case study- port of kingston, jamaicaprojects.seaports2100.org/final report- case study... ·...

Spandana Nakka

MS Candidate in Civil Engineering, Stanford University

CEE 229

November 11, 2010

STANFORD UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC POLICY FRAMEWORK:

Climate Change and its Impacts on the Sea ports

Martin Fischer, Austin Becker and Ben Schwegler

CASE STUDY- Port of Kingston, Jamaica

Engineering Response to Global Sea Level Rise- Case Study, Port of Kingston, Jamaica, Dec 2010

- 1 -

1 Abstract Anticipated climate changes will greatly amplify risks to coastal populations. By the end of the century, a 2-5-fold increase in rates of global sea level rise could lead to inundation of low-lying coastal regions, including wetlands, more frequent flooding due to storm surges, and worsening beach erosion (IPCC, 1996a, b). These changes affect the Caribbean and Pacific islands in particular; These changes pose a risk to the coastal areas and their infrastructure particularly.

Port of Kingston, Jamaica; is situated in the capital city of Jamaica, an island in the Caribbean Sea is taken as a case study and a port protection strategic design sketched. The port of study is one of the largest ports of the country. Its infrastructure is studied and the most risk prone areas determined. The necessity to protect the port is also justified, for the country is largely dependent on its coastline and key infrastructure, such as the air and seaports; also, many of the industries are located along the coastlines. The tourism industry too, which plays a key role in the coastal zone and contributes upwards of 20% to the country's GDP, is a sector that is likely to be affected by climate change. The protection of country's resources is thus critical and proper steps should be taken to mitigate and adapt to the potential impact to the environment. Apart from the increase in sea level rise (SLR), the port of interest also lies in a hurricane prone region. Appropriate steps for proposing an alternative to deal with these issues are discussed in the rest of the paper.

Figure 1 Location of Jamaica

http://www.allinclusiveresorts.net/maps/jamaica.gif






- 2 -

Table of Contents

1 Abstract .................................................................................................................. - 1 -

2 Project Introduction ................................................................................................ - 4 - 2.1 Coastal ports justification ................................................................................................................................. - 4 - 2.2 Case Study Goals ................................................................................................................................................... - 5 - 2.3 Design Approach .................................................................................................................................................. - 5 - 2.4 Audience .................................................................................................................................................................. - 5 - 2.5 Units ........................................................................................................................................................................... - 6 -

3 Site Identification .................................................................................................... - 6 - 3.1 Topography and Bathymetry .......................................................................................................................... - 7 - 3.2 Port Operations, Infrastructure, and Contiguous Community .......................................................... - 7 - 3.3 Design Conditions and Acceptable Risk ...................................................................................................... - 9 - 3.4 Hydrology and Hydraulics ............................................................................................................................. - 11 - 3.5 Coastal and Wind Data .................................................................................................................................... - 11 - 3.6 Geology and Sediment Regime .................................................................................................................... - 12 - 3.7 Land Use Patterns and Historical Resources ......................................................................................... - 12 - 3.8 Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services ........................................................................................... - 13 - 3.9 Estimating the Local Rate of Sea Level Rise (SLR) + Storm Surge Analysis .............................. - 13 - 3.10 Vulnerability Assessment .............................................................................................................................. - 15 - 3.11 Historic Extreme Events................................................................................................................................. - 16 - 3.12 Preliminary Site Delineation ........................................................................................................................ - 17 -

4 Conceptual Design Alternatives Evaluation ............................................................ - 17 - 4.1 Cost Data ............................................................................................................................................................... - 19 -

4.1.1 Construction Materials ...................................................................... - 19 -

4.1.2 Construction Equipment .................................................................... - 19 -

4.1.3 Labor- Design, Skilled and Unskilled .................................................. - 20 -

5 Selecting the Conceptual Design ............................................................................ - 20 - 5.1 Conceptual Design A: Dike for the complete Harbor w/ lock ......................................................... - 21 - 5.2 Conceptual Design B: Sea wall along the port with wet/dry dike ................................................ - 24 - 5.3 Alternative Selection........................................................................................................................................ - 27 -

6 Schematic Design Development............................................................................. - 28 - 6.1 Societal Impacts ................................................................................................................................................. - 28 - 6.2 Design Limitations and Next Steps ............................................................................................................ - 29 - 6.3 Incorporation of Results into Overall Project ....................................................................................... - 29 -

7 References ............................................................................................................ - 29 -


- 3 -

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Location of Jamaica ..................................................................................................................... - 1 -

Figure 2 Bathymetric data for Greater Antilles, Caribbean ...................................................................... - 7 -

Figure 3 Topographic Map of Kingston ..................................................................................................... - 7 -

Figure 4 Port Calls ..................................................................................................................................... - 8 -

Figure 5 Port Infrastructure, Port of Kingston, (Source : Google Maps, edited) ...................................... - 8 -

Figure 6 Coastal Vulnerabilities Of Jamaica + Storm Surge analysis of SE Jamaica .................................. - 9 -

Figure 7 Wave Height at several points of Jamaica (Source: lost) ............................................................ - 9 -

Figure 8 Hurricanes affecting Jamaica in the past 10 years (Source: Austin) ........................................... - 9 -

Figure 9 Hurricane frequencies at Port of Kingston ................................................................................ - 10 -

Figure 10 Jamaica’s Bimodal Rainfall pattern (1951-1980) .................................................................... - 10 -

