Whether Savannah Harbour Expansion Project Is Worth the Shot - Term Paper Example

Savannah Harbor Expansion Project - The Risk Is Not Worth the Reward s The Savannah Harbor Deepening Project is expected to be completed by 2014 and is expected to be achieved following the expansion of the Panama Canal (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010a). This will allow docking of the super-sized container vessels. The project will also involve the deepening of harbor. The total budget for the project is $ 588 million with the largest part of the money being earmarked for the mitigation of negative impacts of the projects. Primarily, the project will involve the deepening of the existing inlet channel from the current 42 feet up to 48 feet. The greatest concern before implementing a project of such an extent, the impacts of the project to the external environment and the way they can be mitigated is first assessed. Furthermore, the remarkable economic impacts of the Savannah Harbor should also considered before making a final decision on whether to license the project. Deepening of the Savannah Harbor is expected to have significant direct and long-term risks to the national resources and the health of all the people living in South Carolina and Georgia states. Consequently, I believe that the risks of the project outweigh the expected benefits. The risks expected with the implementation of the project include loss of freshwater marsh following the intrusion and increased salinity (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010b). In addition, deepening of the channel may lead to decreased levels of dissolved oxygen in Savannah River. Cleary (2007) further argues that deepening of the navigation channel will have potential harm to the Striped Bass and Shortnose Sturgeon population. Moreover, there is also a concern on cadmium levels from dredged sediments. Without any mitigation being carried out, deepening of the channel to the proposed 48 feet would negatively impact more than one thousand hundred acres of freshwater wetlands. Situational Analysis A proposal to deepen the Savannah Harbor was approved on conditions with the passage of the Water Resources Development Act of the 1999 (‘‘WRA99’’) as explained by (Ernst, 2011). The conditions set out included conducting of an environmental impact statement (EIS) and presenting of supporting studies. Moreover, the project required to be permitted by various authorities. However before the project can be approved, relevant licensing authorities must be satisfied that the benefits of the project outweigh its risks to the environment. Water Resources Development Act of 1999 specified that the project required a joint approval from the Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator in-charge of the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, the secretary of the Army was to be involved in the approval for the project (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010a). Georgia deepwater ports are a source of more than two hundred and eighty six thousands job and contribute 14.9 billion dollars in income to Georgia State. As International and United States Water Ways are being transformed to accommodate bigger vessels, Savannah Harbor has been earmarked for expansion. The project entails dredging of a 36 miles stretch of Georgia Port on the Savannah River from the Atlantic Ocean to the present port and increasing the depth of the navigation channel from the present 42 meters to 48 meters. Savannah Harbor was initially constructed in 1874 when the US Congress authorized construction of Federal navigation project. Two jetties were built at the entrance of Savannah River in 1906. 1897 saw the completion of a submerged offshore breakwater to offer a shelter for ships entering Tybee Roads and stabilize the inlet (Landers, 2008a). In 1912, the navigation channel was increased to a 26-foot mean low water (MLW) from the previous 21.5-foot MLW. Further deepening was done in 1936 to 30-foot MLW and reached 36-foot MLW in 1945. In 1972, in attempt to accommodate more and bigger ship, the navigation channel was widened and deepened to reach a depth of 40-foot MLW. The authorized MLW was set at 42-foot MLW in 1994 and currently, the navigation channel is approximately 32.5 miles which extends from Savannah harbor across Tybee Roads to the Atlantic Ocean (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010b). In accordance to the provisions of the Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Georgia Ports Authority (GAP) carried out a feasibility study on various ways that could be used to improve navigation in Savannah Harbor. The feasibility study also looked into the environmental of each proposal. The 1999 Water Resources Development Act set the maximum depth in deepening of the Savannah Harbor to 48 feet (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010b). To adequately address all the concerns in implementing the proposal, a stakeholder’s evaluation group was formed in 1999 to identify scientific studies and analysis that ought to be carried out to identify the impacts resulting from deepening of the harbor. In Tier 1 district environmental impact statement and federal impact statement, a number of areas were identified that required additional studies (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010b). Deeping of Savannah River Federal navigation Channel would have devastating impacts on the habitat of the endangered Shortnose sturgeon and striped bass. Moreover, the project was