The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Wilmington District is hosting a series of public meetings in June to discuss long-term strategies for maintaining North Carolina’s federal harbor channels.

The meetings, which will be held in-person and virtually, are an opportunity for the community to engage on the development of environmental impact statements for the Morehead City and Wilmington harbors.

Notices of intent for the Morehead City Harbor and Wilmington Harbor were published on Thursday.

The environmental impact statements will evaluate “reasonably foreseeable” environmental-related impacts to proposed updates to operation and maintenance, or O&M, dredging and associated activities, according to a Corps release.

Key topics include environmental compliance, navigational safety, and risk-based analysis.

The environmental impact statements will not evaluate or examine any changes in channel dimensions, dredged material volumes, or options where dredged material may be placed.

“Updates to O&M activities are expected to improve operational flexibility by updating avoidance and minimization measures, including adjusting the timing of dredging operations,” the release continues.

Morehead City Harbor meetings are scheduled as follows:

• In-person on Monday, June 8 from 5:30-7:30 p.m. in the Morehead City Elementary School media room, 3316 Arendell St.
• Virtual, session 1, on Tuesday, June 9 from 11:30 a.m. – 1 p.m.
• Virtual, session 2, on Monday, June 15 from 5:30-7 p.m.

Meetings for the Wilmington Harbor will be held:

• In-person on Tuesday, June 9 from 5:30-7:30 p.m. in the Edwin A. Alderman Elementary School cafeteria/multi-purpose room, 2025 Independence Boulevard.
• Virtual, session 1, on Monday, June 15 from 11:30 a.m. – 1 p.m.
• Virtual, session 2, on Tuesday, June 16 from 5:30 – 7 p.m.

The Corps will accept public comments at the meetings as well as by email to CESAW-WHOMEIS@usace.army.mil, online at https://sardn-eis-sardn.hub.arcgis.com/, or by mail: Attention: Teresa Young, Environmental Resources Section, USACE Wilmington District, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403.

Comments will be accepted through June 29.

The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management has objected to the proposed Wilmington Harbor project, concluding that a federal study of the plan is too scant on details and that, as presented, deepening and widening the channel would have “significant adverse impacts to coastal resources.”

The Army Corps of Engineers’ review lacks an evaluation of PFAS in the sediment in the lower Cape Fear River, fails to adequately assess cumulative flooding impacts or thoroughly detail areas where dredged material would be placed, and does not sufficiently account for potential effects on fisheries habitat, freshwater wetlands, shorelines, or state, historic and other properties along the river, the division concluded.

The draft environmental impact statement, or DEIS, the Corps released last September also falls short in analyzing the project’s economic benefits and evaluating “potential economic losses associated with environmental degradation,” Division of Coastal Management Director Tancred Miller wrote to the Corps’ Wilmington District in a 15-page letter dated Feb. 24.

A Corps spokesman, in a statement Wednesday, called the state’s objection “disappointing” and highlighted what the Corps describes as offering “numerous opportunities” to engage with the public and work with state and federal agencies.

The Corps “felt we had been working hand in hand with all our State and Federal partners and resource agencies since we began coordination regarding this project nearly 3.5 years ago,” Jed Cayton, a public affairs specialist with Wilmington District, said in an email. “Given all the integration and engagement throughout this process, the objection provided at this late stage in the process is disconcerting.”

The Corps and North Carolina State Ports Authority are reviewing the division’s letter “to determine how we will proceed,” Cayton said. “Since we are very early in this review, we cannot yet give a specific date for completion.”

The Corps may pause the project and work with the state to try and resolve the state’s concerns or initiate a formal dispute resolution process.

The division’s objection comes a little more than a month after the division granted the Corps’ request to pause its review of whether the proposed project was consistent with state coastal management program laws, regulations and policies.

Miller wrote that, during that pause, the division “detailed its concerns along with possible paths forward to address the information deficiencies.”

On Feb. 16, the Corps asked the division in an email to resume its review of the project, one that has been highly scrutinized for its potential effects to the environment, shorelines and historic and culturally significant areas along the shores of the lower Cape Fear River.

“Our objection was based on a combination of lack of sufficient information to determine the impacts from PFAS and flooding and anticipated significant adverse impacts to fisheries resources, wildlife habitat and cultural and historic resources,” Miller told the Coastal Resources Commission during its meeting Wednesday in Atlantic Beach.

In his letter, Miller wrote that the lack of information regarding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances was “of particular concern.”

“The DEIS does not evaluate the potential for contaminant resuspension during dredging and the resulting fate and transport of these chemicals into nearby water bodies and land areas,” the letter states. “This is of particular concern since extensive scientific research has documented the presence and persistence of PFAS over the past decade within the [Cape Fear River Basin], including a growing body of research indicating significant negative ecological implications of PFAS in fish, birds, and reptiles.”

The proposal calls for extending the entrance of the federal navigation channel farther offshore, deepening the channel by 5 feet and widening portions of it from the mouth of the Cape Fear River more than 25 miles to the Wilmington port.

The ports authority says the project is needed to accommodate larger ships, which will attract more import and export business to the port, ease shipping congestion on the East Coast and keep the state’s ports competitive.

But opponents of the proposed project argue it will accelerate erosion and exacerbate flooding, destroy habitat, disperse PFAS in the riverbed’s sediment into marshes and onto public beaches, is not economically justified, and threatens historic and cultural resources along the river.

One such historic site is Orton, a privately owned property that spans some 14,000 acres off the lower Cape Fear River’s western bank in Brunswick County and that includes a former plantation.

Orton owner Louis Bacon has spent millions restoring an expansive rice field system and earthen dike that enslaved Africans built more than two centuries ago to protect the rice fields from the river.

In a statement to Coastal Review on Wednesday, Bacon said the Division of Coastal Management’s objection to the proposed harbor project, “is proof that facts and persistence matter.”

“My concern has always been simple: this project, as proposed, puts undue and unacceptable risk on important historical and ecological sites,” Bacon stated. “The corps has not provided the analysis or safeguards the law requires. At Orton, dredging so close to a 250-year-old earthen dike creates a very real risk of catastrophic failure according to two separate expert firms – collapsing and flooding 350 acres of freshwater rice fields and exceptional wetlands with Atlantic saltwater, thereby eradicating the legacy of enslaved African Americans who built these systems over centuries, a monument to their efforts that I have spent years restoring.

“My objection is rooted in the fact that the project cannot be considered ‘consistent’ with North Carolina’s coastal protections if it causes this much damage,” he continued. “Large infrastructure decisions must be grounded in rigorous scientific evaluations, transparent disclosure, and enforceable protections, because these valuable resources cannot be rebuilt once lost.”

Several towns in Brunswick and New Hanover counties have adopted resolutions urging state and federal agencies to protect a series of islands within the lower Cape Fear River that support 30% of the state’s coastal shorebird population. Those towns have also asked for the creation of a comprehensive, long-term, and fully funded environmental and adaptive management plan to cover costs related to monitoring and mitigation to prevent and repair environmental harm.

Last month, the Wilmington City Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling for state and federal decision makers to further review the proposed project.

In his letter, Miller noted that an overwhelming majority of the written comments the division received last year regarding the proposed project opposed it. And everyone who spoke at a public hearing the division hosted in downtown Wilmington last November opposed the project.

