protecting the port: expanding the future of...

Preciado 1

PROTECTING THE PORT:

EXPANDING THE FUTURE OF GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI

Claudia Preciado CEE 129: Engineering and Policy Responses to Climate Change in Seaports

FALL 2010 Austin Becker Martin Fischer Ben Schwegler

Preciado 2

Table of Contents 0.0 Project Introduction………………………………………………………………………………… 0.1 Coastal Ports Justification…………………………………………………………………….. 0.2 Case Study Goals…………………………………………………………………………………………. 0.3 Design Approach………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.4 Audience…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 0.5 Units……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

1.0 Site Identification………………………………………………………………………………… 1.1 Port Operations, Infrastructure, and Contiguous Community……………… 1.2 Topography and Bathymetry…………………………………………………………………….. 1.3 Design Conditions and Acceptable Risk………………………………………………… 1.4 Hydrology and Hydraulics…………………………………………………………………….. 1.5 Coastal and Wind Data…………………………………………………………………….. 1.6 Geology and Sediment Regime…………………………………………………………………….. 1.7 Land Use Patterns and Historical Reserves………………………………………………… 1.8 Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services……………………………………………… 1.9 Estimating the Local Rate of Sea Level Rise………………………………………………… 1.10 Vulnerability Assessment…………………………………………………………………….. 1.11 Historic Extreme Events…………………………………………………………………….. 1.12 Preliminary Site Delineation…………………………………………………………………….. 2.0 Conceptual Design Alternatives Evaluation………………………………………… 2.1 Cost Data……………………………………………………………………………………………….

2.1.1 Construction Materials…………………………………………………………………….. 2.1.2 Construction Equipment…………………………………………………………………… 2.1.3 Labor – Design, Skilled, and Unskilled………………………………………………

2.2 Selecting the Conceptual Design……………………………………………………………… 2.2.1 Conceptual Design A: Port Perimeter Control & Elevation………………… 2.2.2 Conceptual Design B: WetWet Dike Only………………………………….. 2.2.3 Conceptual Design C: Combination Approach………………………………

2.3 Alternative Selection…………………………………………………………………….. 3.0 Schematic Design Development………………………………………………………… 3.1 Design Layout………………………………………………………………………………………

3.1.1 Dike……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.1.2 Gates & Lock………………………………………………………………………………… 3.1.3 Pumping and Drainage System………………………………………………………

3.2 Materials………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3.3 Equipment…………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.4 Labor…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3.5 Construction Time and Sequencing………………………………………………………… 3.6 Cost………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.7 Impact on Ecosystem Functions and Landforms…………………………………………

Preciado 3

3.8 Societal Impacts…………………………………………………………………………………….. 3.9 Design Limitations and Next Steps…………………………………………………………

3.9.1 Data Availability…………………………………………………………………….. 3.9.2 Environmental Impacts…………………………………………………………………….. 3.9.3 Damage from storm event greater than design storm………………………… 3.9.4 Permitting Requirements……………………………………………………………

4.0 Incorporation of Results in Overall Project………………………………………………

Preciado 4

0.0 Project Introduction Climate change is undoubtedly the most vigorously debated environmental issue of the 21st century. Among the many predicted scenarios likely to result from climate change is an increase in the mean sea level (MSL) on a planetary scale‐‐‐greater than that attributable to the rate of sea level rise (IPCC 2007). Although the MSL changes vary depending on the location in question (Church 2001) it is evident that new risk management strategies are needed. These include managing subsidence, land use planning, selective relocation, and flood warning and evacuation (Nicholls 2008). Aside from these “soft” protection strategies, at some point, additional “hard” construction in the form of dikes, levees, sea walls, etc. will be required to protect ports, harbors and other coastal developments where the cost and practicality of relocation is not believed to outweigh the constructed alternative. Several studies have attempted to estimate the cost of constructing protective structures, yet none have been based on an analysis of actual design alternatives, nor have they attempted to quantify the ability of the design and construction industry (DCI) to deliver the improvements envisioned. The Stanford Engineering and Public Policy Framework Project on Climate Change and its impacts on the Built Environment in the Coastal Zone (the Stanford Project) will address these gaps by preparing a global simulation of the construction response required to protect the world's major ports from a significant rise in MSL, which will include estimates on the requirements for construction materials, equipment, labor, and cost (Fischer 2008). Additionally, the project will compare these requirements to the current capacity of the DCI in order to estimate the duration of the global simulation. Our preliminary results show that protecting the 178 most significant ports in terms of economic value will cost approximately $90 billion (USD) and will take about 50 years, assuming unconstrained resources and simultaneous construction at all ports. The mean project will take 8 years to construct, and the median project will take 4 years. If we add the material constraint of sand and gravel production by region—which we have determined to be the most limiting resource—then the time required to protect all 178 ports rises to 220 years. This paper is a case study on developing a protection strategy for Port of Gulfport, Mississippi. With the results of this case study and the development of further case studies in various ports around the world, we expect to the project‐level estimates to change and improve in accuracy as they are refined by the knowledge gained in each case study.