Figure 11 Hydrology of Jamaica .............................................................................................................. - 11 -

Figure 12 Wind Rose for Kingston, Jamaica ............................................................................................ - 11 -

Figure 13 Wind Patterns in Western Caribbean ..................................................................................... - 11 -

Figure 14 Geological Map of Jamaica ..................................................................................................... - 12 -

Figure 15 Layout of Port of Kingston (Source: Google Earth) ................................................................. - 12 -

Figure 16 Tombolo protecting the Kingston Harbor .......................................................................... - 13 -

Figure 17Expected Sea level rise by 2100 by different theories ............................................................. - 14 -

Figure 18 Increase of Temperature in Caribbean ................................................................................... - 14 -

Figure 19 Benefits and impacts possible with different design alternatives. ((Source: Students

Projects, http://groupspaces.com/seaports2100/pages/completed-projects,) ............................. - 17 -

Figure 20 Various design alternatives and their respective benefits and impacts.

(http://groupspaces.com/seaports2100/pages/completed-projects ) .................................................. - 18 -

Figure 21 Various design alternatives and their respective benefits and impacts.

(http://groupspaces.com/seaports2100/pages/completed-projects) ................................................... - 18 -

Figure 22 Design layout of Alternative i), a combination of wet-dry and wet-wet dikes (Source:

Google Earth). ........................................................................................................................................ - 21 -

Figure 23 Cross-section of Wet-Dry Dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet) .............................................. - 22 -

Figure 24 Cross-section of Wet-Wet dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet) ......................................... - 22 -

Figure 25 Design layout of Alternative B, A combination of a wet-dry dike and a vertical seawall.

(Source: Google Earth) .......................................................................................................................... - 24 -

Figure 26 Figure 15: Design cross-section of wet-dry dike. (Source: Port Protector spreadsheet) ....... - 25 -

Figure 27 Cross-section of the vertical Seawall (AsiaHub) ................................................................ - 25 -

Figure 28 Protected Areas of Jamaica ..................................................................................................... - 27 -

Figure 29 Schedule comparison of .......................................................................................................... - 27 -

both alternatives

Figure 30 Cost comparisons of both alternatives ................................................................................... - 27 -


- 4 -

2 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 eustatic rate of sea level rise (IPCC 2007)1. Although the MSL changes differ

depending on the location in question (Church 2001) it is clear that new risk management

strategies are needed. These include managing subsidence, land use planning, selective

relocation, and flood warning and evacuation (Nicholls 2008). However, 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 Long Beach Harbor,

which includes the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. 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.

2.1 Coastal ports justification

In determining the scope of this project, much thought was given to what kinds of coastal

areas should be studied. First, a distinction was made between the built coastal


- 5 -

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 whose responsibility this protection would fall to and how

it would be prioritized given the more pressing work that would be required to protect the

built environment. Within the built environment, we have decided to look at land uses that

are entirely dependent on coastal access and are largely immobile. 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. Home values are also highly sensitive to flood risk, so it is difficult to assess exactly

what their value is.

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.

2.2 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 Long Beach Harbor 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

2.3 Design Approach

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.

2.4 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


- 6 -

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.

2.5 Units Every attempt is made to use SI units throughout this project. All prices are in US dollars

($) unless otherwise indicated`

3 Site Identification

City Of Kingston, Jamaica

Population 96,052 Area 9.65 sq. miles Density 9950.99/ sq. mile Average Elevation 30ft Coordinates 17°59′N 76°48′W Population 96,052 Area 9.65 sq. miles Density 9950.99/ sq. mile Average Elevation 30ft

The Port of Kingston is the largest port in Jamaica, and the Kingston harbor is seventh largest natural harbor in the world. The port is situated in the capital city Kingston, Jamaica. The history of city dates back to back in 1692, founded as city for survivors and refugees of earthquake, 1692. Trade soon flourished and Kingston soon emerged as one of the leading cities of Jamaica. The country is classified under the Greater Antilles of the Caribbean islands, located in the western Caribbean and south east of United States. Port of Kingston is located on the southeastern coast of Jamaica, making it fall on leeward side, and prone to lesser risk compared. The port encompasses about 26 sq. km of navigable water with depths of up to 18 m. The harbor is formed by the Palisadoes peninsula, which extends a distance of around eight miles due westwards from the Harbor View round-about, with the historical township of Port Royal located at the very western tip of the peninsula. Apart from providing the only road route all the way out to Port Royal, the Palisadoes, with the Norman Manley Highway running along the first half of its length, also provides the only means of road access to several other vital national institutions located on the peninsula, such as the Norman Manley International Airport, Ministry of Agriculture Plumb Point Quarantine Complex, Caribbean Maritime Institute, Royal Jamaica Yacht Club, Buccaneer Beach and Gunboat Beach. Over the past several decades, the port of Kingston has been developing into a leading regional transshipment center serving the Caribbean and Central America.

Table 1 Demographics of Kingston, Jamaica (Source: http://prestwidge.com/river/jamaicanparishes.html)

Port of Kingston


- 7 -

The port receives natural protection from tombola, which connects Norman Stanley airport with the island. The tombola had though been damaged by recent hurricanes of the past

3.1 Topography and Bathymetry

Jamaica lies within a 200km wide seismically active zone that defines the central section of the boundary between the Caribbean and North American plates. The island was formed over the past 100- 140 million years through an ongoing process of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, erosion, and sedimentation. Elevations range from sea level to about 700m. Slope instability is notable throughout the island.

