Federal scientists have concluded that a plan to expand Port Everglades in Florida would not jeopardize endangered species or their habitat because it would replace and enhance thousands of corals and mangroves disrupted by dredging.
For 17 years, city officials have been trying to expand, and finally, with this federal opinion, they should be able to proceed with expansion. The project is expected to bring a burst of shipping business and create 11,000 jobs by deepening the port’s waterways to accommodate gigantic cargo ships that will sail through a widened Panama Canal.
The active concern is still that the ocean habitat near the entrance to the port will be damaged. For this reason, the project is struggling to receive government funding. Experts concluded that the plan to build artificial reefs of boulders farther out to sea will offset the damages caused by the port. The mitigation plan calls for moving 11,500 corals from the port entrance and adding another 35,000 to 50,000 that are grown in nurseries onshore. (Source)
The issues with Port Everglades closely mirror those with Abbot Point in Australia. However, in the case of Abbot Point, never once was an extension to the Great Barrier Reef proposed. I wondered why. In the Sun Sentinel’s article, the author cited that Robert Moller, deputy director of legislative affairs at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told Congress this method was an “unprecedented…innovative approach” and it would be sufficient for the expansion of the port. Why would the advocates for Abbot Point not recommend the same method proposed in Port Everglades?
For this reason, I assumed the technique would be deemed unacceptable, or at the least unpopular with the Great Barrier Reef. Officials in Australia might not want to risk the failure of an “innovative” technique such as the one being employed in the Everglades. Annual revenue and total size make the Great Barrier Reef more globally significant that the Everglades, so long-term damage to the reef could come with lasting economic struggles in Australia. It is possible that someone had the thought of the reef-replenishing technique, but hoped to see it used on another reef like the Everglades first.
If the projects is upheld, and Port Everglades is successfully expanded with little or zero environmental detriment, then Abbot Point in Australia could very well have found a solution to its issue as well.
References
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/topic/economy-business-finance/transportation-industry/waterway-maritime-transportation-industry/port-everglades-PLTRA0000147.topic
http://www.gflalliance.org/index.php?src=news&srctype=detail&category=Press%20Releases&refno=1902
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/02/great-barrier-reef-authority-argued-against-dredge-dumping-foi-reveals