seen to have negative impacts on tidal freshwater wetlands and brackish marsh (Carr-Mayle, 2010a). Deepening of Savannah is expected to result to increased salinity and decreased dissolved oxygen in the waters. The issue of harbor deepening has been explored severally. Savannah District came up a detailed plan to address navigation and issues relating to navigation in 1996. They prepared an EIS whose main area of consideration was on channel improvement and management of the dredged materials (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010a). This EIS provided a new baseline in harbor maintenance and proposed the rotational of the disposal site choose the dredged materials. In 1996, US Army Corps of Engineers in Savannah District conducted the Lower Savannah River basin Environmental Restoration study. The study assessed the feasibility of the two navigation bends and cut on Savannah River. The report was approved and the project licensed to be constructed in the Water Resources Development Act of the 1996. Part of the river was diverted to the Bear Creek to provide water to the hardwoods (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010a). The other issues requiring to be addressed for Savannah harbor expansion includes the impacts to anadromous fish population and the impacts to the water quality at City of Savannah’s intake plant located on the Abercorn creek due to changes in chloride levels. Beach erosion, channel erosion and disposal of the dredged materials. The last major improvement to the navigation channel in Savannah Harbor was done in 1994. However, the harbor has seen a significant growth in vessel traffic, cargo volume, and the frequency and sizes of ships coming to the port. The improvements made in 2004 were designed to accommodate ships with a weight tonnage of about 60,000 tons and the maximum capacity of four thousand and twenty four units (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010a). The maximum depth for the ship was 42.6 feet and a Panamax beam of 106 feet. At present however, the largest vessels docking at the port have more than 85,900 tons and a length of more than 984 feet. The maximum operating depth in the harbor is 48 feet. Consequently, it was noted that there was inefficiency in the operations of containers in the navigation channel which is greatly impacting international trade. Several alternatives were explored and it was concluded that deepening of the navigation channel. This calls for dredging of the Savannah River which has several impacts to the surrounding environment. To deepen the navigation channel a six step planning process was used to analysis the impacts against the existing depth as the baseline. The six plan process evaluated the project for its impacts in depths of between 42 feet MLW to 48 feet MLW. The deepening alternatives included the Kings Island Turning Basin, eight Berths at Garden city Terminal, the expected meeting point and the proposed bend wideners (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010a). Work plan and study limitations Data required for this research will be collected from secondary sources from the internet on materials describing the various components of the project. Furthermore, public participation will be conducted to get the feelings of the locals on the project. The other source of data for this project which could be used to validate whether the project benefits outweigh its risks will come with different agencies charged with the responsibility of managing the environment. These agencies provide significant descriptions of the interaction between different components in the ecosystem and the baseline status. The other source data required for research comes from blogs and media reports where synthesis the feelings of the public and any development on the project. The limitations of the study include the fact that the data is projected from previous projects and therefore they can not be held as the only impacts of the project. The project may have other unforeseen projects. The other limitation of the study is that prediction of the long term impacts of the project is low. The main source of the data for the research is from the US army corps of engineers who are biased to present a positive image of the project and understate the impacts. The other source of information for the research is from the internet posting by different stakeholders with vested interests on the project. All this stakeholders are therefore poised to evaluate the project according to their interests in the project. Findings River dredging Savannah Harbor deepening projects over the past century have lead to the destruction of over sixty five percent of the 12000 acres of fragile and ecologically critical tidal freshwater wetlands under the Savannah River National Wildlife Refuge (Bauerlein, 2009). Further deepening of the river would enhance the ability of saltwater to come up further up the Savannah River thereby degrading the river ecosystem. River dredging is expected to affect approximately 20 percent of the remaining wetland. Consequently, this will increase the cost of drinking water since more intensive purification process will be required. Dredging of the river by another six feet will enhance the ability of pollutants to be stirred up. One of the major pollutants expected to be stirred up dredging is cadmium whose exposure to humans in large concentrations has been shown to be toxic (Pavey, 2008). River Savannah is 120 miles downstream of the US Department of Energy where