Ships may have to slow downBy Bo Petersen (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Rachel Sayre These three right whales were spotted 6 miles off Hilton Head in 2007. RelatedA proposal to protect whales; Plan would slow big ships into, out of ports, published 07/10/06 Air searches for right whales offer surprises for Wildlife Trust teams, published 04/13/08 Click here to read the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the NOAA Web site A federal agency appears poised to slow down container ships coming in and out of Charleston in the winter. The reason is the nearly extinct right whale. Coast Guard station officials say slower speeds aren't safe in the narrow, windswept channel. Ports officials say slowing down could ruin business. The right whale is the mammoth of the Atlantic, a 40-ton creature that became the prey of the whaling industry and the stuff of whaling legends. It was hunted almost to extinction. Fewer than 400 are known to exist, a number so perilously low that not only is it considered critically endangered, but researchers consider every living whale vital to the survival of the species. Ship strikes are considered one of the leading causes of right whale deaths. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just released an environmental impact statement on a proposed rule change that would slow down large ships to 10 mph within 23 miles of the coastline. That's about half-speed for the huge vessels. Because cargo delivery puts a premium on timeliness, the rule might mean ships bypass some ports because of the extra time involved. The hotly debated rule is now on track to become law by the first of the year, although industry interests say they will continue to fight it. The rule is NOAA's "preferred alternative" among a number of options suggested in the 800-page statement. A comment period on the regulation is open through September and the rule changes will be announced within a week after that. When the rule was first proposed in 2006, the Ports Authority, the harbor pilots association and the Coast Guard's Charleston base each opposed it. "I'm sure we'll have comments on it (again). I'm sure others will too," said Byron Miller, ports public relations director. The rule would have major impacts on operations, and research doesn't support that large ship strikes pose a critical threat to the species or that slowing down would help, he said. In 2007, 1.7 million containers per year were handled through Charleston, worth billions to the state's economy. Competition is rabid among ports for those containers and the S.C. State Ports Authority has pushed to expand its operations. The NOAA study estimates the rule would have a $5.2 million per-year impact on the port. Miller said that's "vastly underestimated." The right whale has long been known to pass just offshore of the Lowcountry, travelling back and forth from New England to Florida to calve in the winter. In the past few years, research has indicated that some whales apparently winter here. Last winter, nine whales were considered to have stayed here, among 21 spotted in aerial surveys. Because of that, the state would be under the speed restrictions from Nov. 1 to April 30, the longest time span proposed. "We know some right whales are most likely calving off South Carolina," said Barb Zoodsma, a NOAA biologist who runs the whale's recovery program in the Southeast. "We understand fully this is a large action with a lot of implications. We don't take this action lightly, but we do feel it's necessary." Whether slowing down the ships can make a difference has been debated among environmental and industry interests. NOAA says that, on average, two whales per year die from ship strikes; the last reported propeller strike deaths in the Atlantic basin were four in 2006. The rule would include a "sunset clause" allowing it to be reviewed in five years to consider ongoing research. Reach Bo Petersen at 745-5852 or bpetersen@ postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 25 comment(s)
Posted by CedarPosts on August 27, 2008 at 2:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How hard would it be to track 400 whales?
Seems to me that $5.2 million a year would go a long way to provide around the clock "whale guards" to keep the buggers out of harms way.
SPA needs to "man up" and write the check or face the music. A reasonable alternative to the go slow rule would be to provide some form of protective measure to keep the whales away from speeding ships.
I'd think you could fund a project to track these "Carolina" whales for far less then the $5.2 million.
More about whales, container ships, and "pass due" notices from the RNC at:
http://cedarposts.blogspot.com
Posted by Pols101 on August 27, 2008 at 7:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The heck with those ships! Slow down!
Posted by BigSargeofSC on August 27, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, by all means, please take your business somewhere else. After all, why do we need jobs here? Our longshoreman don't need to work that much. So, take your speeding ships to Savannah or Wilmington and give them your money. Let's cut billions of dollars out of our state's economy. After all, buses have fire extinguishers, don't they? We'll just train an 8 year-old how to use and they'll be fine.
