Harbor study cost/benefit components, scope of study

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

HARBOR STUDY

Cost/Benefit Components

Scope of Study

COASTAL ZC----,-E
INFORNIATION CENTER

JULY 1989

HE
554
- W6
H37 BAY-LAKE Regional Planning Commission
1989
serving communities within the counties ot

FLORENCE 0 MARINETTE 0 OCONTO 0 BROWN 0 DOOR 0 KEWAUNEE 0 MANITOWOC *SHEBOYGAN
4 @1,11141:11@

BROWN COUNTY HARBOR COMMISSION

Gary R. Weidner, President

William Martens, Vice-President

John S. Brzek

Neil Mc Kloskey

Steven Overly

George Mackin

Raymond M. Leicht

Earl (Mike) Miller

Roger P. Hoffman

HARBOR STUDY

COST/BENEFIT COMPONENTS

SCOPE OF STUDY

U.S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE July 1989
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

Prepared by:

Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission
Suite 211, Old Fort Square
211 N. Broadway
Green Bay, WI 54303

Principal Authors:

Robert L. Fisher, AICP, Executive Director
Pamela J. Landwehr, Transportation Planner II

The preparation of this study was financed through a contract
between the State of Wisconsin, Division of State Energy and
Coastal Management, Department of Administration, and the
Coastal Zone Management Improvement Act of 1980, as amended,
administered by the office of ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
the Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission, and the Brown County
Harbor Commission.

HE554 W6 H37 1989
22162320 Property of CSC Library
JAN 2 1997

CONTENTS

Page

Harbor Steering Committee, Background Paper . . . . . . 1

Plan Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Major Categories of Cost/Benefits . . . . . . . . . . 5
Scope of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Harbor Study Cost Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Dredging/Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Business and Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Public/Private Infrastructure Costs . . . . . . . . . 18

Harbor Study Benefit Components . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Dredging/Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Business/Economic Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Recreation Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Public/Private Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . .. . . 25

Appendix A: Harbor Study Steering Committee . . . . . . 28
B: Nominal Group Results . . . . . . . . . . . 31
C: Summary Group Results . . . . . . . . . . . 40

FORWARD

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program was established in
1978 to direct comprehensive attention to the state's 820 miles
of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior coastline. The WCMP
analyzes and develops state policy on a wide range of Great
Lakes issues, coordinates the many governmental programs that
affect the coast, and provides grants to stimulate better state
and local coastal management. Its overall goal is to preserve.,
protect and develop the resources of Wisconsin's coastal areas
for this and succeeding generations.

In April of 1989, the Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission and
Brown County Harbor Commission in cooperation with the
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program contracted to complete the
following project: to identify cost-benefit components
associated with harbor operations to assist in the development
of a scope of study; to develop a scope of study that can be
evaluated to determine the true benefit/cost of the Port of
Green Bay including the potential for relocation of the
existing shipping interests to other harbors in the region;
and, to prepare, if requested, the necessary Requests For
Proposals for consultant selection to conduct such a study.

HARBOR STUDY STEERING COMMITTEE

BACKGROUND PAPER

The impetus for the harbor study need came from local, regional
and state concerns that a model or method of accurately
measuring the economic viability of port operations be
developed and utilized for the Port of Green Bay and be
applicable to other port operations throughout the state. The
Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission and the Brown County
Harbor Commission established a Harbor,Study Steering Committee
to address this issue.

The Committee is comprised of representatives from city and
county government; private industry; local, regional, state and
federal agencies; harbor business and industry users; and,
natural resource and environmental interests. The Harbor Study
Steering Committee will identify cost-benefit components and
issues to provide direction to the development of a scope of
study for economic viability. Issues identified by the
Committee are not meant to be all-inclusive but rather, provide
a base for the study development.

A listing of cost-benefit components was defined by the
Committee through the use of the nominal group process. Three
groups of committee members identified quantitative as well as
qualitative issues, to be addressed in future study endeavors.

Contact Persons: Robert Fisher, Executive Director, Bay-Lake
Regional Planning Commission
Al Johnson, Port Director, Green Bay

CONTENTS

Page

Harbor Steering Committee, Background Paper . . . . . . 1

Plan Introdu ction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Major Categories of Cost/Benefits . . .. . . . . . . . 5
Scope of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Harbor Study Cost Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Dredging/Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Business and Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Public/Private Infrastructure Costs . . . . . . . . . 18

Harbor Study Benefit Components . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Dredging/Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Business/Economic Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Recreation Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Public/Private Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Appendix A: Harbor Study Steering Committee . . . . . . 28
B: Nominal Group Results . . . . . . . . . . . 31
C: Summary Group Results . . . .. . . . . . . . 40

FORWARD

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program was established in
1978 to direct comprehensive attention to the state's 820 miles
of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior coastline. The WCMP
analyzes and develops state policy on a wide range of Great
Lakes issues, coordinates the many governmental programs that
affect the coast, and provides grants to stimulate better state
and local coastal management. Its overall goal is to preserve,
protect and develop the resources of Wisconsin's coastal areas
for this and succeeding generations.

I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I STUDY INTRODUCTION
I

Introduction
In January 1989 the Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission and
the Brown County Harbor Commission initiated a study effort to
identify cost and benefit components impacting commercial
harbors within the northeastern Wisconsin region and compare
these harbor cost/benefits with the relative cost/benefits of
alternative transportation means, such as truck or rail for
transporting the same goods; or the relative cost/benefits of
improving nearby harbor facilities for transporting the same
goods.

To assist in the identification and development of such a study
the Bay-Lake Regional Harbor Council, consisting of
representatives of the harbors within the region and additional
representatives from public and private interests were convened
to address the issue. (Appendix A lists the membership of the
Harbor Study Steering Committee).

The goal of the Harbor Study Steering Committee is to develop
the scope of a cost benefit study needed to determine the
long-term feasibility of any commercial port operations, and to
apply the results of such study to the specific Port of Green
Bay.

The initial meeting was held January 20, 1989 and the
committee, utilizing the nominal group process, identified
costs and benefit components that impacted ports within the
Bay-Lake region and throughout the state. Table 1 identifies
the major categories and the main cost and benefit components
identified by the committee.