accumulation of radioactive sediments could have occurred. Following the proposed dredging of the river, any radioactive materials could be stirred thereby affecting the quality of water in the river. Dredging of the river is expected to result to salinity intrusion to the surface water. According to Winger and Lasier (n.d), Savannah Harbor is partially mixed where the vertical mixing of fresh and salty water is incomplete throughout the water body. Salinity at the surface water is less than salinities at the bottom of the river and there is large buffer zone between the two where mixing of freshwater and seawater occurs. However, dredging of the river would enhance vertical mixing of fresh and sea water thereby leading to salinity intrusion (Winger and Lasier, n.d). Savannah City gets draws water for both municipal and industrial use from the Abercorn Creek. The agreement with the industrial customers is that the chloride levels in water supplied should not contain more than 12 mg/l of chloride (Mongelluzzo, 2002). Although this is not contained sin the current contracts, industrial users require water with very low chloride levels. Moreover, municipal water should have chloride concentrations of below 250 mg/l. however, chloride concentrations of seawater is approximately 19, 400 mg/l. The proposed harbor dredging will lead to intrusion of chloride to the surface water thereby affecting the quality of water at the intake plant at Abercorn (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010a). This water will be unsuitable for both industrial and municipal use and therefore this will require a lot of resources to ensure that the water is of the desired quality. Savannah River dredging will have negative impacts on the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the river. Dissolved oxygen is required by aerobic organisms in the river ecosystem (Machalaba, 2004). River dredging could lead to low mean of dissolved oxygen through three ways. As the depth of navigation channel is increased, the ability of oxygen to get to the bottom of the river will be significantly reduced thereby affecting reducing the mean of dissolved oxygen. Secondly, as the navigation channel prism enlarges, more saltwater will move up the upper sections of the Savannah harbor and eventually into the estuary consequently affecting the ability of the surface water to take oxygen from the atmosphere. Increased depth of the navigation channel will reduce the velocity of mixing of dissolved oxygen throughout the water column. Very low levels of dissolved oxygen will have deleterious effects to the aquatic organisms (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010b). Environmental issues related to Dredging of the Savannah River Dredging of Savannah will create numerous environmental issues which greatly outweigh the economic benefits of the Savannah Harbor Expansion project. The waste materials resulting from dredging of Savannah River requires proper disposal. In addition to the diverse impacts on the water quality, through salinity intrusion, rise of chloride levels and lower levels of dissolved oxygen, the dredged material contains high concentrations toxic sediments. This waste material requires to disposal in a way that leads the least impacts on the environment (Carr-Mayle, 2010b). If implemented, the deepening of the navigation channel will lead to an excavation of about 39 million cubic yards of sediments. In addition, the annual maintenance of the deeper channel will lead to approximately seven million cubic yards of sediments. From sampling carried out on the sediments, three issues were identified that require to be addressed. Sediments from old RACON Tower site which is situated at the outer end of the entrance showed traces of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and cadmium were detected. Furthermore, high concentrations were detected within Miocene clays which could be excavated in dredging Savannah River (Landers, 2008b). Another issue that should be addressed before the disposal of the sediments is an evaluation of pesticides, phenols and other metals that could be in the sediment in addition to cadmium. US Army Corps of Engineers (2010a) explains that in a subsequent sampling works carried out in 2006, it was concluded that the only significant sediment contaminant is cadmium. This metal poses a great threat to the health of the residents and organisms within the ecosystem. These high levels of cadmium in the clay could be exposed to the benthic micro-organisms thereby getting to the food chain. The high volume of dredged materials excavated from during the deepening would require a large disposal site. The other environmental concern emanating from Savannah Harbor deepening project are related to air quality. Four activities were identified as having some impacts to the quality of air in areas proximate to the harbor. These activities include the internal movement of vessel in the port, maintenance dredging and tourist boats. NOX is identified as the most significant pollutant released in the highest amounts in the port (Landers, 2011). As the port is expanded and more vessels call to the port, higher levels of pollutants will be emitted from the port thereby negatively affecting the quality of air. Species Issues Related to Dredging the Savannah River Savannah expansion project is expected to have significant impacts on endangered species living within the river ecosystem. Dredging will affect the plants and animals through a variety of ways. These include the actions