Posted by majorjohnson on August 27, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So far JohnQCommunist has spouted of his "business go away" retoric on two different articles, and I'm not even done reading yet. Apparantly JohnQCommunist thinks that if every business left South Carolina the government will supply our food and healthcare and housing. What a total schmuck.
Savannah is right down the ocean...rather than slow down by half, with the associated lack of control needed to steer these huge ships or paying for tugs, many will just ride right on by and Georgia will get the dollars.
Posted by RTC on August 27, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CB, well said.
Posted by RTC on August 27, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If it is propeller strikes that kill the whales, then how would slowing down the speed stop deaths?
I mean considering the size of those props wouldn't getting hit by one kill anything regardless of speed? What about leisure vessels?
Posted by AHLeland on August 27, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If they slow ships coming in the Charleston, one would think they would have to do the same in Savannah - unless there is proof that the whales are residents of SC only. Still, this seems silly to me.
Posted by CedarPosts on August 27, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CB, Major, and Sarge...
The PnC story is pretty misleading. The restriction is for the entire east coast, Savannah to New York 20 miles out.
All major ports would have speed limits of 10 mph or 11.4 knots.
While small boats have been known to strike whales (I personally know of one at the City Marina that caused major damage to the boat and the whale was just pixxed.) a strick from a deep draft vessel normally means certian death at 20 knots.
Posted by RTC on August 27, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If production is slowed down companies will take their business elsewhere.
The Port of Charleston is known to have one of the best turn around rates in the world. That is why our port is so popular in the shipping industry.
Animal lover that I am, I can't see harming the economy to possibly prevent whale deaths. A few hundred whales, if that number is accurate, is certainly not worth destroying thousands of jobs.
Posted by Tammie on August 27, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The whales are not endangered. I see many of them walking the isles every time I go in to WalMart."
Don't forget the food court at the mall.
Posted by trod1 on August 27, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another incomplete story from the mullet wrapper!species die out thats part of mother nature.whales are known to have sonar .it would seem that they would use that as well as sound and go
somethings comming i gotta get outta the way.as for the walmart and food court whales.they will become a precious commodity in the future as energy costs rise.one or two of them suckers in the bed you could cut the heater off in winter.
Posted by CedarPosts on August 27, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CB I think the whales are toast! Even if they are never hit by a ship again.
I've dived all over the world since 1980 and in the last ten years I've seen a major decline in "color".... reefs are dying, fish are not a numerous or as large along the reefs as they were only a decade ago.
I'm not sure why, global warming, pollution, too many divers? I don't know. So I'd give the whales long term less than 50% chance.
I can see the last Right Whale stuffed and mounted at the Maritime Center in 2020, as clearly as I see the reefs dying.
About the speed, the 20 mile run to port will take 2 hours instead of 1 big deal if you're going only 20 miles but when you're going 3000 miles it only adds 0.6 percent to your total time
I'd rather make the run from the sea buoy at 20 knots but the channel doesn't get narrow until the bar. I'd assume they can run fast again once they reach the jetties.
I think the economic issue is a weak point, it's like a smoking ban as long as it's across the board there will be no business lost to some other port/bar.
Here's the link to the map of the proposed restricted areas. Note Charleston is seasonal spring and fall while Brunswick and Jacksonville are winter New York and Boston Summer.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/shipstr...
Posted by desspec on August 27, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They are not really endangered; it's just that some of the right whales were in the wrong place ...
Posted by Tammie on August 27, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I still go to the Food Court at Citadel mall when I want a Dairy Queen fix...lol Can't get enough tropical blizzards!
Aww, look at the whales...40 tons? Jeez louise..what do they eat, buildings?
Posted by Cid95 on August 27, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Charleston used to be the 4th busiest (in terms of container throughput in the US). Now we're 5th, Savannah lapped us.
Let's go for 6th. Charleston's entire founding and history only revolved around our harbor and port, who needs it?!
Posted by wm on August 27, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems somewhat incredulous that a delay of 90 minutes in and 90 minutes out would cause all of this business to relocate. Have none of them taken a commercial flight lately?