The process itself is structured, and is organized in a
nominal-round robin-interacting-nominal group sequence. These
events, in this order, provide participants time to think and
search out their minds, a chance to share and discuss their
ideas equally with others and an opportunity to make

Table I

HARBOR STUDY COMPONENTS

Major Categories Main Cost Components Main Benefit Components

Dredging/Disposal Dredge/Disposal Receipt of Federal Funds
Long term care disposal
facility
Legal aspects fed/state/
local

Environmental Impact Costs Environmental Benefits
Wildlife Improve Environment
Federal/State Image
enforcement
Social
Seasonal
CDF Cost

Business/Economic Employment Jobs
Water Quality Economic Development
Enforcement Reduced Trans,portation
Alternative Ports Ship Expenditures
Port Promotion Economic Multipliers
National System Impact Image
Social

Recreation Conservation Opportun ities
Enforcement Dredging
Lost Opportunity Cultural
Opportunity
Social

Public/Private Facility Infrastructure
Infrastructure Alternative Ports Benefit/Stability
Property Assessment Other Mode Upkeep
Port Promotion Area Required
Enforcement Safety
Use of City Land
Length of Season
Lost Opportunity

independent decisions. The nominal group process is most
advantageous in that it provides an atmosphere for independent
thinking, tolerates conflicts in ideas, depersonalizes the
ideas presented, provides focus on important issues, and
encourages minority opinions as well as majority opinions.
(Appendix B contains the initial listing of the January 20,
1989 nominal group session).

Major Categories
Subsequent meetings of the Harbor Study Steering Committee have
resulted in grouping the cost/benefit components under the
following major categories: (Each component should have equal
merit in the study effort and the list of categories should not
be viewed as listed by priority.)
Dredging and disposal
Environmental

Business and economic

Recreation
Public/Private infrastructure

Under each category, specific cost components and benefit
components have been further identified to include all the
concerns of the Harbor Study Steering Committee as significant
to the costs and benefits of commercial port operations.
(Appendix C lists the major categories and the specific
elements under each category).

Scope of Study
The question to be addressed is: Are there alternative routes
and facilities that could deliver these goods and services more
efficiently or is the port the best alternative? The following
elements identify the scope of study needed to accomplish a
cost benefit analysis determining the long range feasibility
for the Port of Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Cost components presented by major category including a
discussion of the specific components associated with the
port, alternative transportation modes, and alternative
port(s) locations.

Benefit components presented by major category including a
discussion of the specific components associated with the
port, alternative transportation modes, and alternative
port(s) locations.

A summary of the Harbor Study Components, listing major
categories, main cost components and main benefit
components including primary and dependent influences for
which detailed specific cost estimates to conduct the
study will be requested.

A definition of the geographic study area (see Map 1 and
Map 2). The immediate area served by the port includes
Brown County, Wisconsin and the communities of
northeastern Wisconsin as well as the communities in the
Fox River Valley.

Preparation of a cost/benefit analysis of the port of
Green Bay utilizing alternative transportation modes and
alternative port(s) locations as inherent scenarios in the
study methodology.

:% Map 1

----------- L------ -___A1
.... WATERPORTS IN THE
------- BAY-LAKE REGION

---- -----------

---------------
-----------

------------

A------ TON
------------ 7 ------ -------

-----------

A
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ITI-I..CM 'T";
U.-Y

DOT, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AD ... 4'.

-NIT ....
A - -----
-------- DBRALTIR
SIGLEY Zl- SAO- En HIT.
................ ......... D

E00 j-5 DAY
LENA L1TT_LC_A--_.

--------------------- ------ -------- ------ I-----
-LETT
or
I
IS OCONT"O MI.. 11-TOICL
TIL

AVNS-E

-------------------

C.AIE 11TILE 8RISSILS FORESTVILLE :CLAY
------- ------- r- 47'

LINCOLN
:GPEEAj ...................
P,
6.q VC
LUITIOUNG CISCO
N-CLOT ------- I-------
._E2-E LEGEND
TAT' IV
-------------- --------------
LANiT.CE DT..A.N
. ', IOCILAID 'ILE .... -NAL1. C-TC.
------------ j, At Gateway Port
7- 7.-7
---------- jC__, . I
IOLLAND IONNIS" 4) g !I*
C, C.EE.
....... FT. Diversified Cargo Port
:`AO,1kUT.
---------L-----------

C.TO
---------- E:@ -- -------- Limited Cargo Port
CE.T-._L @E
Ks.1 """E A6, Recreational Port
-----------

0 6 12 AN_ OSE
-119@-
------- IN'. I. Small Recreational
MILES
Boating Facility

.11CNELL L'..

LLANAT
T-

1C.11 I.-AN NO
m- r3c.1

SOURCE: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, BLRPC 1989.

Map 2
PORT OF GREEN BAY
BAYFIELD IMMEDIATE SERVICE AREA

DOUGLAS

ASHLAND
IR ON

VILAS
BURNETT WASHBURN SAWYER

PRICE FOREST FLORENCE

ONEIDA

POLK
ARINETT
BARRON RUSK LINCOLN
LANGLADF

TAYLOR CONTO
CHIPPEWA B
ST -.I. OUNN ay ake Re ion
ILI

MARATHON MENOMINEE
IIERCE EAU CLAIRE CLARK SHAWA DOOR
WOOD PORTAGE WAUPACA Fox ROWN KEWAUNEE
BUFFALO TREMPEA-
PEPIN LEAU OUTAGAMIt Green Ba
JACKSON cities
I MANITOWO
JUNEAU ADAMS WAUSHARA WINNEBAGO CAL-JMIET

NROE
LA C OSSE Area
MARQUETTE GREEN
LAKE FOND DU LAC SHEBOYGAN

VERNON
RICHLAND SA K IUMBIA DODGE W4SHINGTO
CRAWFOR
CANE MILWA:UKEE
JEFFERSON WAUKESHA
IOWA

GRANT

LA FAYETTE GREEN ROCK WALWORTH RACINE

miles KENOSHA
0 20 40

ISOURCE: Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission, 1989.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HARBOR STUDY
I COST COMPONENTS
I

HARBOR STUDY COST COMPONENTS

DREDGING/DISPOSAL

Cost components in this category include the direct annual
costs of dredging and disposal of sediment to maintain a water
navigation channel.

Dredging/Disposal
To include the local, state and federal costs of planning,
engineering, and permitting necessary for dredging to
occur whether dredging is performed through hydraulic or
the conventional mechanical method.

To include the costs of operation and maintenance dredging
including, any new work which may have to be completed.

To include the administrative/management costs associated
with the operation of dredging.

To include the cost of removal, decontamination and
disposal of existing contaminated or non-contaminated
sediments, legally a solid waste in Wisconsin, which must
be enclosed in confined disposal facilities or other
approved disposal sites.

To include the cost for siting, design construction, and
maintenance of dredge material containment sites so as not
to incur storm damage.

To include the costs of upland disposal activities versus
in water disposal activities as it relates to licensed or
unlicensed requirements of the Wisconsin Waste Management

Fund.

To include the additional energy costs, road costs, and
community costs for disposal at upland sites.

To include alternative costs of site development,
dredging, and sediment disposal i.e. (quantity of
materials to be handled at alternative commercial harbors

in the region).

To include the costs of private dredge disposal and
remedial action dredge disposal.

Long Term Care of Disposal Facility
Cost components in this category include community costs
related to the maintenance and operation of a confined disposal
facility.

To include the environmental and economic costs associated
with any storm damage incurred by a confined disposal
facility.