of the equipments used in dredging. Dredging equipments will be involved in cutting, sediment removal, pumping of sediments and water (The Guardian, 2001). Moreover, contact of the plants and animals with equipments and vessels will negatively and the physical barriers created by dredging equipments will restrict the movement of micro-organisms. Removal of the bottom substrate in the dredged area would do away with all the benthic resources in the area. Dredging would also affect the spawning sites for most aquatic organisms that spawn in the benthic zone of the river (Salu, 2000). To fully understand the impacts of SHEP to different species, an assessment of the federally endangered and threatened species present within the project area was conducted. Moreover, the presence of organisms within the area is affected by presence of a suitable habitat where these organisms can survive. From the assessment, several varieties of marine turtles were identified to be present in the project area and their survival could be affected by dredging of the river. Leatherback sea turtle whose scientific name is Dermochelys coriacea and is listed as an endangered species is found within Savannah River (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010a). Loggerhead sea turtle; Caretta caretta a threatened species is also found within the area and its survival could be greatly affected by the implementation of a project to expand the port. Kemps Ridley sea turtle; Lepidochelys kempii an endangered species faces an uncertain future if the project is given a go ahead. In addition a threatened green sea turtle Chelonia mydas will be lost if the project is implemented thereby denying the future generations a chance to see these organisms (Bird, 2011). Mammals found in the area which have been listed as endangered include North Atlantic right whale, Blue whale, Humpback whale, Sperm whale, Sei whale and West Indian Manatee (Landers, 2011). The area is also a habitat for numerous endangered and threatened vertebrates. These include Kirtland’s warbler, Bachman’s warbler, Red-cockaded woodpecker and Wood stork all which are endangered species (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010a). The area is also a habitat for the threatened species such as Piping plover, Eastern indigo snake, and Flatwoods salamander. Critical plants found in the area include Lindera melissifolia, Schwalbea americana and Oxypolis candyi all which are listed as endangered species. Savannah Harbor expansion will also affect various anadromous and marine fish species such as Shortnose sturgeon which is an endangered species and Atlantic sturgeon which is candidate species (Landers, 2011). An endangered species is defined as a taxon that is in eminent danger of extinction in all its habitats while a threatened species is one which could become endangered in the near future (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010a). Different species stand to be affected if a project to expand the harbor is implemented. The conservation areas situated in close proximity to the project include Fort Pulaski National Monument, Greenspace, Hunter Army Airfield, Little Tybee-Cabbage Island Natural Area, and Skidaway island State park. Moreover, Savannah River which is an important habitat for different organisms is located the project site (Zaleski, 2011). Legal Issues Related to Dredging the Savannah River Compliance with all legal issues relating to the environment is required before the project can be allowed to be implemented. Dredging of the Savannah River will require compliance to the Clean Water Act. Section 401 of the Act requires that the project gets a Water Quality Certificate from Georgia DNR and South Carolina DHEC. The project is also subject to Section 103 of the Marine protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of the 1972 where the sediments must be analyzed to ensure that they do not have detrimental impacts to the disposal site chosen (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010b). The project is also subject to scrutiny by National Marine Fisheries Service as outlined in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act which require Federal agencies to consult whenever a proposal may affect Essential Fish Habitat. This project meets this threshold since the conversion of brackish and freshwater marshes affect the breeding ground for different fish species (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010b). Savannah Harbor Expansion Project is will also have to demonstrate compliance to the Anadromous Fish conservation Act, 16 U.S>C 757, et. seq. which sets up conditions to ensure protection of the anadromous fish. An assessment of the potential impacts of the project on endangered and threatened species has to be undertaken in accordance to the Endangered and Threatened Species Act US Army Corps of Engineers (2010b). Slade (2012) explains that recently, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) went to court against US Army Corps of Engineers following their failure to obtain a pollution control permit from South Carolina for the project. The organization filed the suit on behalf of Savannah Riverkeeper which is a conservation group. In the application, they argue that the Corps did not obtain a permit which would ensure that they implement pollution controls during the project implementation stage. Economic benefits of dredging the Savannah River and any other benefits of river expansion The main economic benefit of Savannah River dredging is the