Kerri Allen, coastal management program director of the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, was one of the 72 people who expressed their concerns about the proposed project at that meeting.

“I’m encouraged to see DCM thoughtfully consider the many strong public comments submitted on this project,” Allen said in an email on Wednesday. “The level of engagement from coastal residents, local leaders, and partners shows how much people care, and it matters when that input is reflected in decisions. Our public trust waters belong to everyone, and transparent review like this helps lead to better, more resilient outcomes for our coast.”

Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Ramona McGee echoed similar sentiments in a release Wednesday.

“This decision is welcome news for the people of Wilmington and beyond who cherish the lower Cape Fear River and its surrounding natural areas,” McGee stated. “This $1.3 billion project would put at risk the communities and wildlife that call this region home by exacerbating flooding, destroying habitat, and damaging wetlands. The Lower Cape Fear is already threatened by sea-level rise and industrial pollution – we shouldn’t be further damaging this special place with an unnecessary and costly project.”

Millions of dollars have been marked for coastal freight rail upgrades and improvements to include tracks, trestles, culverts and port infrastructure.

The projects are part of a total $16.3 million to go toward freight rail infrastructure improvements to a dozen short-line railroads and at the state Port of Morehead City, North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division officials announced Thursday.

The Morehead City port will see $177,500 for a rail scale installation and $844,860 for rail replacement and upgrades on the property.

The Wilmington Terminal Railroad will receive $627,000 for rail and switch improvements along its mainline corridor.

“These projects deliver significant benefits to North Carolina’s freight rail network,” said Rail Division Director Jason Orthner. “By working closely with our railroad partners, we are strengthening reliability and resiliency, supporting businesses across the state, and reinforcing the rail infrastructure that drives North Carolina’s economy.”

Other funded coastal projects include $1.23 million to the Carolina Coastal Railway for rail and bridge improvements along its Belhaven and Norfolk Southern Railway lines in Beaufort, Greene, Washington, and Wilson counties, and $712,801 for the Chesapeake & Albemarle Railroad’s bridge and track improvements along its mainline corridor and Edenton sidetracks in Camden, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Chowan counties.

NCDOT officials said the division’s $16.3 million contribution is funded through the Freight Rail and Rail Crossing Safety Improvement program, which the state legislature established in 2014 to support “the health, safety and performance of the state’s rail infrastructure while establishing partnerships to meet the growing demand for rail service.”

In total, the projects will upgrade more than 95 miles of track and eight railroad bridges and culverts in North Carolina to support an anticipated increase in freight rail traffic statewide.

The Rail Division said its grants are matched by investments from participating railroad companies and the North Carolina Ports Authority. The partnerships are putting $41.5 million into projects that improve North Carolina’s freight rail network.

Other awarded projects and NCDOT’s contribution to each include the following:

• Aberdeen Carolina and Western Railway — $4,845,392 in funding for rail replacement and improvements along its Piedmont Division in Cabarrus and Mecklenburg counties.
• Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad — $771,397 for track upgrades and continuity of service on its mainline in Hoke County.
• Alexander Railroad Co. — $381,797 for track and corridor upgrades near the Alexander Industrial Park in Alexander County.
• Alexander Railroad Co. — $495,026 for track and grade-crossing upgrades on the mainline rail corridor in Iredell County.
• Atlantic & Western Railway — $690,440 for corridor improvements and rail track upgrades on the Jonesboro branch in Lee County.
• Great Smoky Mountains Railroad — $1.68 million for track improvements and bridge repairs along its mainline corridor in Jackson, Swain, Macon and Cherokee counties.
• North Carolina and Virginia Railroad — $979,813 for rail replacement and improvements along its mainline corridor in Northampton County.
• Raleigh & Fayetteville Railroad — $999,586 for rail corridor improvements to the Norfolk Southern and VF lines in Wake and Harnett counties.
• Winston-Salem Southbound Railroad — $1.11 million for rail improvements along its W line in Davidson County.
• Yadkin Valley Railroad — $754,700 for track upgrades and rail corridor improvements along its K and CF lines in Yadkin, Surry and Stokes counties.

The Army Corps of Engineers wants more time to mull over concerns that have been brought up on the proposed project to deepen and widen portions of the Wilmington Harbor channel.

The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management announced late Tuesday afternoon it had granted the Corps’ request, indefinitely pausing the division’s review of whether the proposed project is consistent with state coastal management program laws, regulations and policies.

“The decision to pause allows time for the Corps to review and consider issues raised by DCM and the public before DCM completes its review,” according to a release. “A timeline has not been established for when the pause may be lifted.”

The pause follows a series of deadline extensions that have been made in recent weeks on the proposed project, one that is being highly scrutinized for its potential effects to the environment, shorelines and treasure of historic and culturally significant areas along the shores of the lower Cape Fear River.

The N.C. State Ports Authority says the project designed to accommodate larger ships would attract more import and export business to the port, ease shipping congestion on the East Coast, and keep the state’s ports competitive. The proposal calls for deepening the harbor channel by 5 feet and widening portions of it from the mouth of the Cape Fear River to the Wilmington port.

In late December, the division announced that the Corps’ Wilmington District was giving the division more time to complete its review of the federal determination, pushing its deadline from Jan. 5 to Jan. 19.

The Corps requested the pause on Jan. 16, just days after state fisheries and wildlife resources officials sent the division memorandums saying those agencies continue to have concerns about impacts to fish and wildlife resources within the proposed project area.

A Corps spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment by deadline for this report.

In its Jan. 14 memorandum to the Division of Coastal Management, the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries reiterated its concerns about the proposed project’s effects on habitat essential to fish in the river, wetlands connected to the river, and the overall water quality in the river.

Deepening and widening the harbor as planned “will have significant adverse impacts to fisheries resources due to the permanent loss of state-designated nursery and anadromous fish spawning areas along the Cape Fear River estuary and its tributaries,” the memorandum states.

“There is also potential for significant adverse impacts to wetlands, (submerged aquatic vegetation), shellfish resources, and water column habitat due to insufficient mitigation plans and uncertain impacts associated with the proposed actions that are not adequately discussed,” in the federal letter report and draft environmental impact statement of the Wilmington Harbor 403 navigation project released in September. The figure 403 refers to the relevant section of the Water Resources Development Act.

N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission officials raised similar worries, stating in a Jan. 15 memorandum to DCM that while it had been involved throughout the project’s development process, “our agency still has concerns regarding impacts the proposal will have on wildlife resources in the project area.”

“These comments include concerns regarding the proposal’s direct impacts to wildlife habitats, whether impacts to these habitats have been adequately assessed, inadequacies of mitigation proposals, the need to consult appropriate agencies prior to moving forward with the proposal, and the subsequent impacts to wildlife and their habitats (particularly nesting waterbirds and shorelines) from larger and increased vessel use.”

A number of towns in Brunswick and New Hanover counties have adopted resolutions urging state and federal agencies to protect a series of islands within the lower Cape Fear River that support 30% of the state’s coastal shorebird population.

Those towns are also calling for the creation of a comprehensive, long-term, and fully funded environmental and adaptive management plan to cover costs related to monitoring and mitigation to prevent and repair environmental harm.