To include the cost to local government for the use of
city space, materials and staff time in the development,
operation and maintenance of a confined disposal site.

Legal Aspects/Federal/State/Local
This category of cost components considers the costs associated
with legal requirements which are imposed by local, state and
federal units of government.

To include the enforcement costs of sediment disposal,
legally designated a solid waste, and requiring a solid
waste disposal facility.

To include the cost of upland and in-water disposal sites
as provided by Federal, State and Local regulations and
enforcement.

To include the cost of enforcement of Federal and State
water quality regulations.

ENVIRONMENTAL

Cost components in this category include environmental impact
costs and environmental enforcement costs associated with
dredging to maintain a water navigation channel.

Environmental Costs
To include the environmental impact costs and enforcement
costs associated with dredging and disposal of dredge

sediments.

To include the costs of potential damage to the air, water

and land environments.

To include additional environmental/pollution costs
associated with dredge disposal at remote disposal sites
or disposal sites requiring sediment routing through
sensitive environmental corridors.

To include the costs associated with clean-up of ground
water degradation from the confinement of dredging

sediments.

Wildlife
cost components in this category include those costs associated
with dredging operations and fish and wildlife habitat.

To include the cost of any loss of fish and wildlife
habitat or costs of restoration to partiallydamaged fish
and wildlife habitat.

To include the cost of destruction and non-renewal of fish

and wildlife habitat.

To include the health impacts upon fish and wildlife due
to dredging operations.

To include the impacts of the introduction of unwanted
species to the surface waters due to release of ballast
waters by ships, or clinging to the ships hull.

Legal Requirements
This category of cost components was developed to consider the
environmental enforcement costs associated with local, state
and federal environmental regulations.

To include the cost of public agencies in the
administration and enforcement of rules and regulations
addressing reduction of industrial or municipal waste load
allocations into the environment to conform with

government regulations.

To include the cost of the development of additional
local, state or federal environmental regulations.

To include the costs of enforcing air and groundwater
pollution regulations which may be necessary due to
pollution created through evaporation or seepage of
contaminants at dredging sites or dredge material disposal
sites.

Social Costs

Cost components in this category consider environmental
pollution and its impact upon the local society.

To include costs associated with human health problems due
to the environmental impacts caused by dredging and
disposal of contaminated sediments.

To include the human impact costs due to resuspension of
contaminants due to disrupting sediments during the
dredging process.

Seasonal Costs
Costs associated with this category include costs incurred as a
result of the lengthening of the shipping sea son from 8.5
months to 10 months.

To include disruption to the land and water environment
due to any ice breaking to maintain shipping lanes.

To include costs associated with a longer shipping season.

To include the economic and environmental costs of
potential spills from ships and the costs associated with
the materials/equipment; manpower/training required in'
case such a spill occurs.

Confined Disposal Facility Cost
This category includes added environmental costs associated
with the damages due to a one hundred year storm to an existing
CDF causing leaking or contamination of surrounding
environment.

BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC

Cost components contained in this category include the economic
impacts of dredging upon business, employment, and the
international distribution system for port dependent

industries.

Employment Costs
This category includes costs associated with employment
required to maintain a commercial port operation.

To include the cost of labor for shipping operations
consisting of ship and portside facility labor needs.

To include the unemployment costs of seasonal labor.

To include the employment impacts associated with trucking
and rail due to port operations.

Economic Effects of Water Quality
This category includes the business and economic costs implicit
in maintaining or improving water quality associated with more
restrictive water quality rules and regulations.

To include any cost to business and industry for reduction
of waste load allocations.

To include business costs associated with the possible
loss to the commercial fishing industry due to the loss of
either fish or fish habitat as a result of the dredging
process or in-water dredge sediment disposal sites.

Alternate Port Costs
This category includes costs associated with the loss of an
existing commercial port to an alternate geographic area.

To include the economic and busi ness costs associated with

a decrease in commodity flows-to an area due to the
cessation of dredging operations at the existing port.

To include alternative transportation costs if current
port operations are closed.

To include costs presented as costs per work week in terms
of public taxes needed to support alternative forms of
transportation.

To include lost economic development opportunity costs.

To include the additional storage cost of bulk
commodities.

To include the costs associated with the price of
transportation as a result of loss of competition.

To include the cost to study and/or develop alternative
port sites and associated transportation alternatives.

To include the costs of initial investment to develop an
alternate port site and the long term costs of port
operations.

To include the costs of fuel and energy consumption
associated with additional demands upon other
transportation modes.

To include the cost of use of municipal and private space
to store bulk commodities prior to transport by truck or
rail.

To include trans-shipment costs.

To include the cost of lost export and import
opportunities.

To include the costs associated with various ship size
options currently available for shipping operations should
dredging not occur.

Port Promotion Costs
This category includes the costs of promoting and marketing
commercial port operations.

To include the administration, marketing, and promotion
costs of the port authority as well as costs to Federal,
State, and Local agencies and private interests in
promoting port operations.

National System Impact
To include the cost of the economic impact to the national
distribution system through disrupted regional port
operations.

Social Costs
To include social costs to community as business and
industry are affected by port closure.

RECREATION

Cost components grouped into this category include those
associated with recreation opportunities related to commercial

ports.

Construction Costs

To include the costs to construct and maintain public
marinas and recreational facilities should dredging not
occur and commercial port operations cease.

Opportunity Cost
To include the lost opportunity costs for developing or
improving recreation sites that are related to ongoing
harbor dredging.

To include costs related to negative impacts of dredge
sites and dredging upon existing and future recreational
activities and area aesthetics.

Social Cost
To include social impact to community through reduced
recreational opportunities as related to harbor
operations.

PUBLIC/PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS

Cost components grouped into this category include those
related to the public and private infrastructure facilities
necessary for the maintenance of commercial port operations.

Facility Costs
This category includes the cost of existing public and private
physical facilities necessary for supporting a commercial port.

To include the cost of supporting transportation systems
necessary for the distribution of goods imported and
exported through a commercial port.

To include the public and private cost of equipment to
operate and maintain a port. Such equipment would include
bulkheads; erosion and flooding control structures;

breakwaters; navigational items; dock handling facilities;
and waterside facilities and dockage.

To include the cost of special bridge structures,
railroads and other transportation facilities needed to
accommodate port operations.

To include the structural and general maintenance cost of
the physical port facilities such as lift bridges, access
roads and railroad maintenance.

To include the delay cost to motorists when a bridge is
open or a train interrupts vehicle traffic.

To include the public infrastructure development and
maintenance costs of sewer, water and roads necessary to
support port operations.

Alternative Port Cost
This category addresses the potential physical relocation of
one port operation to another geographic location.
Specifically addressing the costs of closing the Port of Green
Bay and relocating the operations to another port location.

To address the cost of development of alternative ports.

