredging in theGreat Lakes occurs in Toledo Harbor.

The Toledo–Lucas County Port Authority (T-LCPA) is a regional leader in economic develop-ment, is promoting Northwest Ohio as atransportation hub and working to increase the

Depth of Channel: 27 feetCargo: 11.5 million short tons per year (the aver-age for 1999 to 2002 season)Major Activities: Primary inbound cargo- iron oreand general cargo. Primary outbound cargo-grain and coal.URL: http://www.toledoportauthority.org

economic impact of the seaport, airport, and railterminal. The T-LCPA has recognized that a holis-tic approach that combines economic develop-ment with environmental standards is necessaryto strengthen the local economy, revitalize thewaterfront and surrounding neighborhoods, andcreate additional opportunities for port facilities.

Port RedevelopmentThe T-LCPA has been proactive in addressing theproblems caused by proliferating brownfieldsproperties in Northwest Ohio. The city of Toledo,as the region’s urban core, is particularly affectedby brownfields. As the industrial, manufacturing,and commercial center of the region since the citywas founded in 1837, Toledo now has a highpercentage of the area’s brownfields within itsborders. With little undeveloped land, the city ishindered by its inability to reuse these properties.Brownfields can weaken the ability of the city torealize revenue and create jobs. Many sites alongthe city’s riverfront and shipping channel arecontaminated. Because many of the older Toledoneighborhoods literally “grew up” around formerfactories, those neighborhoods now have aban-doned or vacant brownfields sites as their mostsignificant feature.

GoalsThe T-LCPA created a program to focus specifi-cally on brownfields, their impact on the commu-nity and regional economy, and the innovativestrategies that could be implemented to redevelopthem. The goal of the Northwest Ohio BrownfieldRestoration Initiative is to enhance efforts toincrease port use by improving the economy andenvironment of the region and by remedying theproblems that have led to the proliferation ofbrownfields on the site. The initiative addressesthe restoration and reuse of contaminated proper-ties (whether urban, suburban, or rural), acrossthe region, thereby enhancing the transportation-based economic benefits that T-LCPA operationsprovide.

To accomplish those goals, the Toledo–LucasCounty Port Authority has created partnerships for:


• Developing an inventory database of brown-fields properties in the region

• Assessing the level and type of contaminationpresent

• Acquiring brownfields properties

• Prioritizing properties based on their reusepotential

• Undertaking remediation efforts using the latestenvironmental technology

• Marketing properties to developers and businesses.

Redevelopment InitiativesThe Marina District

The T-LCPA has targeted brownfields sites in thecity of East Toledo’s Marina District. Specifically,the port authority has focused on four abandonedor underused properties with land use histories.The properties were once used for rail lines, asteel mill, an oil refinery, a construction and dem-olition debris/stockpiling facility, a marina, and acoke oven gas line. T-LCPA’s objective has beento clean up the waterfront of East Toledo and toredevelop the land into an entertainment, resi-dential and commercial complex. To meet thisobjective, the T-LCPA worked to determine theextent of contamination at the four key sites sothat cleanup could proceed within the frameworkof the state’s voluntary action program. The T-LCPA also effectively involved the communitythroughout the process, making a particular effortto engage low-income, minority populations thatmight otherwise not have participated in deci-sions about port use.

The Toledo Shipyard

The Toledo Shipyard was first opened in 1893,primarily as a shipbuilding facility. By 1985, theshipyard had suffered extensively from absenteeownership. It had no capacity to conduct ship-building and was in a serious state of deteriora-tion. To save the shipyard as an economicgenerator, the T-LCPA assumed ownership. In1992, the T-LCPA leased the facility to theManitowoc Marine Group, the largest ship con-struction and repair company on the Great Lakes.

Since 1985, the T-LCPA and Manitowoc haveinvested more than 6.5 million dollars in essen-tial facility upgrades. The vision for the future ofthe Toledo Shipyard is for it to retain its positionas a provider of ship care service and industrialmaintenance services in the region and toupgrade the existing facilities to enable new ves-sel construction.

Key Stakeholders inRedevelopmentLocal Government

• City of Toledo

• Lucas County

• Regional Growth Partnership

State Agencies

• Ohio Department of Environmental Quality

Federal Agencies

• Economic Development Administration


• U.S. Coast Guard

• U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment

• U.S. Department of Transportation

• U.S. Department of Labor


Nonprofits

• Community Development Corporation

• Local community groups and neighborhoodassociations

Private Sector

• T-LCPA markets cleaned up properties tonumerous private sector partners and tenants,including Owens Corning Industries

Stakeholder Coordination Efforts

The Toledo–Lucas County Port Authority, the cityof Toledo, Lucas County, the Regional GrowthPartnership, and other stakeholders in redevelop-ment efforts in the region (including the port ofToledo) have joined together to form the


Brownfields Working Group. In addition, theNorthwest Ohio Brownfields LegislativeConsortium has been formed. The consortiumincludes T-LCPA, the city of Toledo, LucasCounty, the Chamber of Commerce, theUniversity of Toledo, and the Regional GrowthPartnership.

Financial and TechnicalAssistanceT-LCPA uses revenue bonds to finance the pur-chase and cleanup of brownfields sites. It thenleases the sites to tenants. The lease revenuespay off the bond debt. Through these revenuebonds, the T-LCPA creates a steady incomestream while maintaining ownership and long-term control of the waterfront properties. The T-LCPA is using acquisition and ownership as a

major strategy for its brownfields initiative. Inaddition, the T-LCPA participates in the ToledoBrownfields Working Group, which brings criticalpartners together to leverage funding sources andcoordinate grant application proposals.

Financial and technical assistance is providedby the Ohio Voluntary Clean Up Program (CleanOhio Revitalization Fund), the Ohio UrbanRedevelopment Loan Program, and the followingfederal agencies: U.S. EPA (Brownfields assess-ment funding and Green Buildings initiative),U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (responsible formaintaining shipping channels on MaumeeRiver), Economic Development Administration(Economic development planning grant), U.S.Department of Labor (workforce development andtraining grant), U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development, U.S. Department ofTransportation, and the U.S. Coast Guard.


Documents

Portfields Interagency Initiative: Phase I€¦ · waterfront revitalization, and it may serve as a catalyst for revitalization in the broader com-munity. Cleanup can reduce health