A Corps official earlier this month confirmed to Coastal Review that the agency was implementing a programmatic agreement with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, the General Services Administration, the state Ports Authority, “and possibly the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation” to review historic and culturally significant areas along the river that may be impacted by the proposed project.

The agreement must be signed before the agency finalizes project plans, which would occur after the Corps releases its final environmental impact statement.

The final environmental impact statement is expected to be released sometime this summer, according to a tentative timeline released by the Corps. It is unclear how the Corps’ request of the state to pause its review may affect that projected timeline.

Once the review process resumes, DCM must decide whether to concur with or object the Corps’ determination.

“If DCM objects, it can offer alternatives or conditions that, if agreed to by the Corps, would allow the project to proceed,” according to the division.

Construction on the proposed project would begin no earlier than 2030 and take about six years to complete, a schedule Corps officials have said is optimistic.

Note: This story has been updated to correct the misspelling of Louis Bacon’s first name.

Restoring land as close to how it was more than two centuries ago is by no means a cheap venture.

Just ask Louis Moore Bacon.

Since 2012, Bacon has invested more than $100 million in the property on which his ancestor, Roger Moore, founded Orton Plantation in 1725 off the lower Cape Fear River’s western bank in Brunswick County.

Nearly a third of that cost has gone toward restoring an expansive, historic rice field system and an earthen dike enslaved Africans built some 250 years ago to protect the fields they planted, grew, and harvested Carolina Gold rice from the river.

If the state green lights a proposed project to deepen and widen portions of the shipping channel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Port of Wilmington, all of it – the dike, 350 acres of historic rice fields and hundreds of acres of freshwater wetlands – will face threat of “irreversible damage,” according to Bacon.

In a 22-page letter he submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management late last year, Bacon detailed how the proposed Wilmington Harbor 403 navigation project “threatens the failure” of the earthen dike.

“The structural integrity of the dike is Orton’s number one concern,” Bacon wrote. “The Project poses a real and unacceptable risk of catastrophic failure of the dike system. Failure of the dike will result in a cascading series of events including saltwater intrusion into the historic rice fields, rendering them incapable of growing rice and destroying the freshwater ecological water system at the Orton Property. Failure of the dike would flood the rice fields and freshwater ponds with saltwater, erasing what stands today as a preserved monument to enslaved African Americans dating back centuries.”

He closed the Nov. 24, 2025, letter with an ardent request of the division: Object to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ determination that the proposed project aligns with the state’s coastal policies and rules.

The Corps, Bacon wrote, failed to analyze how the proposed project to deepen and widen the harbor channel might affect historic and cultural resources along the river.

His objections echo those of other individuals and groups voicing concerns about how the project the N.C. State Ports Authority says is needed to keep the Wilmington Port competitive might impact those sites along the river.

Deepening the river channel from 42 feet to 47 feet and widening it along areas throughout the river will allow larger vessels to travel to and from the port, attracting more business, according to the authority.

But opponents of the proposed project say that, in addition to threatening historic and cultural resources along the river, it will accelerate erosion and exacerbate flooding, destroy habitat, disperse contaminants in the riverbed’s sediment into marshes and onto public beaches, and is not economically justified.

Like Bacon, their hope is that the Division of Coastal Management rejects the Corps’ determination.

The determination

Two days before the New Year, NCDEQ announced that the Corps was giving the Division of Coastal Management more time to complete its review of the federal determination, pushing the division’s deadline from Jan. 5 to Jan. 19.

Division officials have until then to determine whether the proposed project is consistent with the state’s coastal rules, including those under the Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA.

The division must decide whether to concur with Corps’ determination, concur with conditions, or object.

Related: Wilmington residents see no good in proposed harbor project

If the division decides the latter, that could shutter the proposed project altogether.

“An objection generally prevents the federal permit or approval from being issued unless DCM and the project proponent negotiate a resolution that would allow the project to go forward,” according to the division’s Dec. 30 release notifying the public about the extension.

The Corps “may be entitled to certain mediation/appeal privileges” with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office for Coastal Management, which heads programs including the National Coastal Zone Management Program and Estuarine Research Reserves and works with coastal states, territories and partners to manage resources and address impacts from climate change.

The division has to render its decision months before the Corps wraps what it says will be a detailed examination to identify all historic and cultural properties within the project study area.

“To ensure historical and cultural sites are identified and evaluated properly, the Corps is executing a study specific Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, the General Services Administration, the North Carolina State Ports Authority, and possibly the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,” Jed Cayton, public affairs specialist with the Corps’ Wilmington District, said in an email responding to questions.

The programmatic agreement, he wrote, is a “commonly applied strategy to protect cultural and historical resources.”

“It facilitates more informed decision-making by allowing time for additional data collection and formal coordination efforts to extend beyond the feasibility study phase,” Cayton said.

The agreement, which is currently being reviewed, must be signed before the agency finalizes project plans, which would occur some time after the Corps releases its final environmental impact statement on the proposed project.

Under a tentative timeline the Corps has shared with the public, the federal agency is expected to release the final EIS sometime this summer.

Construction on the project would not begin until 2030 and take about six years to complete, a schedule Corps officials have said is optimistic.

‘Necessary analysis’

Today, the Orton property spans about 14,000 acres. More than 830 acres of that land, including 6,800 feet of restored and repaired earthen dike and coinciding system of canals, roads, dams, and ditches, around the rice fields is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

In his letter to the division last year, Bacon argued that CAMA protects the historic resources on his land “from irreversible damage and it protects the Property’s significant ecological resources from adverse impacts.”

The draft environmental impact statement, or EIS, the Corps released last September, “does not disclose these obvious impacts,” Bacon wrote.

“There is no analysis in the Draft EIS about the effects of the Project on the Orton Property or the CAMA-protected resources at Orton. None. This analysis cannot be deferred. The Corps’ consistency determination must be supported by ‘comprehensive data and information.’”

“The Corps’ failure to undertake the necessary analysis is the simplest reason that Division should object to the consistency determination,” he continued.

His land is among nearly 30 historic sites and properties the N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources’ State Historic Preservation Office lists as being within the proposed projects area of potential effects.

Last October, that office penned a letter to the Corps requesting the programmatic agreement, “so as to address effects on known and potentially National Register-eligible historic properties to be adversely affected by the proposed undertaking and the regularly scheduled maintenance dredging, spoil placement, and environmental mitigation measures following the proposed undertaking.”

While Corps studies of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project “appear to have focused solely on the physical impacts of dredging the river-bottom, placement of dredged materials, and locations of mitigation measures, we believe from nearly two decades of observation and monitoring erosion at historic properties along the channel that we can expect other effects will result from the proposed project,” the letter states.

Dark Branch

Among the list of 28 sites and properties identified in that letter is Dark Branch, a community in unincorporated Brunswick County where land remains largely owned by the descendants of emancipated slaves.

Dark Branch, also known as Kendall Chapel, was founded in the early 1870s by a handful of formerly enslaved people, including Robert “Hooper” Clark, who’d been forced to work the rice fields of Orton, Lilliput, and Kendal plantations.