To identify costs of initial investments and long term
costs associated with relocation.

To include all feasibility study costs related to future
harbor development.

Property Assessment Costs
This category includes the costs of property value linked to
port facilities.

To include the cost of waterfront property value and taxes
due to the existence of the port.

To include the cost in loss of property valuations and tax
assessments due to the loss of port.

Port Promotion
To include the cost of maintaining a harbor commission and
a port director.

To include the harbor management costs associated with
promoting the local commun ity infrastructure.

Enforcement Costs
To include costs of Federal and State regulations and
enforcement upon port structure and operations.

Use of Community Land
To include costs of usable community land for dredge
disposal.

To include costs of roadways and other community impacts
for hauling dredged materials.

Lost Opportunity
To include lost opportunity costs to the community by not
having a viable port operation available.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HARBOR STUDY
I BENEFIT COMPONENTS
I

HARBOR STUDY BENEFIT COMPONENTS

DREDGING/DISPOSAL

Dredging/Disposal Benefits
Benefit components in this category include the receipt of
federal funds for dredging operations and disposal of sediments
in an approved disposal area or facility.

ENVIRONMENTAL

Benefit components in this category include general
environmental benefits associated with dredging to maintain a
water navigation channel, providing cost effective
transportation to the area.

Environmental Benefits

To include the benefits from reduced emissions from oil
burning generated from additional trucking or other
vehicle usage.

To include any environmental benefits accrued to the
regional ecosystem from the provision of a cleaner river
and harbor due to dredgi ng with contaminated sediments
being removed and contained in one location.

To include the benefits of reduced air pollution through
the use of alternative transportation modes.

To include the benefits associated with upland
conservation/measures to control the impacts of siltation.

To include the benefits of fuel conservation due to ships
transporting bulk commodities rather than rail or trucks.

Improve Environment
To include the benefits of an improved quality of life
within the community due to a cleaner river and bay.

To include the local benefits to city neighborhoods
regarding reduced trucking and railroad operations through
the city.

Image
To include the benefits of a world class image due to port
operations, such as; increased connections to other nations and
the enhanced economic opportunities for the region and the
Green Bay area associated with world-class port connections.

BUSINESS/ECONOMIC EFFECT

Benefit components in this category include the business and
economic benefits of dredging as it's associated with jobs,
economic development, reduced transportation costs, ship
expenditures and economic impact.

Jobs

To include the direct and indirect benefits accrued to the
local economy, including increased employment
opportunities due to viable port operations.

To include the benefits to the economy through the
retention and creation of jobs at the ongoing port
operations, including material handling and landside port
activities.

Economic Development
To include the increased economic development activities
associated with port operations such as expanded markets
for Wisconsin goods, economic diversification with

international markets and opportunities for tourism with
the diversity of activities at the waterfront.

To include the benefits of retaining and expanding
business and industry in the region due to the operation
of an international port.

To include the benefits associated with the increased tax
base from port landside industries and the opportunities
for tax generation to the local and regional economy.

To include the benefits associated with the continuity and
stability of long-term port operations in attracting new
business and industry and the expansion of existing
business and industry in the area.

To include the revenues generated through the economic
multipliers associated with port operations.

To include expenditures of the shipping company and crew
while docked in port.

Reduced Transportation
To include the savings derived from commercial shipping of
bulk materials versus other modes of transportation.

To include the tax benefit derived from storage of in-
transit materials.

To include the savings due to the efficient receipt and
shipn)ent of bulk cargos utilizing water transportation.

To include the benefits of increased transportation
alternatives to business and industry through competitive

rate structures.

To include the business and economic benefits attributable

to direct access to water transportation and international
markets through foreign trade opportunities, as it relates
to forestry and pulping operations.

RECREATION BENEFITS

Benefit components grouped into this category include those
associated with recreational opportunities related to
commercial port operations.

Opportunities

To include the aesthetic benefits to residents and
visitors and community business and industry.

To include the economic benefits to the tourism/recreation
industry through increased diversity of tourist
attractions and activities such as possible increased
recreation'boat dockage utilizing existing waterfront
infrastructure.

Dredging

To include the economic benefits associated with future
uses of an environmentally sound CDF for recreational land

uses.

Cultural
To include the benefit of cultural exposure to foreign
crew members and visual aesthetics of foreign ships in

port.

PUBLIC/PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE

This category includes the benefits associated with the
existing public and private infrastructure that are necessary
for port operations.

Infrastructure
To include the benefits of utilizing an existing
infrastructure system such as sewer, water, highways,
rail, power, et al. versus constructing an alternative
infrastructure system if port operations are relocated.

Stability
To include the benefits of an existing water
transportation infrastructure which interfaces with rail
and highways, and the benefits of continuity and stability
upon the local and regional public and private
infrastructure investments.

Other Mode

To include the benefits of reduced wear and tear on the
highway and rail infrastructure system due to the use of
commercial shipping.

Area
To include the benefits of land required of harbor
operations versus the additional land needs associated
with rail, highway, and private storage needed.

Safety
To include the benefits of the increased safety of water
transportation operations versus that of other modes.

APPENDIX A

Harbor Study Steering Committee

Bill Chaudoir, Exec. Dir. James Derusha Ronald Fassbender
Door County Econ. Dev. Corp. 500 W. Bay Shore St. DNR
P.O. Box 345 Sta. A Marinette, WI 54143 P.O. Box 10448
Sturgeon Bay, WI 54235 Green Bay, W1 54307-0448

Ellen Fisher Alan T. Johnson Werner Krause, V. Pres.
Dept. of Transportation Green Bay Port Director Vinyl Plastics, Inc.
P.O. Box 7914, Room 701 P.O. Box 1600 P.O. Box 451
Madison, WI 53707-7914 Green Bay, WI 54305-5600 Sheboygan, WI 53081

Greg Lamb William Lehman Nick Levendusky
U.W. Extension Bureau of Coastal Mgmt. P.O. Box 765
P.O. Box 19 101 S. Webster, 7th Floor Manitowoc, WI 54220
Oconto, WI 54153 Madison, WI 53702

Harry Maier - Stephen Nenonen Don Olson
Green Bay Press Gazette City Manager U.S. Army Corps of Eng.
P.O. Box 19430 City Hall Suite 211, Old Fort Sq.
Green Bay, WI 54307-9430 Two Rivers, WI 54241 211 N. Broadway
Green Bay, WI 54303

Jeff Pagels Dale D. Preston Joe Hollister
DNR City Hall, Room 608 WisDOT-District 3
P.O. Box 10448 100 N. Jefferson St. P.O. Box 28080
Green Bay, WI 54307-0448 Green Bay, WI 54301 Green Bay, WI 54304

Noel Ryder Rober-t G. Schacht, Mayor Janet Smith
Washington Island City of Marinette U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv
Community Center 1905 Hall Avenue 2420 Nicolet Drive
Washington Island, WI 54246 Marinette, WI 54143 Green Bay, WI 54311