0.1 Coastal Ports Justification In determining the scope of this project, careful thought was given to what kinds of coastal areas should be studied. First, a distinction was made between the built coastal environment and the undeveloped coastal environment. Although undeveloped areas have a significant ecological value and may provide many economic benefits, it is difficult to justify implementing an engineering project that will attempt to preserve some baseline state when it is not clear that such a baseline exists in a naturally dynamic environment. It is also complicated to determine on whom responsibility for this protection would fall and

Preciado 5

how it would be prioritized with respect to the built environment on which many lives and livelihoods depend. Within the built environment, we have decided to look at land uses that are entirely dependent on coastal access. Although there are growing levels of residential and commercial development along the coast worldwide, these structures could potentially be relocated inland or abandoned and reconstructed inland. Residential property values are also highly sensitive to flood risk, so they are difficult to quantify precisely. In light of these factors, coastal ports emerge as a good simplifying target, since they are central to the economic productivity and trade of most coastal nations. For the United States, 95% of all goods entering the country arrive via waterborne transportation (POLA 2007a). Ports are also tied to the coast and exceedingly difficult—if not impossible—to relocate, due to the intricate infrastructure that connects them to the land and the sea. Finally, another practical reason to choose ports as the target of this study is the relatively complete and regularly maintained data availability on their operation, their surrounding geophysical environment, etc.

0.2 Case Study Goals The overall goal of this case study is to provide guidance on the development of a coastal port protection strategy that is applicable for Gulfport and other similar ports throughout the world, which will be used to validate the approach used in the Stanford Project at large. In conjunction with a range of very different case studies that are being developed, the limitations of this approach will be tested and it will be expanded to better match reality. 0.3 Design Approach By preparing an engineering design at a schematic level, we will be able to assess the minimum design specificity required in order to create a global simulation that does not double‐count resources. If the schematic designs produced according to this case study can identify the most critical resources needed, then we can better estimate the limiting factors for the scheduling of the simulated port protection activities on regional and global levels. Taking the design from a case‐study level to a larger statistical analysis of the world’s top ports involves using the following variables:

• Dependent Variable o Cost to implement port protection systems

Materials Equipment Time Labor

• Independent Variables o Rate of sea level rise o Design type

Preciado 6

o Extreme water level o Exposed population & assets

0.4 Audience The intended audience for this case study is student research teams at universities worldwide that are taking part in the Stanford Project. Once the methodology and results have been further tested and verified, this paper will then be a source for the development of project‐level documents to be disseminated throughout the scientific and engineering community, as well as to the general public. 0.5 Units Every attempt is made to use SI units throughout this project. All prices are in US dollars ($) unless otherwise indicated.

1.0 Site Identification The port of Gulfport, Mississippi is located in the Gulf Coast of the United States. The area is largely a fishing, tourism, and agricultural area. Though Gulfport is subsequent to the ports in Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, and Tampa, it is the largest port in the state of Mississippi. Gulfport is also the second largest city in the state of Mississippi with approximately 70,000 residents, following the capital city, Jackson. The city is 69.2 square miles with 7.3 square miles of water (11.4% water) and 56.9 square miles of land (US Census Bureau 2008). Gulfport’s importance lies in its accessibility and distribution range. The port boasts international accessibility to Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean nations in its close range. Furthermore, Gulfport can distribute to 75% of the United States market within 24 hours (MPSA 2010). However, the area is prone to hurricanes and floods. Earthquakes and tornados are rare, but do occur. The increase of severe weather storms and the low elevation of the area create an urgency and careful level of preparation in port protection plans. After experiencing a catastrophic event such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Gulfport is actively seeking to protect its port against similar future events. The port has undergone rebuilding and has expansion in its future. The Port of the Future project looks at expanding Gulfport, bringing economic and environmental benefits to the renovation plans. 1.1 Port Operations, Infrastructure, and Contiguous Community The port at Gulfport was founded in 1902, only a few years after its founding as a city in 1898. The port originally specialized in lumber, but has expanded and transformed in the years since then (CI.GULFPORT.MS.US 2010).

Preciado 7

Gulfport ranks as the fourth largest port on the Gulf Coast and the 110th largest in the US by throughput. In 2008, the port handled just over two‐million tons of cargo, 1.5m of which was imports (USACE 2008). The USACE maintains the navigation channel to 36’. As a “landlord port,” the State of Mississippi holds 184 acres of land and leases it to four major tenants: Dole, Chiquita, Crowley, and Dupont. The Mississippi State Port Authority (MSPA) also owns and maintains much of the major infrastructure located on the portlands. This includes two cranes, warehouse space, and a bulk‐cargo facility. The Port handles containers and bulk freight. Primary imports are fresh fruit. The tenants also export various products primarily to South and Central America. Chiquita, for example, handles one ship a week of containerized fresh fruit. Some containers get stuffed with miscellaneous cargo before being returned to the Chiquita plantations in Guatemala and Honduras. Chiquita, Inc. uses Gulfport as one of its two ports operating in the Gulf Coast. It serves as a major banana distribution center and handles one vessel per week from the banana plantations in Guatemala and Honduras. Through Gulfport, Chiquita supplies fruit to much of central and mid‐west America. Crowley handles general containerized cargo. Island Casinos, though not operating their barge casinos since they were destroyed in Katrina, continues to lease a portion of the portlands, providing an additional source of revenue to the MSPA. The berth retained by Island Casinos remains empty, but for an occasional visit from a luxury motor yacht visiting the adjacent casino. Of the imports, bananas is the majority at 58%, making it the second largest importer of green fruit in the United States. Other imports include garments, ilmenite ore, and lumber. (MSPA 2010) [Figure 1: Top Imports in Short Tons, CY 2009—MSPA 2010]

Preciado 8

The port mainly exports containerized cargo, but a small fraction of it is linerboard. Specifically, the port handles paper, clays, cellulose, fabrics, cloth, yarn, and apparel hardware. The port is equipped to handle bulk, break‐bulk, project and containerized cargo. [Figure 2: Top Exports in Short Tons, CY 2009—MSPA 2010]