The land they purchased between those plantations became “a thriving hub of Black farming, entrepreneurship, and civil rights activism,” according to the Historic Wilmington Foundation.

Dr. Charles Chavis Jr., Clark’s fourth-great-grandson and executive director of the Dark Branch Descendants Association, explained in a telephone interview that there is a direct connection between the cultural resources that have been restored at Orton and those members of the Dark Branch community have taken upon themselves to preserve.

“Everything that Mr. Moore Bacon has sought to preserve is the work of our ancestors and those who were enslaved on the various plantations,” Chavis said. “For us, this is not only about protecting our cultural resources, but also about protecting our community.”

Chavis, an assistant professor at George Mason University and founding director of the university’s John Mitchell Jr. Program for History, Justice, and Race, started the association about three years ago to preserve the community’s history.

There are about 20 historical structures in Dark Branch, including homes, a store, and sharecropping and slave cabins.

Some of those structures, as well as the community cemetery, one Chavis calls one of Dark Branch’s most sacred sites, are under threat of riverine flooding.

“We just can’t afford for it to get worse and we’re working with local organizations to try and get resources around historic resource preservation,” he said. “We’re concerned that any potential harm or more work done to the river is going to make our job as an organization harder to protect the cultural resources that we have. Based on the assessments and our conversations with those we’ve consulted with, it’s not going to get better. It’s going to get worse.”

Dark Branch is a member of the National Park Service’s Reconstruction Era National Historic Network.

According to the Division of State Historic Sites, the Dark Branch Community Historic District was added to the National Historic Preservation Study List in 2024.

Sites that make that list are good potential candidates for the National Register.

The association continues to pursue a nomination for the National Register of Historic Places.

The Dark Branch community lies within the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor, which encompasses 12,000 square miles of coastal area that runs up the southern Atlantic Coast from St. John’s County, Florida, to Pender County.

The corridor links places of historic significance to the Gullah Geechee, West Africans torn from their native land and enslaved on plantations along the southern Atlantic Coast, and tells stories of their lives on the plantations and in the coastal plains after abolition.

Efforts are underway to build the North Carolina Gullah Geechee Greenway Blueway Heritage Trail that will run from Navassa to Southport.

Last summer, the North Carolina General Assembly authorized the trail’s construction.

Veronica Carter, chairwoman of the heritage trail and member of the Leland Town Council, also raised concerns about how the proposed project might affect land within the trail. Carter is also board member with the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review.

“Deepening the Cape Fear River will negatively impact our culturally significant, state-established North Carolina Gullah Geechee Blueway portion of our trail by increasing saltwater intrusion, worsening erosion, and degrading water quality, thereby threatening sensitive habitats,” she wrote Col. Brad Morgan, the Corps’ Wilmington District commander.

The Corps acknowledges that “more surveys are needed to determine the presence of additional historic and cultural properties within the study area,” Cayton said by email. “We have already included conservative cost estimates for this work, based on known resources identified within Wilmington Harbor and experiences at other similar projects, to ensure these resources are properly managed and respected.”

A new bulk cement import terminal at the Port of Morehead City will be built to handle at least five times the volume of the port’s current cement operations.

Silvi Cement’s new terminal will include two 100,000-ton enclosed domes for Type I/II low-alkali cement and Grade 120 slag, complete with 24/7 truck loading capabilities and direct rail loadout, according to a North Carolina Ports release.

“The enclosed domes expand storage capacity and modernize the cement import system by providing a more environmentally friendly, contained operation,” the release states.

“Our expansion into Morehead City marks an exciting new chapter for Silvi Cement and represents a significant investment in the region,” Laurence J. Silvi II, Silvi Materials co-president, stated in the release. “We’re proud to collaborate with NC Ports on this important project and bring new jobs and economic opportunity to the community. The Morehead City terminal will increase the reliability and reach of our cement supply throughout the Southeast, and we look forward to supporting the continued growth of this rapidly developing market.”

Silvi Cement, a division of concrete supplier Silvi Materials based in Pennsylvania, will use a now fully operational temporary cement rail loadout facility supplied by the company’s flagship terminal in Bristol, Pennsylvania, until the new terminal is completed.

The terminal is expected to open in 2027.

“This significant investment underscores Silvi’s commitment to our growing region and market,” North Carolina Ports Executive Director Brian E. Clark stated in the release. “Once complete, the new import terminal will enhance the supply chain for construction materials throughout the Southeast while supporting job creation and overall economic vitality in Morehead City and beyond.”

WILMINGTON — Deepening the Wilmington Harbor would disperse PFAS now mingling in the riverbed’s sediment into marshes and onto public beaches, accelerate erosion, exacerbate flooding, destroy habitat, and is not economically justified, area residents said during a state-hosted public hearing.

Many who spoke at the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management’s hearing in downtown Wilmington Monday night argued that the federal draft environmental statement released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers earlier this fall fails to fully examine potential impacts associated with the proposed project.

The draft study examines different alternatives for the North Carolina State Ports Authority’s aim to accommodate larger container ships at the Wilmington port.

The preferred alternative selected in the study calls for deepening the harbor from 42 to 47 feet, widening the channel in multiple areas, and extending the ocean entrance to the river. These changes would accommodate vessels that can carry 14,000 20-by-8-foot shipping containers, ports officials say.

But several of the nearly 20 people who spoke argued that the proposed project would not benefit the local economy, and its environmental harms would drastically overwhelm any associated economic benefits. About 70 people attended the hearing.

“This project is a poor economic decision given the massive cost compared to the miniscule benefits,” said Jessica Hardee, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “The cost of deepening the harbor and the channel is projected to be over $1 billion. However, the only noted benefit of this project are cost savings to international shipping companies who use the port, not North Carolina or local communities. This project provides little benefit to the Wilmington area and North Carolinians while also threatening significant damage to the coastal region.”

One striking absence from the study is how churning up and moving per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, in the sediment of the lower Cape Fear River might affect the environment, animals that rely on that environment, and human health, some speakers said.

“Even though we all know that there’s PFAS in the sediment of the river, the Corps says we can’t consider that because it’s not a regulated chemical,” said Wilmington resident and geologist Roger Shew.

But PFAS, or similar chemical compounds of which there are more than 14,000 used to make a host of consumer goods from food containers to stain-resistant clothing and carpet, will be regulated by the time the channel would be deepened in the early to mid-2030s, he said.

“And since 15 million of the 35 million cubic yards of dredge material will be used as beneficial placement in marshes on our area beaches, we should know the content of that sediment and potential impacts with sediment placement,” Shew said. “A core function of an (environmental impact statement) is consideration of potential harm. Therefore, they should and must include PFAS in the study.”

A study published late last month found concentrations of 56 PFAS in blood samples obtained from 119 Wilmington residents between 2010 and 2016.

Two chemical compounds – TFA and PFMOAA – were the dominant PFAS in the samples, “despite their likely short half-lives in the human body,” according to the study.

TFA, or trifluoroacetic acid, and PFMOAA, or perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid, are ultrashort-chain PFAS, which are the smallest type of PFAS and hardest to remove from drinking water sources.

The blood samples examined in the study were obtained before the public was made aware in 2017 that an upstream industrial facility had been discharging PFAS directly into the Cape Fear River, the drinking water sources for tens of thousands, since the 1980s.