James Stadler Senator Robert Cowles Tom Cuene
City Clerk State Capitol Brown County Executive
City Hall P.O. Box 7882 P.O. Box 1600
Kewaunee, WI 54216 Madison, WI 53707-7882 Green Bay, WI 54305

James Derbique Susan Garot Richard Hall
Wisconsin Public Service Green Bay Chamber of Green Bay Public Works
P.O. Box 19002 Commerce City Hall
Green Bay, W1 54307-9002 P.O. Box 969 100 N. Jefferson
Green Bay, W1 54305 Green Bay, WI 54301

H.J. Harris William Hurrle Ed Jenkins
ES 105 Clean Water Action City of Kenosha
U.W. - Green Bay Council 625 52nd Street
Green Bay, WI 54311 1494 Cedar Street 115 Municipal Bldg.
Green Bay, WI 54302 Kenosha, WI 53140-3480

William Kopp Rebecca Leighton William Martens
Wisconsin Central Ltd. Lake Michigan Federation Fort Howard Corporation
1000 S. Oakland Avenue 1539 Cedar Street P.O. Box 19130
Green Bay, WI 54304 Green Bay, WI 54302 Green Bay, W1 54307-9130

Harbor Study Steering Committee (continued)

Larry Mastalish Mike Miller Pat O'Donohue
Procter & Gamble Paper 1057 Division Street Green Bay News Chronicle
Products Green Bay, WI 54303 P.O Box 2467
P.O. Box 8020 Green Bay, WI 54306
Green Bay, WI 54308-8020

Bud Paruleski Dennis Sedlacek Rep. Mary Lou Van Dreel
Brown County Planning Fox Midwest Transport State Capitol
City Hall P.O. Box 12236 P.O. Box 8953
100 N. Jefferson Street Green Bay, WI 54307 Madison, WI 53708
Green Bay, WI 54301

Rep. Cletus VanderPerren Paul Baumgart
State Capitol Clean Water Action Council
P.O. Box 8953 1555 Ellis
Madison, WI 53708 Green Bay, WI 54302

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I APPENDIX B
I

Harbor Study Cost/Benefit Components
January 1989
Group I

Costs Points
-l.-Dredging-to-maintain-channel-/-Annua1 ------------------------- 22-
2. Disposal costs / Sediment assumed a solid waste 11
3. Containment costs 7
5. Greater length of shipping season 5
Opening of shipping lanes-ice
33* Final costs presented as costs per work hour in terms 5
of: public taxes needed to support the alternative
+arms of trans.
18. Fed./State regs. 4
9. Environmental Costs 4
10. Supporting transportation systems 4
22. Potential environmental damage(s) 3
4. Bridge costs / Hwy & R.R. 3
23. Costs to--public/private 3
12. Difference between upland lt,: inwater disposal/ 3
Licensed & unlicensed Wi's. Waste Mgt. Fund
a. cost to maintain Hrb. Comin./Port Director 3
7. Wildlife health impacts 2
28. Costs Constr./maint. a+ pub. marinas/rec. facilities 2
34. Costs of updating bulkheads/breakwaters 2
(Share Protection)
42. Use a+ city-space - Upland site 2
36. Neg. athestics / Dredge sites '& dredging activity 1
25. Extra costs a+ energy to remote sites I
14. Community costs/,re. CDF maint./oper. 1
35. Destruction - habitat wildlife 1
24. Labor costs - Seasonal employment/unempl. costs I
27. Add'I pollution disposal at @emote sites
16. Storm damage to CDF/costs
6. Veh/Rail traffic interuptions
15. Lost opportunity costs
26. Competition for dredge spoil disposal
Private/Remedial Action
13. Watershed +acilities/dockage
19. Costs oper./maint./costs New work
:37. Neg. impacts on rec. activities
30. Alt. Hrbs. - initial investments vs. long term costs
38. Human health impacts
32. Sediment disposal, quanity a+ material at alt. hrbs
that needs to be contained
39. Increased air pollution through evaporation a+
containments-dredge sites/pollutants & disposal sites
21. Property valuations
40. Neg. impacts an trking 834 rail workers / underutilized
29. COE plan/management costs
41. Ship sizes - values an various Ship options
17. Dock handling facilities
31. Hrb. mgt costs - Loc. community in+ra-structure
20. Road costs for handling dredge material

11. Cost of engineering & pei-mitting
43. Use of city space - Storage bulk commodities -.prior to
transport Benefits . points
--------------------------------------------- ------------------------

'
3. Reducad production costs, improved competitiveness 14
5. Industrial expansion - Healthy port 10
1. Lower cost water trans. bulk commodities 9
9. Increased employment opportunities -7
2. Competition between different trans. with a harbor 7
14. Improve environmental / Quality of life 6
10. Access to international mrkts/compete with ocean parts 5
12. Infra-structure al-ready in place 5
7. Aesthetic desire of residents 4
19. Recreational opportunities/Water oriented 4
4. Increased tax base - Community 4
11. Opportunities for tourists/diversity 3
13. Eliminate wear & tear an roads/R.R. systems 3
25. Clean up river/hrb. - put in-to one spot 3
27. Less property required with harbor 2
17. Improve safety I
16. Interface with rail/Hwy 1
18. Taxing impact I
28. Tax benefit stared-intransit materials 1
15. Conservation of fuel
20. Conservation / Impact a+ silting & controls
(Pressure to control)
26. Forestry/pUlping operations
22. CDF - Economic opportunities
B. Reduced air pollution
24. Neigh. benefit - re. trks/rail travel
23. Eliminates need to install/maintain equip. handling items
21. Economic diversification
6. Ship expenditures in part
29. Additional jobs Material handling because a+ port

13LRPC 1/23/89

Harbor Study Cost/Benefit Components
January 11989
Group II

Costs Points
-l.-Dredging/-Disposal/-Direct-costs-of --------------------------- 41-
2. Structural maintenance a+ port facilities 28
Dockwalls - Breakwaters
Publi-c in+ra-structure development costs sewer,
water, road
Lift bridges maintenance and development costs
Access roads & rai.1 maintenance
17. Environmental impact costs 17
3. Admin. Costs of Port/State/Local/Regional agencies - 10
Mrking, promotion costs
S. Navigational items 7
11. Reduction of industrial, munic@ipal waste load.allocations 7
21. Opportunity costs 4
14. Port operating equipment/maintenance 4
10. Storage cost - Bulk commodities 1
12. Erosion & flooding control structures. 1
13. Delay costs to motorists when bridge-is open
18. Cost of special bridge construction
19. Property value decline
15. Trans-shipment costs
20. Fuel & energy consumption
16. Social Costs
17. Ground water Degredation