Kingston Harbor consists of an almost landlocked area of water, roughly ten miles long and two miles wide. Yet, much of the water, even the shores, is deep enough to accommodate large ships. Located along the north/ south, east/west axis of the Caribbean, the port is just 32 miles from the trade routes that pass through the Panama Canal.

The figure above gives the geographic data at the site. The average elevation of the ground is 30ft (Pink shaded region), this data is necessary for the design of coastal protection structures, which must account for water depths and land height where structures will be placed. However, the port of Kingston’s average elevations go up to an average of 4.04 m. (Source: Google Earth). The Tinson Pen airport adjacent to the port has an elevation of 5m above sea level.

3.2 Port Operations, Infrastructure, and Contiguous Community

The Port of Kingston had always created significant wealth to the mainland over the years, quite apart from the islands economic regime. The Port had been the hub of trade with several periods governing its development as early from when it was founded, i.e.1692, to support the refugees of earthquake of the same year.

The Port presently handles approximately 80% of all imports, has a modern container terminal, a large break-bulk wharf with roll-on/roll-off facilities, an oil refinery and a dry

Figure 2 Bathymetric data for Greater Antilles, Caribbean Figure 3 Topographic Map of Kingston

http://www.worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?id=JM89498&sch=MKTP

http://www.weather-forecast.com/locations/Kingston1

http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/unruh1/webpage.html








- 8 -

bulk terminal. The fully computerized terminal has 11 berths, backed by 40 hectares of container yard space. State of the art stevedoring equipment includes seven rail-mounted 40-ton gantry cranes, 30 straddle carriers, yard chassis and hustlers, reefer outlets and a freight station. Over 30 shipping lines have operations in Jamaica, covering all the major routes to the North and South American continents, Europe and the Far East. The details of the equipment available on the port are presented in the appendix attached.

Imports: Lumber, grain, oil, fish, steel and motor vehicles Exports: Alumina/bauxite, aggregates, gypsum, cement produce

The Port of Kingston handled 17,795,135 metric tons of cargo in 2007, compared with the 13,627,829 metric tons at all other ports combined. (Annual Report, PAJ 2007, Page 13)

Port Infrastructure:

North Terminal South Terminal (Gordon Cay)

West Terminal

535 meters of berth 1300 meters of berth 475 meters of berth 47 hectares of yard space for stacking containers

82 hectares (25 unpaved) of container storage space

Extension of 65 hectares of container yard

4 super post Panamax ship-to-store cranes

6 super-post Panamax ship-to-shore gantry cranes

4 super post Panamax ship-to-shore gantry cranes

5 post panama gantry cranes Table 2 Port Infrastructure (Source: http://www.portjam.com)

The port is divided into three terminals, the south (Gordon Cay), the North and West terminal Table 2 gives the details of the area and equipment available at each terminal. Apart from this the port is also planning on developments for its phase five. The port also is contiguous with the Tinson Pen aerodrome, the largest domestic airport of Jamaica. The average elevation of this airport is 5m above sea level. The airport has a

Figure 4 Port Calls

Figure 5 Port Infrastructure, Port of Kingston, (Source: Google Maps, edited)

http://www.portjam.com/pdf/P.A.%20ANNUAL%20REPORT1.pdf

http://www.portjam.com/pdf/P.A.%20ANNUAL%20REPORT1.pdf

http://www.portjam.com/pdf/P.A. ANNUAL REPORT1.pdf

http://www.portjam.com/pdf/P.A. ANNUAL REPORT1.pdf


- 9 -

runway of 1311 X 30 m, and a 100LL fuel station. The Port of Kingston Causeway runs along the ports boundaries, and connects to this airport, the airport and the causeway would also be benefitting from the protection strategies proposed.

Kingston Container Terminal - The Port Authority of Jamaica, (a statutory corporation which responsible for regulation and development of Jamaica ports), owns The Kingston Container Terminal (KCT).

KCT is one of the region’s leading container transshipment ports and consists of three terminals—the North, South and West Terminals with a rated capacity of 2.8 Million TEUs. The berth face, channel and turning basin have been dredged to a depth of 13 meters

3.3 Design Conditions and Acceptable Risk A variety of factors must be considered when protecting the city or the port from flooding such as tide range, wave height from passing ships in the river and wind, storm surge, subsidence rates and sea level rise.

- Tide range: The range of the tides at the harbor area to 0.3 meters (Port Royal data). Wave height: Average wave height for non-calm events in Kingston Bay is 0.3 meters (NOAA). (Considering Port Royal data)

- Storm surge: Figure 11 contains the results Modeled Category 4 &5 hurricanes striking Jamaica indirectly (Austin). Water levels around the port facilities range from 3-4 meters in this scenario, and have reached similarly high levels during past storms.

Figure 7 Wave Height at several points of Jamaica (Source: lost)

Figure 8 Hurricanes affecting Jamaica in the past 10 years (Source: Austin)

Thick lines indicate 1990-2008 Tracks Thin lines indicate 1852-1990 Tracks

Figure 6 Coastal Vulnerabilities Of Jamaica + Storm Surge analysis of SE Jamaica

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tides05/tab2ec4.html

http://www.monagis.com/files/Presentations/ATLAS.pdf





- 10 -

- - - From Figure 9 a hurricane/ storm hits Port Kingston every 21.6 years.