“While current TFA and PFMOAA levels have likely decreased substantially from those in the historical blood serum samples evaluated here as a result of mandated discharge controls at the upstream fluorochemical manufacturer, this study, along with other recent studies, highlights the importance ultrashort-chain PFAS can play in determining the overall human PFAS burden,” the study states.

Wilmington resident Kaiti Sheehan said the fact that PFAS is not considered in the draft environmental impact statement, or DEIS, “is a slap in the face to residents who are paying for a $42 million granulated active-carbon filtration system and still facing the health consequences that have come from 40 years of contamination from our upstream bad actor.”

“I do genuinely hope that you will look and you will see how much the community has come out tonight in recognition that this is bad for Wilmington and this is bad for North Carolina,” she said.

Others raised concerns about how deepening the harbor to allow for larger ships to travel the 28 miles upriver to the port would increase erosion on the string of bird islands that pepper the lower Cape Fear River and the riverbanks themselves.

The Cape Fear River supports almost 30% of the state’s nesting American oystercatchers.

Audubon North Carolina’s Lindsay Addison, a coastal biologist, said she and her staff are on the Cape Fear River two to three days a week between March and August and at least once during each of the other months of the year.

“We have seen progressively the impacts of the larger and larger classes of ships coming up the river,” she said. “We saw larger, more severe wakes. The DEIS does not take this into account. The Corps, in its beneficial use plan, talks about maybe putting sediment on 2 miles of the shoreline.”

Birds nest on high-tide lines, Addison said. Waves created by a large ship’s wake push water “like a tsunami” over nests and sweep nests away.

“There is no model in the DEIS that accounts for this,” Addison said. “There is no data collection in the DEIS that accounts for this. In fact, there’s no new data collection in the DEIS. They’re relying on data that was already collected. They told us in the stakeholder meeting, flat out, that they’re not going to collected new data so impacts to the migratory birds in the DEIS are not taken into account.”

Officials with the Division of Coastal Management, which is under the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, announced Monday night that the public comment period on the draft study has been extended from Dec. 5 to Dec. 20.

Written comments may be mailed to Federal Consistency Coordinator, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC  28557, or emailed to Federalconsistencycomments@deq.nc.gov with “Federal Consistency: USACE Wilmington Harbor 403 Navigation Project” in the subject line.

More information on the proposed project is on the Corps’ website.

The state agency that manages coastal resources will accept public comment until Dec. 5 on the draft environmental impact statement for a proposed project to deepen and widen portions of the Wilmington Harbor navigation channel.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management the draft document that “evaluates the potential environmental, social, and economic impacts of the proposed project and alternatives in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act,” or NEPA, for the proposed Wilmington Harbor 403 Navigation Project, officials said.

A more thorough description of the proposed federal actions is available online.

The state’s review of the submitted federal consistency determination request will determine if the proposed project in Brunswick and New Hanover counties is consistent with the enforceable policies of North Carolina’s Coastal Management Program, the division notes in a press release.

An in-person public hearing is scheduled for 5:30-7:30 p.m. Monday at Skyline Center, 929 N. Front St., Wilmington. Speaker registration opens onsite at 5 p.m. Speaker time may be limited depending on the number of registered speakers.

The division will accept written comments until 5 p.m. Friday, Dec. 5. Comments should be mailed by 5 p.m. Dec. 5 to Federal Consistency Coordinator, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557, or emailed to Federalconsistencycomments@deq.nc.gov.  Write “Federal Consistency: USACE Wilmington Harbor 403 Navigation Project” in the subject line.

Officials said all comments will be considered in developing the state’s consistency response.

Guest Commentary

To stimulate discussion and debate, Coastal Review welcomes differing viewpoints on topical coastal issues.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently working on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Port of Wilmington’s plan to deepen the Cape Fear River, with the stated goal of accommodating larger cargo ships. As a retired Corps of Engineers senior project engineer, I feel it’s crucial to raise some serious concerns about this initiative.

The North Carolina State Ports Authority has significantly overlooked other viable alternatives, besides incremental deepening, and failed to assess the extensive infrastructure damage that increased freight traffic could inflict on our roads and bridges. This is particularly evident in major new projects like the replacement of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and Wilmington’s Rail Realignment Project. Both are billion-dollar investments intended to accommodate the large volume of new truck and rail freight movement. One only need to look at the definition of the secondary effects as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These secondary effects clearly relate to the need to expand the port’s freight-handling capacity.

Deepening the river will only worsen flooding, affecting areas around the downtown Wilmington waterfront and the historically significant North Carolina Battleship site. It will also lead to a substantial loss of vital wetlands and floodplains due to increasing saltwater intrusion, a value the Ports Authority conveniently understates in its Section 203 report required under the Clean Water Act.

From 1980 to 2017, DuPont, and now Chemours, released vast quantities of hazardous PFAS compounds, polluting nearly 100 miles of the Cape Fear River, including the proposed dredging prisms defined in the port’s set of alternatives. This legacy of contamination must be a central part of the EIS evaluation, as it directly challenges the claimed benefits of the project. Additionally, the reverse osmosis water treatment plant in Brunswick County, which aims to remove PFAS from drinking water, will release highly concentrated PFAS-contaminated wastewater 3 miles upstream of the port. This will further complicate the environmental challenges posed by the proposed dredging project, as well as future dredging operations and maintenance requirements, which once again go unaddressed in the port’s Section 203 report.

Why is this a critical oversight? PFAS clings to or settles into fine sediments like silt and clay found in the soil in and around the dredge-soil prism proposed to be dredged. It’s only logical that when these contaminated sediments are dredged, a safe disposal management plan would be an essential requirement for both federal and state regulators. When PFAS is detected in the dredged sediment, our regulators need to determine whether the material is suitable for placement or disposal, especially regarding upland sites or beach renourishment projects.

The Corps’ “Beneficial Use” strategy aims to repurpose the dredged material as a resource. However, this faces significant hurdles within the scope of this proposed project, as regulators decide how to prevent PFAS from being released back into the environment. The Eagles Island disposal area, which predates NEPA and was built on a previously healthy wetland and floodplain, is not an appropriate site for disposing of contaminated dredged soil because it lacks a liner. Furthermore, researchers in North Carolina and across the globe continue to investigate the damage that PFAS is causing to aquatic ecosystems as it transfers from sediment back into the water column during dredging and placement operations.

Without the Corps thoroughly addressing PFAS contamination, there is zero chance of ensuring the health and well-being of those who rely on the river’s resources in the future. This is particularly important when considering deepening options for the beneficial uses of these contaminated sediments. PFAS contamination adds another layer of complexity that will require extensive testing and could significantly impact project costs and feasibility.

There is no question that this proposed dredging project will certainly disturb sediments, releasing PFAS and other contaminants back into the water, which poses risks to aquatic life and human health.

Key issues include the following:

• Contamination — Dedging stirs PFAS, disrupts water quality.
• Aquatic risks — PFAS can bioaccumulate in marine organisms.
• Health concerns — Contaminated fish and drinking water pose human health risks.
• Regulatory challenges — Lack of consistent state or federal guidelines will create confusion for any of the deepening alternatives proposed under the port’s Section 203 study.