Benefits Points
7-----------------------------------------------
13.-,Increased-economic development 20
E3. Retention & expansion a+ business is
15. Reduced emissions +ram oil burning/ 16
Positive impact on environment
3. Cost efficient receipt a+ bulk cargos 14
2" Jobs 12
9. Reduced rates on other modes a+ transportation/ 11
electric / consumer
5. Benefits a+ continuity/stability 10
4. Tax generator 5
10. Accomodate recreational interests 5
12. Enhanced regional power to Green Bay/Area image 4
14. Reduced wear & tear on highways & rail 2
16. Expa@ded markets for Wisc. goods 2
11. Receipt of federal $ 1
6. Increased competitiveness a+ bene+itting business'
7. Cultural exposure opportunities from foreign crews/
Asthetics

BLRPC 1/23/89

Harbor Study Cost/Benefit Components
January 1989
Group III

Costs Points

--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dredging 24
5. Construction siting and maintenance of disposal sites is
3. Disposal of dredged 15
11. Employment impacts 12
19. Alternative transportation cost if port has to close 6
because dredging cannot be done.
e.g. Contaminated sediments must be left in place
4. Decrease in commodity flows w/o dredging 6
15. Cost of removal decontamination and disposal of existing 5
contaminated sediments to allow +or long-term port
operations
8. Harbor promotion 4
12. Loss of fish and wildlife habitat 3
10. Infra-structure costs for bridges, docks, trans. 3
facilities
13A. Loss of recreational sites such as Bay Beach 2
22.. Cost to develop alternate ports 2
6. Bulkhead repair/replacement 2
2. Hydraulic vs. Conventional mechanical 2
14. Loss of competition among transportation alternatives 1
16. Enforcement costs
7. Environmental impacts of resuspension of contaminents
20. Loss of export and import opportunities
17" Traffic impediments
13. Future harbor development. e.g. study costs
18. Impact on national distribution system
21. Possible loss to commercial fishing ind. due to loss
of fish habitat if open H20 disposal or additional
in H2'0 sites are used for dredged material.
9. Cost of loc'al government for disposal sites

Benefits Points

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3" Jobs - direct and indirect 26
1. Commercial shipping 16
4. Economic multipliers of port -15
9. Retention and creation of jobs 13
5. Recreation/tourism associated with harbor 9
Recreational Boating Dockage
8. Increase tax base 6
12. Image - world class, connection to the world 6
2. Dredging projects provide recreational opp. 6
6. Competition 5
11. Foreign trade opportunities 2
10. Reduction of manufacturing costs due to shipping I
13%. Benefits to environment due to removal of contaiminated
sediments

BLRPC 1/23/89

Harbor Study Cost Components
January 1989

Group Costs Points
-Il.--I.-Dredging/-Disposal/-Direct-costs-a ---------------------------- 41-
11. 2. Structural maintenance of port facilities 28
Dockwalls - Breakwaters
Public infra-structure development costs
sewer., water, roads
Lift bridges maintenance and development costs
Access roads & rail maintenance
111. 1. Dredging 24
1. 1. Dredging to maintain channel / Annual 22
111. 5. Construction siting and maintenance of disposal sites is
11. 17. Environmental impact costs 17
111. 3. Disposal of dredged 15
111. 11. Employment impacts 12
1. 2. Disposal costs / Sediment assumed a solid waste 11
11. 3. Admin. Costs of Part/State/Local/Regional agencies 10
Mrking, promotion costs
Ii. il. Reduction of industrial, municipal waste load allocations 7
1. 3. Containment costs 7
II. S. Navigational items 7
111. 4. Decrease in commodity flows w/o dredging 6
111. 19. Alternative transportation cost if port has to close 6
because dredging cannot be done.
e.g. Contaminated sediments must be left in place
111. 15. Cost of removal decontamination and disposal. of existing 5
contaminated sediments to allow for long-term part
operations
1. 33. Final costs presented as costs per work hour in terms 5
of: public taxes needed to support the alternative
+orms'of trans.
1. 5. Greater length of shipping season 5
Opening of shipping lanes - ice
I. IS. Fed./State regs. 4
1, 9* Environmental Costs 4
11. 21. Opportunity costs 4
1. 10. Supporting transportation systems 4
11. 14. Port operating equipment/maintenance 4
III. S. Harbor promotion 4
1. 4. Bridge costs / Hwy & R.R. 3
111. 12. Loss of fish and wildlife habitat 3
1.. 8. Cost to maintain Hrb. Comm./Port Director 3
.1. 23. Costs to--public/private 3
1. 22. Potential environmental damage(s) 3
111. 10. In+ra.-structure costs for bridges, docks, trans. 3
faciliiies
I. i2. Difference between upland & inwater disposal/ 3
Licensed & unlicensed Wis. Waste Mgt. Fund
111. 6. Bulkhead repair/replacement 2
I. 2B. Costs Constr./maint. of pub. marinas/rec. facilities 2
,III. 13A. Loss of recreational sites such as Bay Beach 2

1. 34. Costs a+ updating bulkheads/breakwaters 2
111. 2. Hydraulic vs. Conventional mechanical 2
111, 22" Cost to develop alternate ports 2
1. 7. Wildlife health impacts 2
1. 42. Use of city space - Upland site 2
1. 14. Community costs/ re. CDF maint./oper. 1
11. 12. Erosion & flooding control structures I
1. 35. Destruction - habitat wildlife 1
1. 24. Labor costs - Seasonal employment/unempl. costs I
1. 36. Neg. aestheti.cs / Dredge sites & dredging activity 1
1. 25. Extra costs of energy to remote sites I
11. 10. Storage cost - Bulk commodities 1
111. 14. Loss of competition among transportation alternatives I
1. 11. Cost of engineering 8c permitting
1. 38. Human health impacts
1. 30. Alt. Hrbs. - initial invettments vs. long term costs
1. 20. Road costs for handiing dredge material
1. 37. Neg. impacts on rec. activities
1. 17. Dock handling +acilities
1. 19. Costs oper./maint./costs New work
11. .13. Delay costs to motorists when bridge is open
1. 13. Watershed facilities/dockage
11. 19. Property value decline
1. 26. Competition for dredge spoil disposal
Private/Remedial Action
11. 20. Fuel 8c energy consumption
1. 15. Lost opportunity costs
11. 17. Ground water Degredation
1. 6. Veh/Rail traffic interruptions
1. 40. Neg. impacts on trking & rail workers underutilizpd
1. 16. Storm damage to CDF/costs
1. 39. Increased air pollution through evaporation of
containments-dredge sites/pollutants 84 disposal sites
1. 27. Add'l pollution disposal at remote sites
1. 43. Use of city space - Storage bulk commodities - prior to
transport
111. 16. Enforcement costs
1. 41. Ship sizes - values on various ship options
111. 7. Environmental impacts of resuspension of contaminents
11, 15" Trans-shipment costs
111. 20. Loss of export and import opportunities
1. 29. COE plan/management costs
111. 17. rra++ic impediments
1. 32. Sediment disposal, quantity of material at alt. hrbs
that needs to be contained
111. 13. Future harbor development. e.g. study costs
11. 18. Cost of special bridge construction
111. 19. Impact on national distribution system
1. 21. Property valuations
11. 16. Social Costs
I. 31.-Hrb. mgt costs - Loc. community in+ra-structure
111. 21. Possible loss to commercial fishing ind. due to loss
a+ -fish habitat if open H20 disposal or additiohal
in H20 sites are used for dredged material.
111.' 9. Cost of local government for disposal sites