The Mississippi State Port Authority manages operations at Gulfport. In 2009, the MSPA handled 2.04 million tons of cargo, 198,900 TEUs (Twenty‐foot Equivalent Units), and 235 ships. In 2004 (Pre‐Hurricane Katrina), the port handled over 2.4 million tons of cargo, 213,108 TEUs, and 353 ships. The port’s job impact is also steadily recovering: pre‐Katrina there were 3,200 direct jobs and there are currently 2,056 direct jobs. The port’s pre‐Katrina business service revenue topped at $180 million dollars; however, the hurricane caused a $106 million repair project cost, funded separately from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development’s block grants of $570million (MSPA 2010). One of the port’s most significant renovation projects it is undertaking is raising the West Pier’s elevation to 25 feet above sea level rise. The Mississippi State Port Authority expects to accomplish the project in the next 18 to 24 months. This elevation rise will help protect against flooding and the minimum projected sea level rise (Port of the Future 2010). Economic growth is also expected to occur once the Panama Canal expansion is complete in 2014, assisting the port in becoming more competitive with an open route to Asia and the western coast of the South America (PANCANAL 2010).

Preciado 9

[Figure 3: Port Infrastructure as of December 2009—Port of the Future 2010]

Infrastructure at the port includes (MSPA 2010):

• 10 multiple berths ranging from 525 – 750 feet • Over 400,000 sq ft. of Covered Storage • Two Gottwald Mobile Harbour Cranes • Open Container Storage with reefer plug outlets • Bulk Material Unloading System • Dockside and Off Dock Storage • Open Bulk and Break‐bulk storage • Customs secured boundaries with roving patrols • Container Freight Station. • Ro‐Ro ramp

1.2 Topography and Bathymetry In order to visualize the low elevation of the port, we used a web‐based tool that is easy to manipulate to show elevation data for most of the world. Using NASA’s Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) topographic data, this tool shows flooding based simply on the elevation of land points at the time of data collection.

Preciado 10

Figure 4: Gulfport at 1m of SLR—SRTM 2010.



Preciado 11


1.3 Design Conditions and Acceptable Risk When analyzing the port at Gulfport for protective measures, it is pertinent to include current renovation projects. The Restoration Project at Gulfport projects an expansion within the next 10 years. The following is a visual representation of the proposed expansion: [Figure 8: Restoration Program, Gulfport—Port of the Future 2010]

Preciado 12

The renovated port would eliminate the upper part of the port in order to create a larger turning basin for ships. The design also widens the port, which could result in less vulnerability. Another condition to note is the tidal range. USACE averages the tidal range to about 1.7 feet with wind vulnerability. Strong winds can cause the tides to increase or decrease dramatically. The graph below demonstrates the tidal range. [Figure 9: Tidal Predictions for Gulfport Harbor, 2009—NOAA 2009]

The nature of the Gulf Coast is also vulnerable to major hurricanes ranging up to Category 5 storms. On average, Gulfport is affected by a storm every 3‐4 years with major hurricanes hitting once every two decades. Hurricane Katrina by far has been one of the most devastating hurricanes with a storm surge of 28 feet. Most of the hurricanes in the Gulf Coast range from 70mph‐125mph (Category 3‐4). While some storm surges are incomparable to that of Hurricane Katrina, other notable hurricanes in Gulfport’s past have been accompanied by high rainfall, tornados in the northern regions of Mississippi, and flooding. Prior to Katrina, Hurricane Camille was known as the strongest hurricane to hit Gulfport (HURRICANECITY.COM 2010) STORM DATA GULFPORT, MS Average # of Years Between Storms 3.5 years

Average # of Years Between Direct Hits 15.4 years

Next predicted hit 2013

Preciado 13

Last storm 2009, Hurricane Ida Storm Surge #s 7 ft (Hurricane Ethel, 1960)

24.6 ft (Hurricane Camille, 1969) 8.9 ft (Hurricane Georges, 1998) 10‐15 ft (Hurricane Ivan, 2004) 28 ft (Hurricane Katrina, 2005) 3.5 ft (Hurricane Ida, 2009)

1.4 Hydrology and Hydraulics The Gulf of Mexico, the body of water surrounding Gulfport Harbor, creates a variety of lakes and rivers in the Gulfport area that stream in from the east near Biloxi, MS. The Bay of Biloxi becomes Mullet Lake then Big Lake, then Big Little Lake, which branches off into multiple rivers that feed into Gulfport. One of the rivers flows just south of the Gulfport‐Biloxi International Airport, running parallel to highway 90 and cutting below highways 605 and 49. If left unprotected, sea level rise will destroy the city’s main modes of access with the rest of Mississippi and the United States, including the airport and highways. These modes of transportation are not only essential for the citizens, but also for the port because of ground transportation to most of the United States. [Figure 10: Google map image of Gulfport’s rivers and lakes—Google Maps 2010]

1.5 Coastal and Wind Data The following data was collected on November 15, 2010 for Gulfport’s coastal wind and rain data. During November, the last month in the traditional hurricane season, the high monthly wind speed was 29 mph and the yearly high being 39 mph. The rain data’s high monthly rate is 5.70 in/hr and the high yearly rate is 82.29 in/hr.