To enable the federal and state governments to properly manage PFAS risks related to deepening or maintenance dredging within the navigation channel, increased testing, ongoing research, development of standards, and best management practices are essential.

PFAS contamination is impacting rivers and harbors across our country. Michigan’s Department of Environment now mandates PFAS testing for sediments in harbor dredging, which is causing project delays, such as in Grand Haven, due to unclear safety standards. The Corps warns that this could reduce dredging operations from 24 to only three to five harbors annually due to rising costs — up to 200% higher with resampling — and the lack of precise guidance.

Given these critical issues, taxpayers should be alarmed by a proposed port project that fails to account for its environmental and infrastructural costs. Suppose we don’t consider the long-term implications of the port’s proposed alterations to our river. In that case, we might find ourselves stuck with unsustainable financial and environmental costs, while the economic benefits remain questionable at best.

It is our river, yet it has been treated as a stepchild compared to other, less critical economic priorities. Standard economic models often overlook the real financial value of natural resources and ecological systems like those on the lower Cape Fear River. Since nature’s “goods and services,” such as clean air, fresh water, and fully functioning floodplains and wetlands, are often considered free, they are becoming overused and undervalued. As I’ve tried to explain here, the degradation of our environment directly affects our citizens, taxpayers, and the species that depend on healthy ecosystems.

As the Corps prepares its EIS, it is essential to find more sustainable alternatives than digging us into a deeper hole that we can’t escape.  If not for us, then how about our kids, grandchildren, and their grandchildren?

If you have an opinion or concerns about this project, please submit your comments to:

By Email: WilmingtonHarbor403@usace.army.mil, or by mail to  ATTN: Wilmington Harbor 403, 69 Darlington Ave., Wilmington, NC 28403, or by comment cards at the public meetings.

Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of Coastal Review or our publisher, the North Carolina Coastal Federation.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District has opened a public comment period on its draft environmental impact statement of the Wilmington Harbor project.

Public comments on the multi-million project to deepen the main channel from a depth of 42 feet to 47 feet will be accepted through Nov. 3.

The Corps’ draft letter report and DEIS are available online.

District officials are scheduled to host an open house from 3-7 p.m. Oct. 8 in downtown Wilmington, where participants will get the opportunity to speak with Corps officials, learn about the conditionally authorized project, ask questions, and provide comments.

The open house will take place in Cape Fear Community College’s Union Station Building, Daniels Hall, 502 N. Front St.

Public comments may be submitted by email to WilmingtonHarbor403@usace.army.mil, by mail to ATTN: Wilmington Harbor 403, 69 Darlington Ave., Wilmington, N.C. 28403, or by comment card at the public meeting.

The Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District has awarded a multimillion-dollar dredge contract to clear shoaling from sections of the Wilmington Harbor.

The Corps last week signed off a $17.12 million contract with Norfolk Dredging Co. to maintain the authorized depth of the harbor’s anchorage basin and mid-river area. The work, which is anticipated to begin sometime later this year, is part of the Corps’ routine harbor maintenance.

“This dredging project will ensure safe and efficient passage for commercial vessels, supporting jobs and commerce throughout the Cape Fear region and beyond,” according to a release. “Regular dredging is essential to remove accumulated sediment, which can impede vessel traffic and limit cargo capacity, thus impacting the Port of Wilmington’s operations and its critical role in the supply chain.”

Norfolk Dredging has been contracted to clear more than 1.8 million cubic yards from the harbor, including 1.15 million cubic yards from the anchorage basin and 730,000 cubic yards from the mid-river reaches, said Jed Cayton, the district’s public affairs specialist, in an email.

The dredged material, most of which is not beach-compatible, will be placed offshore at a permitted disposal site, he said.

Norfolk Dredging is also expected to remove an estimated 1.3 million cubic yards of material from the harbor’s inner ocean bar later this year. The material through this area of the harbor is deemed beach-compatible and is to be placed on Oak Island and Caswell Beach’s ocean shorelines. The project must be completed between mid-November and April 30, 2026.

Later this month, the Corps will open bids for dredging in the harbor’s outer ocean bar, where an estimated 1 million cubic yards of material is expected to be removed between Dec. 1 and April 15, 2026.

More than 1 million cubic yards of sand will be injected onto ocean shores on Oak Island in conjunction with routine maintenance dredging of the Wilmington Harbor.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District announced Monday it has awarded an $18.6 million contract to Norfolk Dredging Co. of Chesapeake, Virginia, to clean out an estimated 1.3 million cubic yards of sand from the Wilmington Harbor Inner Ocean Bar.

The beach-compatible material will be placed on the beaches of the town of Oak Island and Caswell Beach some time during the environmental window, which runs from mid-November through April 30, according to a Corps’ release.

“This dredging project will ensure safe and efficient passage for commercial vessels while also providing the valuable benefit of beach nourishment for Oak Island,” the release states. “Maintenance dredging is a necessary process to remove accumulated sediment from the Inner Ocean Bar, ensuring the harbor maintains its authorized depth. The USACE Wilmington District remains dedicated to its mission of maintaining the nation’s waterways and supporting the economic vitality of the region through projects like this.”

Featured Image

A state Department of Transportation crew works high above the Newport River Tuesday inspecting the underside of the Morehead City-Beaufort high-rise bridge next to the state port. Traffic delays were expected through Friday on this part of U.S. Highway 70 as one lane of travel was planned during daylight hours, or 8 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. Track progress online. Photo: Dylan Ray

Featured Image

Paint crews work high above the deck of the North Carolina Port of Morehead City March 13 as they apply a protective coating to the water tower. Photo: Dylan Ray

WILMINGTON — A study of possible environmental impacts associated with the proposed Wilmington harbor-deepening project is expected to be released in the fall.

The draft environmental impact study examines different alternatives for the North Carolina State Ports Authority’s plan to make room for larger container ships to get to and from the Wilmington port.

The study’s projected release was the latest update U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District officials shared at a public meeting Thursday night.

Fewer than 10 people turned out for the meeting, which follows a series of meetings the Corps hosted last year that touched on topics ranging from how material dredged from the channel might be used to how the project might affect cultural resources along the Cape Fear River.

The ports authority wants to deepen the harbor from 42 to 47 feet, widen the channel in multiple areas and extend the ocean entrance to the river.

Authority officials say the changes are needed to accommodate larger container ships coming from Asia, which would keep the Wilmington port competitive with other East Coast ports.

The changes would accommodate large vessels that can carry 14,000, 20-by-8-foot shipping containers that have been traveling through the Panama Canal since its expansion in 2016.

But a host of concerns have been raised about the proposed project, with environmental experts and advocates arguing that deepening the channel could exacerbate saltwater intrusion through to the Northeast Cape Fear River and adjoining creeks, eradicate fish habitat, harm cultural resources, and disproportionately affect minority communities along the river.

The environmental study is exploring three possible alternatives, including dredging to a depth of 47 feet, which the ports authority prefers, dredging to a depth of 46 feet, or maintaining the current depth and width of the channel.

Once the draft study is published, the Corps will open a 45-day public comment period as part of the required process in creating the final document.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Wilmington District will be providing an update this month about the conditionally authorized project to deepen the Wilmington harbor.