BLRPC 1/24/89 36

Harbor Study Benefit Components
January 1989

Group Benefits Points
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
111. 3. Jobs - direct and indirect 26
11. 13. Increased economic development 20
II. B. Retention & expansion of business 18
111. 1. Commercial shipping 16
11. 15. Reduced emissions from oil burning/ 16
Positive impact on environment
111. 4. Economic multipliers of part 15
11, 3, Cost efficient receipt of bulk, cargos 14
1. 3. Reduced production costs, improved competitiveness 14
111. 9. Retention and creation a+ jobs 13
11. 2. Jobs 12
11. 9. Reduced rates on other modes a+ transportation/ 11
electric / consumer
1. 5. Industrial expansion - Healthy port 10
1. 5. Benefits o+ continuity/stability 10
1. 1. Lower cost water trans. bulk commodities 9
111. 5. Recreation/tourism associated with harbor 9
Recreational boating dockage
1. 9. Increased employment opportunities 7
1. 2. Competition between different trans. with a harbor 7
111. 2. Dredging projects provide recreational opp. 6
Ill. 12. Image - world class, connection to the world 6
1. 14. Improve environmental / Quality a+ life 6
III. S. Increase tax base 6
11. 4. Tax generator 5
11. 10. Accomodate recreational interests 5
111. 6. Competition 5
1. 12. In+ra-structure already in place 5
1. 10. Access to international mricts/compete with ocean ports 5
1. 4. Increased tax base - Community 4
1. 19. Recreational opportunities/Water oriented 4
1. 7. Aesthetic desire of residents 4
11. 12. Enhanced regional power to Green Bay/Area - image 4
1. 25. Clean up river/hrb. -- put into one spot 3
1, 13, Eliminate wear 11 tear on roads/R.R. systems 3
1. 11. Opportunities -for tourists/diversity 3
11. 14. Reduced wear & tear on highways & rail 2
Il. 16. Expanded markets for Wisc. goods 2
1. 27. Less property required with harbor 2
111. 11. Foreign trade opportunities 2
1. 16. Interface with -rail/Hwy I
11. 11. Receipt a+ federal $ 1
I. 18. Taxing impact I
1. 28. Tax benefit stored-intransit materials I
1. 17. Improve safety I
111. 10. Reduction of manufacturing costs due to shipping
1. 29. Additional jobs - Material handling - because a+ port
I. S. Reduced air pollution
11. 7. Cultural exposure opportunities from +oreign crews/
Aesthetics
1. 22. CDF .- Economic opportunities

1. 6. Ship expenditures in port
1. 26. Forestry/pulping operations
1. 23. Eliminates need -to install/maintain equip. handling items
1. 20. Conservation / Impact of silting & controls
(Pressure to control)
Il. 6. Increased competitiveness-oi bene+itting business'
1. 24. Neigh. benefit - re. trks/rail travel
1. 21. Economic diversification
1. 15. Conservation of fuel
1. 13. Benefits to environment due to removal of contaiminated
sediments

BLRPC 1/24/89

APPENDIX C

HARBOR STUDY COST COMPONENTS

Dredging/Disposal A

Dredging/Disposal/Direct costs of
Dredging
Dredging to maintain channel/Annual
Construction siting and maintenance of disposal sites
Disposal of dredged
Disposal costs/Sediment assumed a solid waste
Containment costs
Cost of removal decontamination and disposal of existing
contaminated sediments to allow for long-termlport operations
Cost of local government for disposal sites
Difference between upland & inwater disposal/Licensed &
unlicensed Wis. Waste Mgt. Fund
Hydraulic vs. Conventional mechanical
Use of city space - Upland site
Extra costs of energy to remote sites
Cost of engineering and permitting
Costs oper./maint./costs New work
Road costs for handling dredge material
Competition for dredge spoil disposal - Private/Remedial Action
COE plan/management costs
Sediment disposal, quantity of material at alt. hrbs that need
to be contained

Long Term Care/Disposal Facility B
Community costs re CDF maint/oper.
Storm Damage to CDF/costs

Legal aspects/Fed/State/Local C
Fed/State Regs
Enforcement Costs

HARBOR STUDY COST COMPONENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

COSTS: A

Environmental impact costs
Enforcement costs
Potential environmental damage (s)
Environmental costs
Addll pollution disposal at remote sites

WILDLIFE: B

Loss of fish and wildlife habitat
Destruction - habitat wildlife
Wildlife health impacts

FEDERAL/STATE ENFORCEMENT: C

Reduction of industrial, municipal waste load
allocations
Fed./State regs.
Ground Water Degradation
Increased air pollution through evaporation of
contaminents-dredge sites/pollutants & disposal
sites
Environmental impacts of resuspension of contaminents
Possible loss to commercial fishing industry due to
loss of fish habitat if open H20 disposal or
additional in H20 sites are used for dredged
material

SOCIAL COSTS: D

Human health impacts
Social costs

SEASON: E

Greater length of shipping season
opening of shipping lanes - ice

CDF COST: F

Storm damage to CDF/costs

BUSINESS/ECONOMIC EFFECT

EMPLOYMENT: A

Employment impacts
Labor Costs - Seasonal employment/unemployment costs
Negative impacts on trucking/rail workers/
unde-rutilized

4-1

WATER QUALITY: B

Reduction of industrial, municipal waste load
allocations
Possible loss to commercial fishing industry due to
loss of fish habitat if open H20 disposal or
additional in H20 sites are used for dredged
material

ENFORCEMENT COSTS: C

Enforcement Costs
Federal/State reg.

ALTERNATE PORT COSTS: D

De crease in commodity flows w/o dredging
Alternative transportation cost if port has to close
because dredging cannot be done.
e.g. Contaminated sediments must be left in place
Final costs presented as costs per work hour in terms
of: public taxes needed to support the
alternative forms of transportation
Opportunity costs
Storage cost - Bulk commodities
Loss of competition among transportation alternatives
Alt. Hrbs - initial investments vs. long term costs
Cost to develop alternate ports
Fuel & energy consumption
Lost opportunity costs
Use of city space - Storage bulk commodities - prior
to transport
Trans-shipment costs
Loss of export and import opportunities
Ship sizes - values on various ship options

PORT PROMOTION: E

Admin. Costs of Port/State/Local/Regional agencies
Marketing, promotion costs
Harbor promotion

NATIONAL SYSTEM IMPACT: F

Impact on national distribution system

SOCIAL COST: G

Social Costs

RECREATION

CONSTRUCTION COST: A

Cost Constr./maint. of pub. marinas/rec. facilities

ENFORCEMENT COST: B

Enforcement Costs
Fed./State regs.