- Subsidence rates: Soil subsidence rates are likely to vary across the city, and current data availability is insufficient. However, subsidence rate should be considered to obtain an accurate value of expected sea level rise.

- Sea level rise: Calculated sea level rise at Port Royal is 2.2m (explained later), though this data comes from a location within the port’s proximity, a more accurate entry should be found. When combined with the city’s subsidence rate, the effective sea level rise is what which should be considered. However, an approximation is made in this study.

Figure 9 Hurricane frequencies at Kingston, Jamaica

Figure 10 Jamaica’s Bimodal Rainfall pattern (1951-1980)

http://stormcarib.com/climatology/MKJP_weekly.htm

http://stormcarib.com/climatology/images/MKJP_1944_2008_weekly.png




- 11 -

Paleoclimatic and paleoenvironmental data from the Caribbean indicate that there have been some significant shifts in precipitation patterns during the mid to late Holocene. There is evidence for regional millennial period shifts from wetter to drier periods due to the long term movement of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone as well as more high frequency interannual variation due to North Atlantic Oscillation and El Nino events. Therefore this research has considered the different timescales of precipitation variation and the way this variability would have been experienced by past societies.

3.4 Hydrology and Hydraulics Jamaica has watershed characteristics, i.e. a large part of the island delivers run-off water inland sediment and carries dissolved substances to a river

Total water balance is calculated as a sum of evapotranspiration losses, surface water runoff and ground water discharge. 56% of water is lost because of the evapotranspiration process and 20% are lost due to limestone aquifer developed through wells. The yield for total surface runoff

for the country is, estimated at 12% of the total surface water

runoff, making the volume equal to 666 MCM/yr.

The ground water component is about 84% of the total available water, and surface water component the remaining 16%.

The Kingston parish does not have any major rivers, but is supplied by River Hope.

3.5 Coastal and Wind Data

Figure 11 Hydrology of Jamaica

Figure 13 Wind Patterns in Western Caribbean Figure 12 Wind Rose for Kingston, Jamaica

https://courses.washington.edu/tesc243/jamaica/index_files/page0002.htm


http://www.windfinder.com/windstats/windstatistic_kingston.htm

http://www.weather-forecast.com/static_maps/Jamaica/wind/168











- 12 -

- Windiest months noted are Mar, Jun, Jul, and Aug - Strongest winds from E, ESE, SE - Avg. Wind speed- 20mph - Record Wind Speed- 71mph (Source: Windfinder)

3.6 Geology and Sediment Regime Kingston is located on the

alluvial/Gravel fan of Liguanea –

gravel, sand, and clay deposits. The

low hills consist of limestone and

the Port Royal Mts. Of Cretaceous to

Paleocene rocks.

Jamaican geology greatly affects the occurrence and availability of water resources. Due to the location of the Blue Mountains, the southern half of the island contains major alluvial

lowlands representing 15 % of the total area of the island. Kingston is located over a thick bed of quaternary permeable to moderately permeable alluvium which is underlain by tertiary limestone which has variable degrees of stratification. Because groundwater is the dominant water resource in coastal alluvial plains, the most important hydro stratigraphic unit in Kingston is the alluvium aquifer. The aquifer gets recharge from both rainfall and from rivers like the Rio Cobre which descends from the mountainous areas and flows over the alluvium region where seeping and channel losses occur.

3.7 Land Use Patterns and Historical Resources The port has some major road-based transportation resources that are threatened by possible sea level rise, particularly the Port Kingston Causeway which along the boundaries of the Gordon Cay to the northern terminal of the port. The Tinson Pen airport which participates in a considerable portion of trade with the port could be also need protection from the predicted sea level rise. The Airport is shown in the Figure 5 .

Port of Kingston Causeway

Tinson Pen Domestic Aerodrome

Figure 14 Geological Map of Jamaica

Figure 15 Layout of Port of Kingston (Source: Google Earth)

http://www.nakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=diattach;topic=16265.0;attach=4167;image






- 13 -

3.8 Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services

The Port of Kingston, receives good protection from a “tombola,” or barrier beach (Figure 16), that supports the access road to the airport, stretching from Kingston to Port Royal. While Hurricane Ivan and others caused damage to the tombola and destroyed some protective mangroves, the barrier remained intact. It serves as Kingston’s greatest protection, but may also be the city’s greatest vulnerability when it comes to hurricanes. Parts of the tombola span just a few hundred yards from open-ocean to protected bay. The waters of the harbor butt up against the roadway in spots along the north side at levels even with the asphalt of the road itself. The National Works Agency recently began installing riprap to protect the tombolo in thin spots. United Nations has already been actively conducting work on climate change vulnerability analysis for the nation’s ecosystems and tourist economy (UNEP 2010).

Ecosystems – Fishes and other sea food, most of which is exported. An effort to cultivate mangroves is encouraged all along the Jamaica’s Coast.

Figure 16 Tombolo protecting the Kingston Harbor

3.9 Estimating the Local Rate of Sea Level Rise (SLR) + Storm Surge Analysis

During the last 6000 years of human occupation there has been over 5m of relative sea

level rise in the Caribbean. This research has collated regional and local

paleoenvironmental and bathymetric data to model and reconstruct the impacts of known

relative sea level change in the Caribbean (Cooper and Boothroyd, 2010). These studies

suggest long term relative sea level rise created short-term high impact flooding events.