The public engagements scheduled for Feb. 13 in Wilmington will be similar to one the Corps of Engineers hosted last summer, when the public got an opportunity to meet staff and discuss the North Carolina Ports Authority’s proposal to deepen the harbor from 42 feet to 47 feet. The plan also calls for widening the channel in multiple areas and extending the ocean entrance to the Cape Fear River.

The changes are needed to keep the Wilmington port, which is more than 25 miles upriver from the Atlantic Ocean, competitive with other East Coast ports by making room for larger container ships coming from Asia, ports authority officials say.

The changes would accommodate large vessels that can carry 14,000, 20-by-8-foot shipping containers that have been traveling through the Panama Canal since its expansion in 2016.

A public comment period on the project closed last July.

Residents of New Hanover and Brunswick counties and environmental groups have raised several concerns about the project’s potential impacts to fish habitat, cultural resources, minority communities along the river, and saltwater intrusion through to the Northeast Cape Fear River.

Once a draft environmental impact statement on the proposed project is released, the Corps will open a 45-day public comment period on that study.

The public review and comment period is expected to open late this year, with a final environmental impact statement projected to be released fall 2026.

The meeting will be held 7-8 p.m. Feb. 13 at the Boys and Girls Club of Southeastern North Carolina – Brigade Campus, 2759 Vance St., Wilmington.

Additional information about the project may be found online.

The North Carolina State Ports Authority said recently that its fiscal 2024 results were “mixed, yet balanced,” with volumes above budget at both the Wilmington and Morehead City ports.

Financial figures were not included in the July 25 announcement, which are expected to be made public later this year.

“Fiscal Year 2024 marked a robust year for investment in our ports and a record year for intermodal volume, demonstrating NC Ports’ commitment to strengthening the efficient movement of goods across the state of North Carolina and growing multimodal capabilities from port berths to the hinterlands,” North Carolina Ports Executive Director Brian E. Clark said in a statement.

The authority said strong cash flow from operations and state appropriations allowed it to pour $80 million into its Wilmington and Morehead City seaports and its inland facility in Charlotte.

Officials pointed to projects at the Wilmington port including the second phase of the authority’s refrigerated container yard and container yard expansion. They said new warehouse space and berth renovations in Morehead City are nearly complete.

New gantry cranes are on order for both ports to keep pace with what officials characterized as strong general cargo demand.

The authority said state ports moved a record 17,000 containers by rail during the year, 13% above budget.

The Wilmington and Morehead City ports moved nearly 4.2 million short tons of bulk and breakbulk cargo during the year, 5% over budget. Officials said the ports handled “substantial volumes” of natural rubber, steel, lumber, cement, wood chips and wood pellets and noted that the commodities support “everything from U.S. infrastructure, aerospace and the region’s growing automotive industry.”

The authority also noted a nearly $11 million United States Department of Transportation grant through the Maritime Administration’s Port Infrastructure Development Program. The money will go toward relocating the Wilmington port’s north gate closer to the designated truck route and away from neighborhood streets.

The authority noted a groundbreaking for an intermodal rail yard that will expand capacity to more than 50,000 container movements annually.

Officials also noted new roll-on/roll-off business at the Morehead City port. This includes imported finished vehicles such as coach buses and commercial vans and breakbulk and project cargo, including wind turbine blades, nacelles and towers for Timbermill Wind near Edenton.

Morehead City also has a new monthly ConRo liner service that Spliethoff Group launched between Belgium, the UK, and U.S. East Coast.

The authority said North Carolina, like other East Coast ports, faced global challenges in the container market, but there were bright spots.

“Given the challenges felt across the broader container shipping industry in FY24, remaining diversified between containers and general cargo continues to serve us well and remains a focus,” Clark said.

WILMINGTON – The dates may have changed, but the host of concerns raised over the past few years have not as the North Carolina State Ports Authority’s plan to deepen and widen Wilmington Harbor is cast back into the public spotlight.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Wilmington District hosted Thursday its first public meeting since publishing a notice of intent that the agency is preparing an environmental study of the ports authority’s proposal to make room for larger container ships to get to and from the Wilmington port.

The Corps’ notice kickstarts the process in which the public can provide comments, be they questions, suggestions or concerns, on the proposed project.

“We wanted to get this feedback before we invested a lot in our analysis,” said Bret Walters, Wilmington District Planning and Environmental Branch chief. “This is the opportunity to weigh-in very early in the process.”

Walters was among several Army Corps officials on hand at the meeting last week in Sunset Park Elementary School in Wilmington to answer questions and discuss the project with members of the public.

The Corps hosted a series of virtual meetings the first week of this month, each day focusing on specific topics ranging from how material dredged from the channel might be used to how the project might affect cultural resources along the river.

Five years have passed since the ports authority announced its proposal to deepen the harbor from 42 feet to 47 feet, widen the channel in multiple areas, and extend the ocean entrance to the Cape Fear River.

The ports authority maintains that the changes are needed to keep the Wilmington port, which is more than 25 miles upriver from the Atlantic Ocean, competitive with other East Coast ports by making room for larger container ships coming from Asia.

The changes would accommodate large vessels that can carry 14,000, 20-by-8-foot shipping containers that have been traveling through the Panama Canal since its expansion in 2016.

A plethora of concerns have been discussed about the proposed project over the past few years.

Environmental experts and advocates argue that deepening the channel could exacerbate saltwater intrusion through to the Northeast Cape Fear River and adjoining creeks, eradicate fish habitat, harm cultural resources, and disproportionately affect minority communities along the river.

During the virtual meetings held earlier this month, members of the public again posed those concerns to Army Corps officials, offering a new line of questioning about how disturbing the sediment in a river contaminated by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, could further affect its quality.

Carolina Beach resident Anne Terry called the proposed project “very frightening.”

“The fish habitat would be ruined,” she said. “There’ll be erosion. Economically it just isn’t going to make any sense. And, it’s never going to be deep enough. I just don’t run into anybody that thinks this makes sense.”

But the ports authority predicts more cargo will be shipped to the Wilmington port, regardless of the size of the vessels transporting that cargo.

“That cargo is going to come here anyway,” Walter said in one of the virtual meetings hosted at the beginning of June.

That means, if the channel is not deepened, there will be a rise in the frequency of ships traveling to and from the port.

In 2019, then-Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works R.D. James rejected the ports authority’s initial draft study, saying it needed significant revisions before he would pass along his recommendation to Congress for approval.

James approved an updated study the following year, and the proposed project was later conditionally authorized by Congress.

If the Corps’ recommends the conditionally authorized plan to dredge to 47 feet, then that plan will not have to go back to Congress for approval.

Other alternatives to be studied include either no action, which means the current depth and width of the channel would not be changed, or dredging to a depth of 46 feet.

If the Corps recommends an alternative aside from the conditionally authorized plan, then that recommendation will have to go to Congress for approval.

It would be several years before dredging would begin after — or if — the Corps recommends the project.

The public has through July 22 to submit comments to the Corps, which has provided a list of considerations people consider in their comments, including suggestions related to the evaluation of impacts to resources, concerns for themselves and their communities, resources that should be evaluated in the draft environmental impact statement, potential project opportunities, suggestions to alternatives being evaluated in the study, data, studies or reports that would support the analysis in the study, and any information missing in the study.

