Over the last decade, American ports have been weathering a perfect storm caused by the triangulation of massive increases in cargo volumes, the parallel need for more emissions-generating equipment at dockside and on access routes, and intensified reaction to this by governmental and public interest groups scrutinizing the ensuing environmental impacts, both actual and potential.

“Ports are a stationary target for regulatory bodies and citizens’ organizations which are not patient in terms of the very real negative impacts on the environment they see today,” observes Paul Bingham, an economist at Global Insights, Inc., in Washington, D.C. “But what the public often fails to understand is that many of the existing problems are beyond the control of the ports themselves.”

For example, the majority of ocean-going vessels are foreign built, owned, and operated, and therefore not subject to U.S. regulation—and their owners and operators may not be terribly concerned with American public opinion. At the same time, this foreign commercial armada is needed to import the goods consumers here demand, and to export product to keep this country’s national economy viable.

On the domestic side, much of the equipment responsible for air and water pollution is the property of terminal tenants and not under the control of port authorities. Additionally, there are a number regulatory bodies involved in the broad spectrum of environmental issues, including local, state, and federal authorities such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), all of whose jurisdictions in many cases overlap, making it difficult for ports to sort out and prioritize their compliance efforts.

But despite these obstacles, ports have been moving—in many cases quite aggressively—not only to respond, but to become proactive in addressing environmental matters.

A few years ago, due to their massive cargo volumes, the San Pedro Bay ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach earned the nickname “The 10-million-TEU Gorilla.” But today, thanks to their combined efforts to manage a daunting array of environmental issues while keeping port maintenance and expansion projects on track, they may be on their way to being regarded as “The Green Gorilla.”

In November of 2006, the two harbor commissions jointly adopted their Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) aimed at reducing air pollution emissions from trucks, locomotives, and other landside equipment, as well as negotiating effectively with terminal operators and shipping lines.

This past July, the ports began to bring on line a fleet of switching locomotives that emit 70 percent less diesel particulates and 45 percent less nitrogen oxides, according to Theresa Adams Lopez, director of media relations at the Port of Los Angeles. Presently, the ports are working on a drayage program which, over the next five years, would require the 16,000 trucks coming in and out of the port to meet the 2007 EPA emissions standards.

Effective negotiating with steamship lines is a critical part of this environmental management effort says Art Wong, public information officer at the port of Long Beach. When a lease was being renewed recently with K-Line that involved the port providing a new deepwater berth, an agreement was reached that would require the shipping line to retrofit its vessels with cold-ironing capabilities.

“Ten years ago ports concentrated on how to get more business,” says Wong. “Now we realize that the public won’t support our efforts to bring in new business if they perceive we’re degrading the environment and their quality of life.”

Additionally, a “Green Flag Program” has been introduced which encourages carriers and ships’ captains to cut engines when steaming into port in order to reduce stack emissions. Dockage rate rebates are offered to companies that voluntarily comply, and if they do so continually over a year, the shipping line is awarded a green flag to fly signifying its cooperation with the program.

CAAP is already being emulated as a model for comprehensive environmental issues management by ports here and abroad, and the San Pedro Bay ports have been recognized for their pioneering efforts by the American Association of Port Authorities (See sidebar.)

The Port of Oakland, under the watchful eyes of a community of exceptionally informed and very vocal environmental activists, has recently taken cold-ironing up another notch.

Working with carrier APL Ltd., local utility Pacific Gas & Electric, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the port has tested a mobile dockside power source that utilizes liquefied natural gas (LNG) to generate electricity for ships once they are moored. The system, if approved by the California Air Resources Board, would save the port more than $90 million, obviating the need to modify its infrastructure to support traditional grid-based cold ironing, notes Marilyn Sandifur at the port’s public affairs office.

On another front, and a continent away, the Georgia Ports Authority is working on a new dissolved oxygen injection system that will soon be used to demonstrate how oxygen moves through the Savannah River due to tides and currents and the interfacing of fresh and saltwater, according to Robert Morris, the ports’ director of external affairs. This will help determine what measures can be taken to protect the river’s fish population through the spawning and hatching cycles.

According to Morris, this is the latest step in a six-year study of the river’s entire ecosystem from the mouth of the channel upstream to the freshwater marshes where a number of wildlife refuges are located. The $30 million program has been undertaken in preparation for a planned harbor deepening project, and the mitigation efforts are expected to add hundreds of acres of bird and other wildlife sanctuaries.

When the Port of Everett began work in 2005 on the Mount Baker Terminal on an inlet of Puget Sound for use as a rail-to-barge transfer facility for oversized aerospace parts, the conditions of the surrounding beach area were dismal at best.

Before moving ahead on the $30.6 million project, the Port of Everett met with local jurisdictional authorities to discuss what could be done to improve the surrounding coastal area in conjunction with the construction of the 900-foot terminal pier, according to Lisa Mandt, the port’s communications administrator.

Rail lines run around the shores of the Sound, and there are bulkheads to prevent erosion of sediment from the track area down to the water. As part of the transfer terminal project, the port added 1,100 linear feet of beach material around the facility, consisting of a mixture of fine and thicker sand and soil types. This was carefully sloped so that the new area of shoreline has the characteristic natural grade of a typical Northwest Coast beach which can now be used at all tide levels.

Benches and picnic tables were added, and to make this recreational spot readily available to the public, access paths and a parking lot were provided. Condition of the beach will be monitored annually by an environmental consulting firm and preliminary studies have already indicated that not only the immediate area but the surrounding habitat is benefiting from the restoration project.

But earth-moving and dredging jobs have one considerable drawback—what do you do with the excavated material?

During the latter decades of the past century, the Tampa Harbor Deepening Project created a four-acre “spoil island” which included surrounding submerged lands, but over time the area fell into disuse and became a breeding ground for non-native invasive plant life.

Starting in 2000, the Tampa Port Authority and the nearby Florida Aquarium spearheaded the restoration of the island for use as a recreational and educational center, calling the project Fantasy Island.

The invasive plant species were replaced with some 7,000 native plant types, and an educational curriculum was developed in conjunction with the neighboring Hillsborough County School District. Some 1,800 students are expected to use the island’s research and study facilities each school year, says Andy Fobes, the port’s director of public relations.

The Port of Portland has initiated a number of environmental programs recently, most of which are focused on improving air quality in and around the port.

Since 2005, its container handling equipment has used only ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, substantially reducing sulfur dioxide and fine particulate emissions. In addition, the port has reduced by half the number of diesel locomotives in use, replacing them with machines called “slugs” which are equipped with electric traction motors and which move rail cars throughout the port without producing harmful emissions of any kind.

And as far as electric power is concerned, the port now purchases 513,000 kilowatt-hours of renewable power each month from local utility Pacific Power. This provides 10 percent of its electric power usage, reports Joshua Thomas, media relations manager, and also eliminates some 6,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

Bad news travels fast, but positive achievements often go unnoticed; so the Port of Portland established an Environmental Outreach and Communication Program to keep stakeholders and the community at large informed of its efforts in this area.

The program centralizes communications with the public on environmental issues, allows for ongoing dialogue, and provides the port with critical insight into local sensitivities and attitudes that could significantly impact its long-term strategic planning.