Hurricanes represent one of the most high profile climatic hazards in the Caribbean. The

expected sea level rise all over the world can be estimated as 2m from the studies as on

higher side, with an exception to the pacific and Caribbean countries which can expect an

extra rise of 0.1- 0.3 m based on their temperature and precipitation patterns off late.


- 14 -

Figure 18 Increase of Temperature in Caribbean

Figure 17Expected Sea level rise by 2100 by different theories

Port of Kingston

Causeway & Southern

terminal have the

maximum risk

Table 3 Interpreting sea level rise by various theories

Table 4 Projected range of climatic change in Caribbean

http://caribsave.org/assets/files/SeaLvlRise-UNDP-CARIBSAVE-SummDoc2010.pdf


http://icons-pe.wxug.com/data/climate_images/sealevelriseforecast.jpg

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report/regional-climate-change-impacts/islands


























- 15 -

3.10 Vulnerability Assessment

1. Localized erosion by SLR and storms 2. Localized inundation from SLR 3. Localized flooding from storms 3. Localized salt water intrusion of ground water

The country has experienced six storm events including three major hurricanes and several flood events between 2002 and 2007 that amounted to a total of $73.19 billion in losses. Kingston is located in a region of the world which is prone to frequent hurricanes. The City comprises steep and unstable slopes and low lying coastal areas which are susceptible to flooding from storm surges and sea level rise. Kingston is susceptible to tropical depression, storms and the accompanying heavy rainfall. Jamaica experienced numerous tropical storms in recent history. Although in the last decade alone, five storms have come close to Jamaica, none have been direct hits on the island. The familiarity with hurricanes leads to a mixed response from decision makers. Unlike the U.S., the Jamaican Coast Guard remains relatively uninvolved in storm planning for the ports and other uses in the harbor. The main concerns for the Coast Guard include rescuing fishing vessels before and after the storm, cleanup of damaged vessels, surveying channels and navigation systems post storm, and protecting their own assets. Sea level rise and climate change have not yet been included in any of the Coast Guard’s operating procedures or planning documents. Although they work very closely with the Office of Disaster Planning and Emergency Management (ODPEM) around issues of port security, the do not appear to be actively involved in the storm planning efforts that ODPEM oversees.

KCT’s hurricane facilities response plan corresponds to; (Source: Austin)

1) Lower lighting system chandeliers 2) Stack empty containers six or seven high and strap down using nylon straps from

corner to corner 3) Tie down cranes at tie-down locations 4) Secure stackers by loading with one full container to serve as an anchor point. 5) Stack full containers two high (these do not get strapped down).

KCT, using this system, received little to no damage in previous storms. A few empty containers were blown over, one light was broken, and waves broke over a seawall to damage a couple of containers. However, damage was light.

It is unclear what steps Kingston Wharves takes to prepare for hurricanes (anecdotally, they don’t strap down their containers).

Protecting Jamaica's coastline from a possible one meter rise in the sea level, could cost some US$426 million, or approximately 9% of Jamaica's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).(Director of the Coastal Zone Management Branch at the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), Anthony McKenzie) A recent Vulnerability Assessment of

http://www.pioj.gov.jm/Portals/0/Sustainable_Development/jamaica_climate_change_paper.pdf

http://www.pioj.gov.jm/Portals/0/Sustainable_Development/jamaica_climate_change_paper.pdf


- 16 -

Jamaica's beaches, by NEPA, showed that 95% of the beaches are vulnerable to natural hazards.

Port of Kingston Risk Assessment

2006 Population 96,052

Current exposed population *

Current exposed assets Port of Kingston Causeway

Exposed population (given SLR)

11000 (approx.)*

Exposed Assets (given SLR) Gordon Cay Table 4 Port Vulnerability (Source: Interpreted based on Table 1) * Data Insufficient

3.11 Historic Extreme Events

Hurricanes Year Category Damage

Hurricane Charlie 1951 3 Caused around $50 million, in crop and property damage, 152 deaths, injured 2,000, and left 25,000 homeless

Hurricane Gilbert 1988 5 49 Deaths & over $4 Billion damage to crops & infrastructure, Most destructive in country’s history

Hurricane Ivan 2004 5 17 Deaths & $360 million & 18,000 people left homeless

Hurricane Dean 2007 5 3 Deaths & $310 million damage Hurricane Gustav 2008 4 15 Deaths & $210 million damage

Table 5: Historical extreme hurricanes in Jamaica ( Source : Compiled: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20040812/lead/lead1.html, http://www.crid.or.cr/digitalizacion/pdf/eng/doc6803/doc6803-01.pdf, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131956,00.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hurricanes_in_Jamaica. )

Floods Damage

1933 53 deaths, damage of 300,000 pounds island wide 1963 11 deaths, damage of $315 Jm 1988 Extensive floods due to heavy rainfalls 1999 Flooding and landslides 2003 Flooding in Bull bay, Riverton city,& new haven

2004 Extensive flooding, damage estimated of USD $500,000

Table 6 Historic extreme floods at Jamaica (Source: http://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/get/3784)

Tables outline past extreme hurricanes & floods that affected Jamaica. It is notable that the

country has made conscious efforts in minimizing its number of deaths and the monetary

damages along the course of events. General alerts and public evacuation policies seem to

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20040812/lead/lead1.html

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20040812/lead/lead1.html

http://www.crid.or.cr/digitalizacion/pdf/eng/doc6803/doc6803-01.pdf

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131956,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hurricanes_in_Jamaica


- 17 -

have proven effectively. On the one hand, hurricane impacts and planning are well-

understood by the population. On the other hand, the fact that powerful storms have come

close to, but not hit, Jamaica could lead to a false sense of security in that people feel that

“they can handle a Cat 4 or 5 Storm.”