Preciado 14

[Figure 11: Wind and Rain Data for Gulfport, November—CO.HARRISON.MS.US 2010]

Year‐round winds collected for Gulfport show winds peaking during the beginning of year from January through May. Though the period from May to November is hurricane season in Gulfport, the average wind data is the lowest during this time, according to windfinder.com. The strongest period for hurricanes is the summer months (June‐September). The average wind speed for June through September is between 7 and 8 mph. As noted in the wind distribution map, the strongest winds in Gulfport comes from the SSE and SE directions, reflecting it’s position as a port in the Gulf Coast. [Figure 12: Wind data, statistics—WINDFINDER.COM 2010]

Preciado 15

1.6 Geology and Sediment Regime Sedimentation in Gulfport Harbor is composed primarily of clay and silts. Most of what was noted from samples taken in the harbor consisted of clayey silts of varying coarseness. Most of the sediment was fine, with some of it thicker than that. Most of the sedimentation, with the exception of catchment runoff, comes from salt‐water sources. The sediment is primarily transported by open waters. Extreme weather events also help carry sedimentation in a disastrous form—they can do everything from relocate your home to reshape beaches. The geological formation of Gulfport comprises of Prairrie deposits that created floodplains and the ridge of the coast. Underneath this is the Biloxi Formation, which is made primarily of muddy sand. The Gulfport Formation also created beach ridges along the Mississippi’s coast, formed with humate‐stained sand. As pictured below, the port of Gulfport and area that surrounds is geologically composed from the Gulfport Formation, with some portions forming from the Prarrie deposits (Otvos 1985). [Figure 13: Mississippi Coastal Geology—Otvos 1985]

Preciado 16

1.7 Land Use Patterns and Historical Resources From a range of 1 meter sea level rise to 7 meters sea level rise, Gulfport’s transportation will be affected in varying degrees of intensity. At 1m, highway 90 runs the risk of flooding along with the port itself. A continued sea level rise begins to affect other highways such as 49, 10, and 605. At this point, the Gulfport‐Biloxi International Airport is at high risk and possibly unable to access as well. Under the situation of no protective measures, Gulfport will become isolated and its coastal citizens will face a great loss. The various rivers and lakes in Gulfport will inundate to a level in which the citizens’ only response will be to evacuate as quickly as possible if there is no protection for the area. In consideration of the Gulf Coast, a 1 meter sea level rise will greatly affect New Orleans and further strain resources on the surrounding areas, including Gulfport, MS. [Figure 14: Google image of Gulfport, MS—GOOGLE MAPS 2010]

1.8 Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services A natural resource and protection measure comes from the location of Gulfport in the Mississippi Sound—just south of the port are Cat Island (10 miles south) and Ship Island (10 miles south east). These two islands can become barriers in conjunction with the Mississippi River Delta, the U.S. mainland, and more islands (and Florida). In the event of climate change induced extreme weather events, Gulfport’s ecosystem and natural systems are at risk. After Hurricane Katrina, much of the tree canopy in Harrison Country was destroyed, changing the county’s forests and affecting the clean air supply. Many streams were also destroyed in the path of Katrina, affecting the clean water supply. Gulfport lost 13% of tree canopy, 12% shrub, and 4% open area. The loss of tree canopy resulted in approximately 28,000 pounds lost of air pollution removal. In the event of sea

Preciado 17

level rise and extreme weather events, more of these resources will be damaged (URBANFORESTRYSOUTH.ORG 2007). 1.9 Estimating the Rate of Local Sea Level Rise The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates a global average sea level rise of 7.2 inches to 23.6 inches by 2100. The projections do not include a change in the melting from Greenland and Antarctica. With those projections, sea level rise could range from 19.2 inches to 31.6 inches. Given the data measured in the past, the IPCC has made the following global projections for the end of the 21st century (Mastrandrea 2010): [Figure 15: SLR Projections—IPCC 2007]

Specifically, in the Gulf Coast region, the IPCC projected the following for sea level rise: Notice in the Gulfport region, the projected SLR is 1.5‐3.5 meters (EPA 2010). [Figure 16: SLR in the Gulf Coast—EPA 2010]

Preciado 18

1.10 Vulnerability Assessment Although the geomorphology of the port gives the port some competitive advantage, it surely serves as one its largest vulnerabilities. Gulfport sits at the center of the area in the Gulf known colloquially as the “hurricane catcher’s mitt.” The first big storm was Hurricane Camille in 1969. The plan to rebuild the port includes raising the entire port lands to 25’ above base flood elevation, just under the level of storm surge caused by Katrina. Though certainly more aggressive than any other storm protection plan that I know of, this plan benchmarks Katrina as the largest storm reasonably expected. Some experts disagree and with the confounding impacts of sea level rise and climate‐change induced hurricane intensification, it is safe to say that storms stronger than Katrina lie well within the realm of possibility for the coming decades. Going higher would reduce vulnerability, but at some point the cost make it unfeasible to do so. The plan to elevate also requires similar improvements to the adjacent transportation infrastructure connecting the port to the hinterland. The budget does not include these additional costs and must be borne by the taxpayers and/or the private rail company. Gulfport’s resilience plans fall into both Tiers 2 and 3 as described above. They institute a full evacuation plan for all cargo and equipment and are working on major infrastructure improvements to build hurricane resilience. 1.11 Historic Extreme Events There have been 3 extreme events that have greatly affected Gulfport, MS. Extreme weather events have been noted as Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in this case. Because of Gulfport’s location, there is heavy rainfall when any hurricane hits the Gulf Coast (even though it may not hit the Mississippi coastline). It is also important to note that Mississippi’s coastline is the smallest in length compared to other Gulf Coast states. The damages noted below are total damages for all affected states. (Information from NOAA 2010) Hurricane Camille Category 5 Flash flooding August 17, 1969 259 deaths Storm surge: 24.6 ft $1.421 billion in damages Winds: 200mph

