Will the Jasper port be better environmentally than the Savannah or Charleston facilities?

In less than two weeks, South Carolina and Georgia are expected to close on 1,400 acres in Jasper County for the proposed Jasper Ocean Terminal -- a port that has been in the making for more than 20 years.

Some conservationists welcome the massive project. They say it would be less harmful to the environment than expanding existing ports in Charleston and Savannah. Both of those ports are rushing to finish expansion projects that will enable them to handle a new generation of larger ships.

The conservationists contend that expanding the two existing ports will increase traffic and pollution, plus compromise drinking water sources and wildlife.

"If anyone was looking at the state's best interest and the need to expand, it would be the Jasper site," said Nancy Vinson, a program director for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League. "It makes more environmental sense. It makes more economic sense. And it's better for public health."

Port officials in South Carolina and Georgia also want the Jasper port -- it's crucial to remaining competitive in the global shipping industry -- but it might not be ready in time for the larger vessels. Charleston and Savannah will be, they say.

"We are a long way from (the Jasper port) being a reality, and we need to deal with our economy needs today," said Jamie McCurry, general manager of external affairs with the Georgia Ports Authority. "It will be a decade-plus before we ever see a Jasper port."

The conservation league is trying to block the expansion of the Charleston port because of the congestion and high pollution levels already there. The American Lung Association has given Charleston an "F" in air quality for the past two years, partly due to port traffic.

While pollution also would be a concern in Jasper, Vinson said the health effects wouldn't be as severe because the site is in a rural area with few residents. Also, since rail access is available nearby, there would be less pollution from truck traffic, she said.

Only 20 percent of containers arriving in Charleston are transported by rail. Most cargo is moved by truck, said Nat Ball, an official with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Charleston District. Ball worked on the environmental impact statement for the Charleston expansionproject. Officials began studying the project in 2003. It was approved in April 2007.

"When we evaluated the Charleston project, we looked at potential alternative sites in the Jasper area," Ball said. They weren't viable for a number of reasons, including the fact that Charleston needed to expand to serve existing customers.A deal for the Jasper port land was then still in the distant future, he said.

Similarly, Georgia worries the Jasper port is not a realistic alternative to expanding the Savannah facility.

Georgia is in the midst of the lengthy process to get approval for deepening the Savannah River from its mouth to the Garden City Terminal. If all goes as planned, dredging would begin in April 2010 and be finished by March 2014 -- in time for the bigger ships.

The river would be deepened from 42 to 48 feet. But those six extra feet would create big risks, conservationists say

"If you (deepen the harbor), saltwater creeps into the (Savannah National Wildlife) Refuge and kills it," said conservation league spokesman Patrick Moore. "Dissolved oxygen will get so low that fish can't live and then you have a dead river. And, three, you jeopardize ... the Floridan Aquifer. It's not clear if they can deepen without compromising it."

The Floridan Aquifer is an underground reservoir, one of the sources of drinking water for the Lowcountry. The league fears deepening the Savannah harbor would allow saltwater to seep into the aquifer, making it unfit for drinking.

The threat of saltwater intrusion might be less at the Jasper port, said Dean Moss, general manager of the Beaufort-Jasper Water & Sewer Authority.

"Because of the way the river is configured, you may not have to dredge as deep" for the Jasper port to accommodate larger ships, Moss said. But he added: "The real issue is dissolved oxygen. It's clear deepening the (Savannah) harbor will make that problem worse."

Moss, who also sits on two committees involved in the bi-state port in Jasper, said South Carolina and the authority are evaluating the effects of saltwater intrusion through test wells along the river and between Hilton Head and Daufuskie islands.

While it's three months before the environmental impact statement on deepening the Savannah port is scheduled for release, the progress of the Jasper port will continue, said Tom Davis, who chaired the negotiating committee for South Carolina during the bi-state agreement.

"The Jasper County port has the potential to be the largest entry point on the East Coast," he said. "This can be done in a way that's respectful to the environment."