Reducing the speed accomplishes what? Are we hoping that the ship will be more able to react and avoid impact? Are we giving the whales a head-start playing tag with the ships? What exactly will the reduced speed yield?
WIN/WIN: protect the whales and maintain shipping. Would it be unreasonable to send a scouting craft to observe the location and direction of the whales and vector the inbound and outbound ships?
Posted by RTC on August 27, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cid95, exactly! A town was developed around a port and not vice versa. These idiots that are screaming to close down the port are crazy. Do they really believe that tourism is what makes Charleston thrive?
Posted by BigSargeofSC on August 27, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not physics major by any strech, but I have been a student pilot. I do recall that at slower speeds, the airplane was sluggish to control inputs. Following that logic, it would seem that a ship moving at 10 mph couldn't get out of its own way, much less dodge a whale. Those props on container ship weight what, 8 maybe 10 tons? 10 mph or 23 mph, whatever they hit, its gonna leave a mark.
Posted by CedarPosts on August 27, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Big Sarge
It's not the props as much as it's the crushing blow of the bow at 25 knots. Props just do the dirty work.
The idea is routes and reduced speed give the whales a chance. Even though there are plenty of ships and you would think the whales would stay out of the way they are like deer, along the road side.
Whales are not prey so they lack the "hard wired" flight response only aggression. Ever see a pizzed off whale with a calf?
Not a good thing on a small boat.
Ships won't go elsewhere, Savannah has nothing on Charleston, we are miles closer to the interstate we have a shorter route to dock, no narrow river to run and a fair rail system.
Our fees are higher and that is about it.
Posted by trod1 on August 27, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Their chamber of commerce supports them totally.most of ours thinks tourism is the way.high fuel prices should have shown them the light.there has to be some sound that alerts whales or frightens them off.maybe a speaker on the buoys producing that sound would keep them clear.either way the whales are done in a few years .just the environmental nazis flexing.wish i could find my old sticker again.
Posted by RTC on August 27, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
john, I can ensure you that there are many organizations and businesses working to improve the enviromental impact of the shipping industry. We only hear the bad new it seems. I wonder how many people know that the SPA had special nesting racks made for their container cranes to keep the osprey nests from being dumped off. It may seem a small step, but it has saved hundreds of birds.
Posted by PalmettoDP on August 27, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The rule is NOAA's "preferred alternative" among a number of options suggested in the 800-page statement."
It took them 800 pages to come up with this absurd idea?
I suggest we just clone the whales, but since NOAA's report is 800 pages, I'm sure they already considered that. (sarcasm)
Posted by iceman1978 on August 27, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There's nothing wrong with having the ships slow down. We need a strong seaport and will continue to have one even with this regulation. They can create an offset for the first five years, when the sunset clause comes up, that will help businesses with the financial cost while giving us time to see if what we're doing is effective. You work with business and you help them to adjust to new regulations, but you don't completely give in to the interests of what businesses want and sacrifice the well being of the environment in doing so. The port creates jobs, but so does our environment. We live in a very unique ecosystem in that the region between Jacksonville, Fl to Wilmington, NC is one of the few in the world with beaches, wetlands and barrier islands all in one. The natural beauty of this region is vital to our tourism trade and to the real estate market and we can't lose perspective of that.
Posted by trod1 on August 27, 2008 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone who has studied in any school or watched discovery channel.Even read a national geographic can tell you species die and new ones are found everyday.its the way mother nature works.400 whales are not coming back they will die off.they simply cannot reproduce fast enough to offset their demise.we as well one day will die off.As for tourism we have a sad infrastructure that cant support the tourists we have now.id rather have good paying jobs around charleston than a bunch of service industry jobs that are low paying so a few can get rich off the tourons.look at the aquarium the imax the n.charleston Colosseum everything our beloved mayors do is inadequate at best .ships have been calling port here longer than any of us have been alive.they should continue to do so.
Posted by CedarPosts on August 28, 2008 at 1:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
trod1 points out "ships have been calling port here longer than any of us have been alive. They should continue to do so."
Good point!.... so lets see the whales have been off the South Carolina coast since... ummmmmm let me do the math... errrrrr well about 500 THOUSAND YEARS!