Preciado 19

[Figure 17&18: Gulfport ruins after Hurricane Camille—Google Images 2010]

Preciado 20

(Information from NOAA 2010) Hurricane Ivan Category 4 100 tornadoes caused September 16,2004 92 deaths Storm surge: 1015 ft $14.2 billion in damages

Winds: 120mph (sustained) Entered the Gulf Coast twice

[Figure 19: Highway 10 after Hurricane Ivan—Google Images 2010]

[Figure 20: damage from Hurricane Ivan—Google Images 2010]

Preciado 21

(Information from NOAA 2010) Hurricane Katrina Category 3/4 33 tornadoes caused August 28, 2005 1200 deaths (200 in MS)

Storm surge: 2528 ft $75 billion in damages Winds: 175mph (sustained) Costliest hurricane in US history

[Figure 21, 22, & 23: Damages from Hurricane Katrina—Google Images 2010]

Preciado 22

1.12 Preliminary Site Delineation The white polygon denotes the port infrastructure that needs to be protected: [Figure 24: Port of Gulfport Infrastructure—Google Earth 2010]

The white line denotes the area that should be protected by a dike. This port is the port of Biloxi, but it stems off into lakes and rivers that run behind Gulfport. The thicker white line

Preciado 23

is a bridge that also needs to be protected from storm surges, such as the 9m surge from Hurricane Katrina. [Figure 25: Port of Biloxi—Google Earth 2010]

2.0 Conceptual Design Alternatives Evaluation The goal of this section is to consider the most commonly used designs in coastal protection— both structural and non‐structural—and to assist in determining which are the best alternatives for the study site. Note that this is an iterative process, in which a few design alternatives were rapidly selected and then evaluated to decide whether to proceed or to go back and consider a different approach. A diversity of coastal protection approaches have been successfully implemented, and choosing the right one is a very site‐specific process. The following tables list the benefits and impacts that are possible outcomes of addressing various design function goals. Then, the most prevalent approaches to structural and non‐structural designs are listed, along with their associated benefits and impacts. This should make it possible to narrow the list of suitable alternatives for the project site to three or four. If appropriate, two or more alternatives can be combined to create a multifaceted design that may be better suited to the project requirements than the alternatives by themselves (Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management 2007)

Preciado 24

[Figure 26, 27, & 28:Benefits and Impacts of Design Alternatives]

Preciado 25

A different categorization of protection strategies is laid out in the table below. This table is meant to assist in the cost estimating and feasibility evaluation for choosing one of the options listed as a design alternative (Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management 2007) USACE EM 1110‐2‐1100 (Part VI). For Gulfport, there are a number of primary and secondary objectives that a successful design should meet, while avoiding negative impacts as much as possible:

• Primary objectives: o Societal Goals: promote public safety and public welfare o Biological Resources: maintain ecological values and ecosystem functions o Design lifespan: 100 years o Sustainability: economical, ecological, and social

• Secondary objectives: o Minimize cost o Minimize disruption to port activities during construction o Enhance ecological values

Given these guidelines, a design should be able to work in two scenarios: extreme events and everyday functions. The extreme event that is used as a metric in this study is the 100‐year storm event. An event of this magnitude should be able to hit the port of Auckland and normal port functions should resume quickly after the storm. However during the storm, the design structure may require port functions to stop.

Preciado 26

The design should also maintain normal day‐to‐day shipping and port operations even with the estimated sea level rise without hindering current or planned expanded operations. A final consideration of elevating all infrastructure is necessary. While this would be an extremely complex operation, it would maintain navigability and meet almost all of the other primary and secondary objectives as well. 2.1 Cost Data In order to evaluate design alternatives against each other, it is important to know the site‐specific cost of constructing each one. 2.1.1. Construction Materials Material Cost (material, labor,

equipment) Units

Rip‐rap and rock lining, machine placed for slope protection

$52 Linear m3

Gabions, galvanized steel mesh mats or boxes, stone‐filled, 36” deep

$145 m2

Aggregate, select structural fill, spread with 200 H.P. dozer, no compaction, 2 mi RT haul

$17 m3

Concrete, plant‐mixed bituminous, all weather patching mix, hot

$87 m3

2.1.2 Construction Equipment Equipment Rental Cost Hard Asset Cost Bulldozer $6000/mo $70,000 Crane $7500/mo $350,000 Cement mixing station $2700/mo $50,000 Backhoe $2500/mo $80,000 Vibration compactor $3000/mo $10,000 Crane barge $5000/mo $600,000 Hopper dredge $6000/mo $800,000 2.1.3 Labor – Design, Skilled, and Unskilled Since the unit costs for materials include the cost of labor, the labor market in Gulfport should be noted. The population of Gulfport declined from the year 2000 to 2006 by 9.6%. The total population of Gulfport is approximately 64, 316. The city’s average GDP in 2006 was $8,776 million, estimating a growth from 2000 to 2006. Expansion and renovation of