increase of the commerce. As more and more containerized cargo increases, the sizes and frequency of ship calling at Savannah harbor will increase significantly thereby expansion of harbor will help it accommodate more and bigger ships. This will increase trade within the region thereby creating more jobs opportunities. US Army Corps of Engineers (2010b) explains that restriction of the expansion will lead to an increase in the cost of shipping. Moreover, dredging of the river is anticipated to cut down the costs of operations and maintenance of the federal channel. The sediments removed during dredging could be used in construction and (Gulf Engineers & Consultants (2006) explains that the expansion will lead to placement of work sediments in new sites such as Tybee Island thereby increasing its accessibility to different users. The work material could be used in the development of a new harbor disposal site. The studies required before implementation of the project will enhance an understanding of the natural resources in the area consequently contributing to their conservation. Conclusion Plans to expand the Savannah Harbor are still at the initial levels where the cost benefits of the project are being weighed. Georgia Ports Authority and Georgia Environmental protection Unit and other government officials want Savannah Harbor dredged to get to 48 feet from the current 42 feet in an attempt to enhance the commerce and operations in the port. This proposal if implemented is going to spur economic growth in the region and create employment opportunities. On the other hand, those opposed to the project argue that it will lead to significant irreversible impacts to the ecosystem. The project will also lead the negative impacts on the water quality following intrusion of seawater into the freshwater system. Moreover, dredging will lead to stirring of the chloride and cadmium which are toxic to human health. Expansion of the Savannah Harbor will have numerous impacts on the aquatic organisms through reduction of the dissolved oxygen required for survival of the aquatic organisms, destruction of their habitats while others will be killed by the equipments used in the dredging. In addition, some organisms will have their spawning sites destroyed during the dredging. Most of the species living on the project area or areas in close proximity are either endangered or threatened and therefore any further activities will have deleterious impacts on these organisms. From the research the risks of the project outweigh the expected benefits of the project. References Bauerlein, S. (2009, May 28). 50 feet of water!" is rallying cry for Jacksonvilles port: Dredging the St. Johns could cost up to $1 billion. Jacksonville, FL: Florida Times-Union, Bird, A. (2011, January 5). Harbor deepening project at risk. Jacksonville, FL: Post and Courier. Carr-Mayle, M. (2010a, December 5). The Corps: Its not just for dredging. Savannah Morning News (GA). Carr-Mayle, M. (2010b, April 23). Savannah Morning News, Ga., Portside column: Is Corps finally moving past analysis paralysis?. Savannah Morning News (GA). Cleary, W. J. (2007). Inlet-related erosion hot spots. Abstracts With Programs – Geological Society Of America, 39(2), 73. Ernst, D. (2011). The Process Continues: Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. Retrieved 28th February, 2012 from < http://www.acoel.org/post/2011/08/01/The-Process-Continues-Savannah-Harbor-Expansion-Project-%28SHEP%29.aspx> Gulf Engineers & Consultants (2006). Savannah Harbor Expansion Project Economic Analysis, Phase III Benefits Calculation Methodology and Model, Multiport Analysis and Regional Port Analysis Retrieved 28th February, 2012 from http://www.gecinc.com/project_sub_details.asp?ID=14&Cat=3 Landers, M. (2008a, October 26). Harbor-deepening plans delayed. Savannah Morning News (GA). Landers, M. (2008b, October 29). Nuclear project dredges up new scrutiny. Savannah Morning News (GA). Landers, M. (2011, November 11). Deepening given go-ahead on rare species. Savannah Morning News (GA). Machalaba, D. (2004, March 10). U.S. Ports Hit a Storm. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition. pp. B1-B6. Mongelluzzo, B. (2002). Running on DC current. Joc Week, 3(10), 29. Pavey, R. (2008, October 29). Groups object to dredging river: Actions to clear way for shipping barges may hurt habitat, fish. Augusta Chronicle, The (GA). Salu, A. (2000). The EIA Law and the Niger River Dredging Controversy. Naturewatch. Slade, D. (2012, February 4). DHEC faces new Savannah dredging attack. Charleston, SC: The Post and Courier, (). The Guardian (10 October 2001). River Niger’s Dredging Project for Review. US Army Corps of Engineers (2010a). Draft Tier II Environmental Impact Statement for Savannah Harbor Expansion Project Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County; South Carolina. Retrieved 28th February, 2012 from < http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/shexpan/SHEPTierII.html> US Army Corps of Engineers (2010b). General Re-Evaluation Report for Savannah Harbor Expansion Project Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina. Retrieved 28th February, 2012 from http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/shexpan/SHEPreport.html Winger, P., & lasier, P. (n.d). Sediment Toxicity i Savanna Harbor. Archives Of Environmental Contamination And Toxicology, 28(3), 357-365. Zaleski, G. (2011, December 4). Savannah port decision was strategic mistake, local lawmakers say. Times and Democrat, The (Orangeburg, SC). Read More