3.12 Preliminary Site Delineation All major port facilities located along the harbor channel must be protected from

water rise in the harbor head as well as a portion of Hunts Bay. Additionally the Palisadoes tombolo could also be given protection for it is the only link to the airport, though it would be of more a concern to the airport.

4 Conceptual Design Alternatives Evaluation As most of the port’s elevation levels range from sea level to 6 m, the average being

4.05m, it complicates and makes it crucial for a strong port protection strategy. The port’s south terminal; Gordon Cay, as well as the Causeway lies in risk. The protection strategy design should thus focus on protection the boundary of the port, providing protection to all the infrastructure and assets.

The goal of this section would be to consider the most commonly used designs in coastal

protection— both structural and non-structural—and assist in determining the best alternatives for

the study site.

The following tables list the benefits and impacts that are possible outcomes of addressing various

design function goals.

Figure 19 Benefits and impacts possible with different design alternatives. ((Source: Students Projects, http://groupspaces.com/seaports2100/pages/completed-projects,)

http://groupspaces.com/seaports2100/pages/completed-projects


- 18 -

Figure 20 Various design alternatives and their respective benefits and impacts. (http://groupspaces.com/seaports2100/pages/completed-projects )

Figure 21 Various design alternatives and their respective benefits and impacts. (http://groupspaces.com/seaports2100/pages/completed-projects)




- 19 -

For Port of Kingston, 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 Minimize cost (This would be one of the major concerns as higher cost would

decrease the chances of obtaining funding, or the stakeholder’s interest) o Navigation: preserve safe navigation and shipping activities (N-a) o Societal Goals: promote public safety and public welfare (S-a, S-c) o Design lifespan: 100 years (minimum) o Sustainability: economical, ecological, and social

Secondary objectives: o Minimize disruption to port activities during construction (e.g., minimize

construction time) o Enhance ecological values (B-b)

A final consideration of elevating all infrastructures is necessary, especially since port facilities are

concentrated and not too complex or large, also the Tinson Pen airport, itself is at an elevation 5m,

above sea level, the port could be brought at par with this level. 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.

4.1 Cost Data

4.1.1 Construction Materials It will be necessary to choose locally available construction materials to minimize

costs and hasten construction time. Typical materials for coastal engineering structures such as riprap, concrete, sand and soil for fill and stones/pebbles should be available. The port being an exporter of gypsum and cement itself, the hauling of material should not pose a huge task.

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

Table 7 Material Costs of Construction Materials (http://groupspaces.com/seaports2100/pages/completed-projects)

4.1.2 Construction Equipment The equipment available on the port has already been referred to. With the presence

of equipment for lifting and commuting materials, the main task of construction is ruled


- 20 -

out. Other construction equipment include mixers, screens etc., which should be available locally.

`Equipment US Units (metric)

Crane barge 4.6-6.1 $/m3

Derrick barge 1600000 $/item

Hopper dredge 1905500-10,500,000 $/item

Backhoe 6,000-68,000 $/item

Excavator

Land crane

Pumps

Table 8 Cost of Construction Equipment (http://groupspaces.com/seaports2100/pages/completed-projects)

4.1.3 Labor- Design, Skilled and Unskilled Labor in Jamaica, is readily available owing to a large 14.50% of unemployment

rate. The hourly wages for a construction labor vary from 10- 15$ per hour. The availability of engineers, construction workforce should not be difficult for currently Jamaica is known for promoting new construction projects throughout. With more awareness of the government over climate changes, and investment in protection strategies, the availability of experts is also high.

5 Selecting the Conceptual Design

Types Of Alternatives Reason Result

Breakwater Not Applicable Dykes Valid alternative Increase the elevation of buildings

Higher costs involved

Building a wall around the port

Valid Alternative

Mangrove plantation Less effective and takes a long time

Relocation Not possible against present port operations

Elevation of port Longer schedule Table 9 Analysis of various applicable alternatives (Source: Interpreted based on Figures 19, 20 &21)

Moving port facilities is unfeasible, as the port is the hub of trade, being in a convenient location to provide trade to North and South America, and Africa. Protecting the port’s exposure to rising sea level by building a dike or a flood wall are the most viable options for adapting to the effects sea level rise and storm surge on the Port of Kingston.

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/jamaica/jamaica_economy.html


- 21 -

The design of the structure should consider the following objectives:

The height of a dike/ wall should make the following considerations:

- assumed sea level rise - tidal range - wave action - soil subsidence rates - storm surge - an added freeboard

5.1 Conceptual Design A: Dike for the complete Harbor w/ lock Design Description: The first design alternative investigated in this case study is a design that surrounds all Port infrastructures with dikes (see Figure 10 below). A rough estimate of the construction of this design shows that it would take about 5 months to construct and cost approximately $750 million (U.S.). This would potentially be a favorable design for the Port of Kingston because it would protect all of the Port without compromising or changing the infrastructure and operations of the berthing stations and terminals.

Pros: Less costly than larger structures that would include protections for Bay. Also interferes less with hydrodynamics of the estuaries than would a larger structure.