Preciado 27

the port is expected to create 6,500 direct jobs, 8,400 induced jobs, and 1,700 indirect jobs. It will add $10 billion in added personal income and $1.6 billion indirectly to the local economy. As of October 2010, the unemployment rate is 8.5% in Harrison County. As a state, Mississippi sits right above the national 9% unemployment rate at 9.7%. Thus, there is no shortage of labor in the state and county. 2.2 Selecting the Conceptual Design After narrowing the conceptual design strategy to a few alternatives, a preliminary design should be performed for each one. Each design should include a broad‐level overview of the requirements for the following elements: • Design layout • Materials required by category • Construction equipment • Time to construct • Cost drivers • Fulfillment of primary and secondary criteria This will allow for a more detailed comparison of the alternatives and the selection of the preferred approach. It should be noted that the preferred approach might be a combination of several of the design alternatives. Gulfport’s elevation makes it incredibly vulnerable to the slightest climate change, thus the port needs protection for anything above 1m, but up to 9m (storm surge height from Hurricane Katrina). 2.2.1 Conceptual Design A: Port Perimeter Control and Elevation A port perimeter control and elevation design would consist of placing a dike around the port infrastructure and elevating the port infrastructure. Through the Port of the Future restoration project, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) authorized Gulfport’s plans to raise the port infrastructure to 25 feet. This elevation is approximately double of what it is now—13 feet. The initial funds for the restoration project in total were $570 million dollars. The elevation is projected to be completed in the next 18 to 24 months (the size of the crew is unclear at this point)(Port of the Future—2010). The port perimeter control consists of a wet‐wet dike and will cost $497 million to build. It will take approximately 5 months to construct with a crew of 200 men. The path length for the dike will be approximately 7223 meters. This protection measure will prevent sea level rise of 2 meters from damaging the port infrastructure and operations (Sebastian—2010). 2.2.2 Conceptual Design B: WetWet Dike Only

Only constructing a wet‐wet dike would save Gulfport money from elevating their port. The dike would line around the port infrastructure and protect the city from high sea level rise.

Preciado 28

Protecting the port without elevating the infrastructure would most likely require a taller dike to combat the higher end projections for sea level rise in the Gulf Coast (3.5 meters). However, the taller dike prepared for 4 meters of sea level rise would cost $563 million dollars. The near $100 million difference may be projecting for more than 100 years; thus, the 2 meter projection will most likely hold until the end of the century (Sebastian—2010).

2.2.3 Conceptual Design C: Combination Approach

The above designs do not account for the possibility of flooding from behind the port caused by the rivers that flow in from the port of Biloxi. A design that included a wet‐wet dike in front of the bridge at Biloxi and a port perimeter control with a wet‐wet dike at the port of Gulfport would be a sound design. Protecting only the port of Gulfport would allow the flooding to turn the port into an island of sorts. Essentially, protecting only Gulfport would be a $497 million dollar loss. However, constructing both dikes would be much more expensive. The cost of protecting Biloxi would be $269 million dollars. With a 200 man crew, construction would last 2 months. While this design is more expensive, it is important to note there are more stakeholders involved with two ports involved (Sebastian—2010).

2.2.4 Nonstructural Approach

Due to the layout of the city, the only other option of action against sea level rise would be to retreat until an area with higher elevation is reached. It would incur the costs of relocating most of the citizens of Gulfport because the city’s average elevation is 20 feet. Considering it is the second largest city in Mississippi, the state’s economy will be strained if the entire city moved north. However, the city might weigh the $766 million dollar cost of protecting the port with simply retreating. If insurance companies covered sea level rise as a form of home protection—it would actually be more beneficial to just relocate. The idea of the port of Gulfport becoming an island if Biloxi is not protected might push the citizens to relocate and have Gulfport’s activity transferred over to various other ports in the Gulf Coast. 3.0 Schematic Design Development Once the preferred approach has been selected, a more detailed schematic design should be performed to evaluate the technical feasibility of the design and the resources required to implement it. This design procedure will be iterative in nature. For the purposes of this case study, this level of detail will be sufficient and it is not necessary to go to the level of complexity of construction drawings and bid documents. 3.1 Design The most protective design for the port of Gulfport would be the third design suggested—the combination approach with the port of Biloxi. As evident in the Gulfport’s renovation

Preciado 29

project, Port of the Future, the stakeholders in the port of Gulfport are invested in a long‐term commitment. Their renovations for the port are intended to protect Gulfport for extreme weather events in the next 100 years. On the Port of the Future site, there is also discussion of the expansion of the Panama Canal. There is a presumption that the opening of the canal would increase the throughput at Gulfport. The economic growth that is expected to occur with the widening of the canal may be reason enough for protective measures of the port. [Figure 29: Port of Gulfport—Sebastian 2010]

[Figure 30: Port of Biloxi—Sebastian 2010]

Preciado 30

3.1.1 Dikes Port of Gulfport Dike Type: WetWet Dike Length: 7223 meters Sea Floor Elevation: 2.347 meters

Storm Surge Level: 3.7 meters

The design elements required for the construction of the dike foundation material (concrete), dike toe material (structural fill), dike core material (concrete), dike material (structural fill), and dike armoring material. Port of Biloxi Dike Type: WetWet Dike Length: 2665.4 meters Sea Floor Elevation: 2 meters

Storm Surge Level: 3.7 meters

[Figure 31: Dike Typical CrossSection Preview—Protector Spreadsheet 2010]

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Vert

ical

Str

uctu

re H

eigh

t (m

)

Horizontal Structure Length (m)

Dike Typical Cross-Section Preview Dike Toe Material

Dike Material

Preciado 31

3.1.2 Gates and Lock Port of Gulfport Lock type: Sliding Gates Lock Size: Large Number of locks: 2

Max ship length: 1200 feet Max ship width: 300 feet Overall lock length: 1800 feet

Gates: 2175 tons Port of Biloxi Lock type: Sliding gates Lock Size: Large Number of locks: 2

Max ship length: 1200 feet Max ship width: 300 feet Overall lock length: 1800 feet