LOST OPPORTUNITY COST: C

Lost opportunity costs
Loss of recreational sites such as Bay Beach
Neg. aesthetics / Dredge sites & dredging activity
Neg. impacts on rec. activities

OPPORTUNITY COST: D

Opportunity costs

SOCIAL COST: E

Social costs

PUBLIC/PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE

FACILITY COSTS: A

Supporting transportation systems
Port operating equipment/maintenance
Costs to--public/private
Bridge costs / Hwy & R.R.
Infra-structure costs for bridges, docks, trans.
facilities
Bulkhead repair/replacement
Delay.costs to motorists when bridge is open
Erosion & flooding control structures
Costs of updating bulkheads/breakwaters
Dock handling facilities
Waterside facilities/dockage
Navigational items
Veh/Rail traffic interruptions
Traffic impediments
Cost of special bridge construction
Structural maintenance of port facilities - Dockwalls
Breakwaters
Public infra-structure development costs - sewer,
water, roads
Lift bridges maintenance and development costs
Access roads & rail maintenance

ALTERNATE PORT COST: B

Final costs presented as costs per work hour in terms
of: public taxes needed to support the
alternative forms of trans.
Alt. Hrbs. - initial investments vs. long term costs
Cost to develop alternate ports
Future harbor development. e.g. study costs

43@

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT: C

Property value decline
Opportunity costs
Property valuations

PORT PROMOTION: D

Cost to maintain hrb. Comm./Port Director
Hrb. mgt. costs - Loc. community infra-structure

ENFORCEMENT COSTS: E

Fed./State regs.
Enforcement costs

USE OF CITY LAND: F

Road costs for handling dredge material
Use of city space - Upland site

LENGTH OF SEASON: G

Greater length of shipping
Opening of shipping lanes ice

LOST OPPORTUNITY: H

Lost opportunity costs

HARBOR STUDY BENEFIT COMPONENTS

BENEFITS

DREDGING/DISPOSAL

DREDGING/DISPOSAL: A

Receipts of federal $

ENVIRONMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS: A

Reduced emissions from oil burning/
Positive impact on environment
Clean up river/hrb. - put into one spot
Reduced air pollution
Conservation / Impact of silting & controls
(Pressure to control)
Conservation of fuel
Benefits to environment due to removal of
contaminated sediments

IMPROVE ENVIRONMENT: B

Improve environmental / Quality of life
Neigh. benefit - re. trks/rail travel

IMAGE: C

Image - world class, connection to the world
Enhanced regional power to Green Bay/Area - image

BUSINESS/ECONOMIC EFFECT

JOBS: A

Increased employment opportunities
Jobs - direct and indirect
Retention and creation of jobs
Jobs
Additional jobs - Material handling because of port

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: B

Increased economic development
Retention & expansion of business
Increase tax base
Taxing impact
Industrial expansion Healthy port
Benefits of continuity/stability
Increase tax base
Tax generator
Increased tax base - Community
opportunities for tourists/diver,sity
Expanded markets for Wisc. goods
Economic diversification

REDUCED TRANSPORTATION COST: C

Image - world class, connection to the world
Conservation of fuel
Commercial shipping
Competition between different trans. with a harbor
Tax benefit stored-intransit materials
Cost efficient receipt of bulk cargos
Reduced production costs, improved competitiveness
Reduced rates on other modes of transportation/
electric/consumer
Lower cost water trans. bulk commodities
Competition
Access to international mrkts/compete with ocean
ports
Forestry/pulping operations
Increased competitiveness of benefitting business
Foreign trade opportunities
Reduction of manufacturing costs due to shipping

SHIP EXPENDITURES: D

Ship expenditures in port

ECONOMIC IMPACT: E

Economic multipliers of port

IMAGE: F

Enhanced regional power to Green Bay/Area image

RECREATION

OPPORTUNITIES: A

Recreational opportunities/Water oriented
Aesthetic desire of residents
Accommodate recreational interests
Opportunities for tourists/diversity
CDF - Economic opportunit ies
Recreation/tourism associated with harbor
Recreational boating dockage

DREDGING: B

Dredging projects provide recreation opp.

CULTURAL AESTHETICS: C

Cultural exposure opportunities from foreign crews/
Aesthetics

PUBLIC/PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE

INFRASTRUCTURE: A

Infra-structure already in place
Interface with rail/Hwy
Reduced wear & tear on highways & rail

BENEFITS/STABILITY: B

Benefits of continuity/stability

FEDERAL DOLLARS: C

Receipt of federal $

OTHER MODE UPKEEP: D

Eliminates need to install/maintain equip. handling
items
Eliminate wear & tear on roads/R.R. systems

AREA REQUIRED: E

Less property required with harbor

SAFETY: F

Improve safety

BAY-LAKE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

COMMISSION STAFF

BROWN COUNTY Robert L. Fisher
William Clancy Executive Director
Samuel J. Halloin
Sarah B. Thulin Martin W. Holden
Principal Planner
DOOR COUNTY
Clifford J. Delorit Jeffrey C. Agee-Aguayo
L. George Evenson Transportation Planner
Norman E. Stegmann, Sec.-Treas.
Jane M. Bouchonville
FLORENCE COUNTY Office Accounts Coordinator
Edwin Kelley
Nick A. Stricker, Russell L. Kaiser
Vice-Chairman Community Planner
John Zoeller
Pamela J. Landwehr
KEWAUNEE COUNTY Transportation Planner II
Robert Entringer
Clarence C. Ihlenfeldt Gail A. Niedzwiedz
Paul J. Wolske, Economic Planner II
Chairman Krissti M. Simon
MANITOWOC COUNTY Clerk Typist II
(Appointment Pending)
Stephen T. Nenonen Mark A. Walter
Donald A. Rehbein Graphics Coordinator

MARINETTE COUNTY Cindy J. Wojtczak
Richard Eggener Information Coordinator
Cheryl R. Maxwell
Walter J. Stepniak

OCONTO COUNTY REPORT PRODUCTION STAFF
Donald Glynn
(Appointment Pending) Principal Authors:
Lois L. Trever Robert L. Fisher
Pamela J. Landwehr
SHEBOYGAN COUNTY
James E. Gilligan Graphics:
Richard J. Schneider Mark A. Walter
Dirk J. Zylman Randy J. Spevacek*

Typist:
Krissti M. Simon

Intern

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Illuffilmillm 1
3 6668 0000,2 1750
11