Cons: Not expandable to protect future port facilities

Length

Average depth 9.4 m along breakwaters (AsiaTradeHub.com

I. DESIGN LAYOUT

Figure 22 Design layout of Alternative i), a combination of wet-dry and wet-wet dikes (Source: Google Earth).

Wet-Wet Dike

Wet-Dry Dike


- 22 -

Typical cross-sections

Figure 24 Cross-section of Wet-Wet dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet)

Materials (Port Protector Spreadsheet)

Material Quantities

Component Material Volume Component Material Volume

Dike Foundation Concrete 2,401,926 Dike Foundation Concrete 437,526

Dike Toe Structural Fill 378,540 Dike Toe Structural Fill 68,954

Dike Core Concrete 1,089,737 Dike Core Concrete 198,503

Dike Structural Fill 5,838,232 Dike Material Structural Fill 1,063,471

Dike Armoring Rip Rap 1,910,860 Dike Armoring Rip Rap 348,075

Component m3

Concrete 4,127,691

Structural Fill 7,349,196

Riprap 2,258,935

Wet- Wet Dike Wet- Dry Dike

Total Materials

Figure 23 Cross-section of Wet-Dry Dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet)

Table 10 Individual material quantities for Wet-Wet & Wet-Dry Dike + Combination (Port Protector Spreadsheet)


- 23 -

Cost Data

Cost

Component $ Component $

Dike Foundation 208,967,534.01$ Dike Foundation 38,064,746.53$

Dike Toe 6,435,186.12$ Dike Toe 1,172,209.50$

Dike Core 94,807,153.80$ Dike Core 17,269,717.50$

Dike Material 99,249,942.14$ Dike Material 18,078,999.25$

Dike Armoring 99,364,734.38$ Dike Armoring 18,099,909.38$

508,824,550.44$ 92,685,582.16$

Total Cost 601,510,132.60$


Table 11 Cost Data for Wet-Wet & Wet-Dry dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet)

Time to construct (Man-hours)

(Based on a 40 hour work week, year round construction, 200 person crew size) wet –wet dike

Labor (Man-Hours)

Component Man-hours Component Man-hours

Dike Foundation 36,028.89 Dike Foundation 6,562.89

Dike Toe 5,678.11 Dike Toe 1,034.30

Dike Core 16,346.06 Dike Core 2,977.54

Dike Material 87,573.48 Dike Material 15,952.06

Dike Armoring 16,346.06 Dike Armoring 5,221.13

161,972.59 31,747.91

Total Man-Hours 193,720.50


Schedule (Years)

Component Years Component Years

Dike Foundation 0.07 Dike Foundation 0.01

Dike Toe 0.01 Dike Toe 0.00

Dike Core 0.03 Dike Core 0.01

Dike Material 0.17 Dike Material 0.03

Dike Armoring 0.03 Dike Armoring 0.01

0.31 0.06

Total Years 0.37


Table 12 Man-hours for the construction of Wet-Wet & Wet-Dry Dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet)

Table 13 Years to construct Wet-Wet & Wet-Dry Dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet)


- 24 -

*Note that this is only the construction time and does not include additional time for design, port growth, or weather complications.

5.2 Conceptual Design B: Sea wall along the port with wet/dry dike The second alternative investigated for this case study is a sea wall along all existing harbors as well as a wet-dry dike protecting the coal yards and warehouses along the south coast of the port (see Figure 13 below). This alternative is estimated to take about 2 months to construct with a 250-person construction crew working 40-hour workweeks. The design would cost about $230 million (U.S.), which is much less expensive than the first alternative because no lock system is required. While this design would most likely be preferred because there is no lock system to interfere with Port operations, the sea wall could potentially require the infrastructure at the berthing stations to change, and thus incur extra costs.

It should be noted that the sea wall cross-section used for this design alternative (see Figure 14) is a rough estimate. Case studies of such protection studies at other ports using a similar vertical sea wall design have not been identified at this point.

Specifics of Alternative ii) are listed below.

Length 2 miles wet-dry dike, 7.25 miles vertical seawall

Average depth 9.4 m (AsiaTradeHub.com)

Design layout

Figure 25 Design layout of Alternative B, A combination of a wet-dry dike and a vertical seawall. (Source: Google Earth)

Seawall along

Port Kingston

Causeway

Wet-Dry Dike

along port

Infrastructure


- 25 -

Typical cross-sections

Figure 27 Cross-section of the vertical Seawall (Asia Hub)

Material Quantities

Material Quantities

Component Material Volume Component Material Volume

Seawall core Concrete 169,908 Dike Foundation Concrete 1,475,384

Seawall Material Structural Fill 951,815 Dike Toe Structural Fill 307,890

Seawall Armoring Riprap 571,767 Dike Core Concrete 886,350

Dike Material Structural Fill 1,615,396

Dike Armoring Rip Rap 1,088,216

Component m3

Concrete 2,531,642

Structural Fill 2,875,101

Riprap 1,659,983

Vertical Sea Wall Wet- Dry Dike

Total Materials

Figure 26 Figure 15: Design cross-section of wet-dry dike. (Source: Port Protector spreadsheet)

Table 14 Material quantities for Vertical Seawall & Wet-Dry dike + Combination (Port Protector Spreadsheet)


- 26 -

Cost Data

Labor

Time to construct

(Based on a 40-hour work week, year round construction, 250 person crew size)