Gates: 2175 tons The design elements for the gates and lock include excavation, concrete, rebar, fill, bridge, bridge caissons, sliding gates, and riprap armoring. 3.1.3 Pumping and Drainage System The pumping and drainage system design elements include underdrainage material (geosynthetic membrane), underdrainage piping (PVC), and a pump station design (1000 HP Pump). Port of Gulfport Underdrainage width: 103.3452 meters Underdrainage piping diameter: 0.2 meters Underdrainage piping interval: 3 meters

Total pipe length: 260669.4024 meters Total pump capacity required 13,000 m3/s Pump capacity: 3,000 m3/s

# of pumps: 5 Actual total pumping capacity: 15,000 m3/s

Preciado 32

Port of Biloxi Underdrainage width: 139.86 meters Underdrainage piping diameter: .02 meters Underdrainage piping interval: 3 meters

Total pipe length: 130178.136 meters Total pump capacity required 13,000 m3/s Pump capacity: 3,000 m3/s

# of pumps: 5 Actual total pumping capacity: 15,000 m3/s 3.2 Materials Gulfport: Dike Foundation Material: Concrete Volume: 1898551.104 m3 Dike Toe Material: Structural Fill Volume: 357538.5 m3 Dike Core Material: Concrete Volume: 1029277.5 m3 Dike Material: Structural Fill Volume: 2941243.42 m3 Dike Armoring Material: Riprap Volume: 1444743.199 m3

Underdrainage Material: Geosynthetic membrane Area: 746462.3796 m2 Underdrainage piping: PVC Total pipe length: 260669.4024 m Pump Station Design: 1000 HP Pump Total pumps: 5 Gate & Lock Materials: Concrete: 444000 cy Rebar: 12.2 M lbs Fill: 210000 cy Bridge caissons: 2225 linear ft Gates: 2175 tons Riprap armoring: 12000 tons

Biloxi: Dike Foundation Material: Concrete Volume: 885978.96 m3 Dike Toe Material: Structural Fill Volume: 131937.3 m3 Dike Core Material: Concrete Volume: 379819.5 m3 Dike Material: Structural Fill

Volume: 2427219.856 m3 Dike Armoring Material: Riprap Volume: 713351.0017 m3 Underdrainage Material: Geosynthetic membrane Area: 372782.844 m2

Preciado 33

Underdrainage piping: PVC Total pipe length: 130178.136 m Pump Station Design: 1000 HP Pump Total pumps: 5

Gate & Lock Materials: Concrete: 444000 cy Rebar: 12.2 M lbs Fill: 210000 cy Bridge caissons: 2225 linear ft Gates: 2175 tons Riprap armoring: 12000 tons

3.3 Equipment Construction of this protective measure requires the following equipment: bulldozer, crane, cement mixing station, backhoe, vibration compacter, crane barge, and a hopper dredge. With the restoration projects happening all over the Gulf Coast from hurricane Katrina, the equipment is readily available for new construction projects. 3.4 Labor A construction crew of 200 men is necessary for each project. If built simultaneously, a crew of approximately 400 men is needed. With the unemployment rate of 8.5% in Harrison County, there should be an abundant supply of workers necessary for construction. 3.5 Construction Time and Sequencing In order to keep both port operations running smoothly during construction, it is advisable to offset construction times in order to transfer imports and exports to the opposite port. Thus, the port of Biloxi can begin first because it is a simpler and faster design that only requires a little over 2 months. After Biloxi’s dike is built, Gulfport’s can be constructed in the following 5 months. 3.6 Cost The total cost of Gulfport’s wet‐wet dike would cost $496 million and the total cost of Biloxi’s wet‐wet dike would cost $269 million for a total of $765 million. These costs are split between labor, materials, and equipment. 3.7 Impact on Ecosystem Functions and Landforms For any port infrastructure projects, an Environmental Impact Assessment must be conducted. The analysis must include the positive or negative impacts on the natural, social, and economic features of location. The natural impacts must include the marine ecosystem effects, water quality, air quality, geological effects of construction. The social impacts must include the community’s acceptance/rejection, the legality of the project, visual effects, and noise impacts of construction. The economic impacts must include the cost of materials and the cost of leaving the port as is.

Preciado 34

3.8 Societal Impacts The societal impacts that must be considered with a port protection program revolve around the changes that occur in the port once the infrastructure is built. A few things to consider include: port operations, recreational opportunities, job impact, transportation impact, and community involvement. 3.9 Design Limitations and Next Steps While the proposed design has been given much consideration, there is a need to acknowledge areas where we lack information and statistical analysis. 3.9.1 Data Availability The data used for the estimation of costs and materials is projected at a regional scale and may be different for the city of Gulfport in particular. Communication with the port and city would have facilitated precise calculations regarding availability of materials within the Southern Mississippi area. 3.9.2 Environmental Impacts An improved study on the environmental impacts of the port can include research on the marine ecosystem in the Gulf Coast in order to realize the externalities of the port protection strategy. Furthermore, analyzing the design strategies themselves for efficiency and green building methods would enhance the environmental impact critique. 3.9.3 Impacts from extreme event greater than design storm The port protection design is intended to protect Gulfport from a 1 in 100 year storm. However, given Gulfport’s past experience dealing with major hurricanes, the port is preparing for intense, extreme weather events. Given the extent of the damage with Hurricane Katrina, the port is under renovation for protection from a similar, if not larger hurricane. 3.9.4 Permitting Requirements In terms of permitting requirements, the largest resistance to the proposed design would foreseeable come from the Port of Biloxi. Economically and politically, the port of Biloxi may present conflict in protecting the port of Gulfport. Gulfport is currently undergoing reconstruction from the aftermath of Katrina, giving way to potential halts for new construction at the port.