Labor

Component Man-hours Component Man-hours

Seawall core 2,549.00 Dike Foundation 22,130.76

Seawall Material 14,277.00 Dike Toe 4,618.35

Seawall Armoring 8,577.00 Dike Core 13,295.25

25,403.00 Dike Material 24,230.94

Dike Armoring 16,323.23

Total Manhours 24,900.23 80,598.54


Schedule (Years)

Component Years Component Years

Seawall core 0.005 Dike Foundation 0.04

Seawall Material 0.03 Dike Toe 0.01

Seawall Armoring 0.02 Dike Core 0.03

0.05 Dike Material 0.05

Dike Armoring 0.03

Total Years 0.20 0.15


Cost

Component $ Component $

Seawall core 14,781,953.00$ Dike Foundation 128,358,408.00$

Seawall Material 16,180,847.00$ Dike Toe 5,234,130.00$

Seawall Armoring 29,731,884.00$ Dike Core 77,112,450.00$

60,694,684.00$ Dike Material 27,461,735.40$

Dike Armoring 56,587,212

294,753,935.41$

Total Cost 355,448,619.41$


Table 15 Cost data for Vertical Seawall & Wet-Dry dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet)

Table 16 Man-hours for construction of Vertical Seawall & Wet-Dry dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet)

Table 17 Years to construct Vertical Seawall & Wet-Dry dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet)


- 27 -

5.3 Alternative Selection As the Port of Kingston moves towards adapting to sea level rise, consideration should be also given to the infrastructure which surrounds the port, or its contiguous community. The Port of Kingston Causeway is the most prone infrastructure to the SLR. As the Causeway is an important link of ground transport between the port and the other part of the island, it should also be protected.

The Jamaican government has specified several areas as protected areas distributed across the island. Invariably, these protected areas have biological significance, but all are entwined with the physical environment. (Figure 28).

Figure 28 Protected Areas of Jamaica

Figure 29 Cost comparison of

both alternatives Figure 30 Schedule comparisons of both alternatives

Based on the primary objectives, and the above cost, schedule data, (Figures 29 & 30) Alternative #2 seems a more viable option. Thus Selecting Alternative #2, we have,

Pros:

Protects the Port of Kingston Causeway. Since this causeway is an important link for the Tinson Pen airport as well, support

could be expected from the aerodrome authority as well.





- 28 -

Does not intrude into the protected areas. Cons:

Protects just the port infrastructure and not the adjacent community, Hence support is mainly expected from the stakeholders Lesser chances of funding from other sources, as the protection is intended to keep

trade going

6 Schematic Design Development 1. Design-

Source of funding is a major concern, considering Jamaica is a developing nation.

The funding would have to be mainly from the ports stake-holders, who may or may

not be interested. The design could also be proposed to seek funding through NAPA,

to protect the coastal infrastructure. The port authority is also not completely aware

of the risks posed.

2. Planning

-Resources: Proper resources required for the construction should be planned, either

available on site or transported from elsewhere. Since Port of Kingston itself exports

cement in large quantities, concrete should be locally available.

-Transportation: Transportation to the site is also a problem, since, the land

transportation is limited to just Port of Kingston causeway, with the airport on the other

side of the port.

- Equipment: The construction hauling and lifting equipment should be present on site.

This leaves it to getting the concrete mixers, compactors etc.

3. Temporary trade relocation

Though this is not a convenient option, but during the construction the trade could

be shifted to the adjacent terminals, or to the nearby Port Royal.

6.1 Societal Impacts The following societal impacts should be expected from the dike project:

- change in recreational use of the ship channel - change in property ownership and property values along the span of land

adjacent to the shipping channels - change in aesthetics of the harbor area, which may negatively affect cruise

tourism, for example


- 29 -

- change in port operations, which may or may not affect surrounding neighborhoods or businesses

6.2 Design Limitations and Next Steps There are several limiting factors of the port protection plan that must be considered:

- Time of construction - Competition with hurricane season - Potential setbacks: storm damage or destruction during construction - Funding - Operation and maintenance costs, repair costs from storm damage

6.3 Incorporation of Results into Overall Project Several factors make this case study of the port of Kingston unique:

- Located on an island in the Caribbean sea, thus most prone to sea level rise - The port’s numerous hazard risks, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, and

landslides. - The city’s at same elevation as the sea in most of the regions. Sudden rise and

fall of elevations also characterizes it.

The lessons learned from this case study would applicable to many island ports in the Caribbean and similar conditions.

7 References

References Cited When necessary, by Hyperlinking throughout the document.

Fischer, M., et al. (2008). “STANFORD UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC POLICY FRAMEWORK

PROJECT: Climate Change and its Impacts on the Built Environment in the Coastal Zone.”

Bell, R.G., Goring, D.G., and de Lange, W.P. (2000). “Sea-level change and storm surges in the context of

climate change.” IPENZ Transactions 27(1) 1-10.

Google. (2008). “Google Earth.”

RS Means. (2006). Building Construction Cost Data, 64th Annual Edition, Construction Publishers and

Consultants, Kingston, Massachusetts.

Knowlton, N., Lang, J. C. and Keller, B. D. Case study of natural population collapse: post-hurricane

predation on Jamaican staghorn corals 1990

Lugo, Ariel E. Effects and outcomes of Caribbean hurricanes in a climate change scenario 2000

case study- port of kingston, jamaicaprojects.seaports2100.org/final report- case study... ·...

Documents