Preciado 35

4.0 Incorporation of Results in Overall Project The most unique feature of this port protection model is the dependency on a second port—something that may not be as common an option. It would be interesting to extend this research for the port of Biloxi. An economic analysis of funding would be beneficial to understanding the feasibility of the combination approach. Another feature to consider is the variety of port cities in the United States. Questions to continue research might include: What is the United States’ priority in ports to protect? Where does Gulfport fall in this priority? As these considerations are accounted for, we must continue to design for the higher end projections in the event that action is not taken to combat climate change.

ReferencesCitedImages Title Page Image: http://www.portofthefuture.com/eblast/portofthefuturenews1.html [1] http://www.shipmspa.com/cargo.htm [2] http://www.shipmspa.com/cargo.htm [3] http://www.portofthefuture.com/Newsroom.aspx (June 2010 Presentation) [4] http://flood.firetree.net/ [5] http://flood.firetree.net/ [6] http://flood.firetree.net/ [7] http://flood.firetree.net/ [8] http://www.portofthefuture.com/Newsroom.aspx (June 2010 Presentation) [9] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EaZA_Wt0lJgJ:www.hpc.msstate.edu/publications/docs/2010/02/7189Gulfport2010.02.pdf+noaa+2009+tidal+predictions+for+gulfport&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox‐a [10] http://www.maps.google.com [11] http://co.harrison.ms.us/weather/ [12] http://www.windfinder.com/windstats/windstatistic_gulfport.htm [13] http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:K618lZ14xFYJ:geology.deq.state.ms.us/coastal/NOAA_DATA/Publications/Publications/Coastwide/Geology%2520and%2520Geomorphology%2520of%2520the%2520Coastal%2520Counties.pdf+ervin+otvos+geology&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh2RnlzLH48xewtca93Bd_lWKYMKygDOLAZoewAwxYa9zQjwJ4fHEOYJfGMPHCmoL92rCOMZCufsiam3c‐sP7pGrvtPuTN7x7StZBvbQ2btmPPFE2BscUBL5KlLLfx_5ZMHnjFM&sig=AHIEtbSPE6hcprSu657H7JbayN_6XEDaeQ [14] http://www.maps.google.com [15] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futureslc.html [16] http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/slrmaps_gulf.html [17] http://www.deadlystorms.com/storms/1969/Camille/damage.htm [18] http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://post_119_gulfport_ms.tripod.com/Resourc

Preciado 36

es/camille1.gif&imgrefurl=http://post_119_gulfport_ms.tripod.com/camille1.html&usg=__mgPWyMaET7VtcpuvGBXNHpx_qW8=&h=381&w=325&sz=63&hl=en&start=87&sig2=hA3P‐EzV‐7FLW3FYgvoWDg&zoom=1&tbnid=Z19soFxonaPLNM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=111&ei=5eb9TJSmDoyasAOz‐vSwCw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhurricane%2Bcamille%2Bgulfport%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox‐a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en‐US:official%26biw%3D1252%26bih%3D581%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C2331&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=264&vpy=224&dur=2260&hovh=243&hovw=207&tx=139&ty=156&oei=1‐b9TI‐7GISgsQOkyPmqCw&esq=6&page=6&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:87&biw=1252&bih=581 [19] http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.anniemayhem.com/blog%2520pics/I‐10CausewayBridgeDuringStorm.jpg&imgrefurl=http://anniemayhem.com/wordpress/%3Fcat%3D3%26paged%3D43&usg=__0fyyM6W6n9Fi_piwR9K‐M04pjaM=&h=264&w=410&sz=26&hl=en&start=65&sig2=Q4HjXIQigS9Nc0iwPtOSSw&zoom=1&tbnid=yMw57g4KKSbXDM:&tbnh=133&tbnw=177&ei=4ev9TOH9A4HGsAPzmeivCw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhurricane%2Bivan%2Bgulfport%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox‐a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en‐US:official%26biw%3D1252%26bih%3D581%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C1722&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=231&vpy=258&dur=3979&hovh=180&hovw=280&tx=156&ty=114&oei=j‐v9TOujEJGisQOKuZ2rCw&esq=5&page=5&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:65&biw=1252&bih=581 [20] http://www.nola.com/hurricane/ivan_gallery.ssf [21]http://www.katrinadestruction.com/images/v/biloxi_mississippi/16kd726‐casino‐damage.html [22] http://www.katrinadestruction.com/images/v/biloxi_mississippi/Gulfport+Mississippi+destroyed+by+Hurricane+Katrina.html?g2_fromNavId=xae4ca10c [23]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_‐_17183_‐_Photograph_by_John_Fleck_taken_on_10‐04‐2005_in_Mississippi.jpg [24] Sebastian & earth.google.com (class tools) [25] Sebastian & earth.google.com (class tools) [26] http://www.mass.gov/czm/chc/recommendations/appendixc.htm [27] http://www.mass.gov/czm/chc/recommendations/appendixc.htm [28] http://www.mass.gov/czm/chc/recommendations/appendixc.htm [29] Sebastian & earth.google.com (class tools) [30] Sebastian & earth.google.com (class tools) [31] Port Protector Spreadsheet (class tools) Additional Resources http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/press/post‐katrina‐study‐assesses‐new‐gulf‐coast‐region2019s‐ecological‐impacts‐and‐fire‐risks/view?searchterm=None

Preciado 37

http://www.ci.gulfport.ms.us/ http://www.hurricanecity.com/ http://www.city‐data.com/city/Gulfport‐Mississippi.html http://www.usace.mil

protecting the port: expanding the future of...

Documents