Once a draft environmental impact statement is released, the Corps will open a 45-day public comment period on that study. The public review and comment period is expected to open in late 2025.

A final environmental impact statement is projected to be released fall 2026.

Public comments may be submitted via any one of the following ways:

• Online.
• Email WilmingtonHarbor403@usace.army.mil.
• Mail to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Harbor 403, 69 Darlington Ave., Wilmington, NC  28403.

Several coastal residents have been appointed to state boards and commissions, and one government official to the North Carolina State Ports Authority, Gov. Roy Cooper’s office announced Monday.

Clean Energy Economic Development Assistant Secretary Jennifer Mundt of Raleigh has been selected as a member at-large to the ports authority board of directors.

Mundt, whose office is part of the North Carolina Department of Commerce, represents the state in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Transformative Partnership for Offshore Wind Energy Resources and the Federal-State Offshore Wind Implementation Partnership.

Alfred L. Hobgood IV of Atlantic Beach has been appointed to the Marine Fisheries Commission as a person actively engaged in recreational sports fishing in coastal waters in North Carolina. Hobgood is the senior vice president and financial adviser at Hobgood Peatross Investment Group of RBC Wealth Management. He has over 24 years of financial services experience.

Joy B. Futrell of Ahoskie has been appointed a director of a local management entity of mental health, developmental disabilities and substance abuse services for North Carolina Brain Injury Advisory Council. Futrell is the CEO of Trillium Health Resources, and former CEO of Roanoke-Chowan Human Services.

Mary Beth Newns of Currituck has been appointed as a representative of emergency managers for North Carolina Emergency Response Commission. Newns is the emergency management director for Currituck County, where she has worked for 22 years.

Benjamin F. Bobzien of Rocky Point has been appointed to the North Carolina Local Governmental Employees’ Retirement System Board of Trustees as an active or retired member of the Firemen’s and Rescue Squad Workers’ Pension Fund. Bobzien is a fire captain with New Hanover County Fire Rescue and has over 24 years of experience in fire service.

Charles Herty Piner III of Morehead City has been appointed to the Morehead City Navigation and Pilotage Commission as a representative of maritime interests. Piner retired after over 20 years as a quality assurance specialist for the North Carolina State Ferry Division. Piner has an extensive career as a tug master and docking pilot at the Morehead City Port.

Visit the governor’s website for a full list of appointments.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers next month is hosting a series of public meetings about the Wilmington Harbor deepening project.

Officials with the Corps’ Wilmington District will present information about the conditionally authorized project to deepen the harbor channel to a depth of 47 feet through four virtual public meetings, followed by an in-person meeting.

The meetings are being hosted to educate participants on “when and how to engage, the type of input that will be helpful, and have adequate project information,” according to a Corps release.

The Corps and North Carolina State Ports Authority have partnered to conduct an evaluation of technical and policy concerns raised in a May 2020 review of the port authority’s February 2020 Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, feasibility study. That study resulted in conditional authorization in Section 403 of WRDA.

The evaluation, referred to as a letter report, and environmental impact statement are estimated to cost $85 million and take about four years to complete.

Virtual public meetings will be held between 1-3 p.m. and include specific topics on the following dates:

• June 4: Plan formulation, National Environmental Policy Act, cultural resources, social effects, and economics.
• June 5: Ecological resources.
• June 6: Physical resources.
• June 7: Beneficial use of dredged material.

An in-person meeting will be hosted 3-7 p.m. June 13 at Sunset Park Elementary School, 613 Alabama Ave., Wilmington.

Virtual meeting links, information about the project and how to submit comments can be found on the Wilmington District’s website.

WILMINGTON — The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Air Quality said Wednesday it had granted a Title V air quality permit to CTI of North Carolina Inc. for its newly acquired Wilmington Terminal.

On Dec. 1, Colonial Terminals Inc., a division of Savannah-based Colonial Group Inc., acquired the Buckeye Terminal at 1312 S. Front St. on the Cape Fear River. The terminal, which has about 550,000 barrels of storage capacity, is next to an existing bulk terminal that CTI owns and operates.

The new air quality permit increases the permit class for the facility from synthetic minor to Title V, which the division said was required due to the ownership change. CTI of North Carolina’s neighboring major source bulk chemical terminal with its own Title V air quality permit at 1002 S. Front St., and the former Buckeye Terminal are now considered a single entity for permitting purposes.

The division said the new permit does not include any physical or operational changes. CTI plans to continue operating the Wilmington Terminal facility with the existing throughput limits and existing control devices, including vapor combustion units that reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds. Emissions will not increase, officials said.

As a major source Title V facility, the Wilmington Terminal, according to the division, is now subject to more frequent inspections and more stringent reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The final permit includes conditions that ensure ambient levels of all pollutants beyond the facility’s fence line comply with emission standards, including applicable health-based standards.

CTI said in December that the deal increased its storage infrastructure in Wilmington to more than a million barrels, 70 acres and over a half mile of river frontage. The terminals store products including industrial and specialty chemicals and petroleum.

“Wilmington is a gateway to the growing Southeastern US market, and we believe this acquisition strongly positions our team to support current and new customer growth far into the future,” said CTI President Ryan Chandler, in the December announcement.

With the addition of the new facility, CTI now operates seven terminals, five in Georgia and two in Wilmington, with a total liquid capacity of approximately eight million barrels and a total dry capacity of approximately 200,000 tons of vertical storage, 400,000 square feet of covered flat storage, and significant outside storage acreage. Each terminal is strategically located in close proximity to a world-class container port and provides access to ocean and landside (road and rail) logistics networks, as well as global and regional sourcing and distribution pathways.

The division said it conducted enhanced public engagement to solicit comments on a draft of the air permit, sharing project information in English and Spanish with local governments, health departments, places of worship, schools, day cares and community organizations.

Division staff thoroughly reviewed the comments received and addressed all comments in the final permit review, according to the announcement.

Copies of the final permit, final permit review, final environmental justice report, permit application, and a one-page project fact sheet are available online.

Those white blades the length of a city block that have been at the North Carolina Port at Morehead City the last few weeks are destined for great heights.

Vestas, a wind turbine company based in Portland, Oregon, manufactured the onshore wind turbine components, which arrived in mid-March from India on cargo ships, including the 528-foot-long BBC Norway and 529-foot-long Basilisk, at the state’s deep-water port in Carteret County.

The 242-foot-long blades are for the roughly 6,300-acre Timbermill Wind, a 45-turbine energy facility currently under construction in rural Chowan County near Edenton. Timbermill Wind is a project of Apex Clean Energy in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Apex Senior Community Relations Manager Natasha Montague explained Wednesday that turbine components for the project are being delivered from Morehead City to the Riverbulk barge terminal outside of Edenton on the Chowan River. From there, they will then be transported to the wind energy facility site off Bear Swamp Road, north of Edenton.

The turbine installation is to start this summer, and the project is on track to start commercial operations in early 2025, Montague said. “Construction is well underway, with over 150 workers on site.”

The Chowan County location was chosen because it’s a verified wind resource, has existing onsite transmission lines and roads, expansive rural timber and agricultural lands, and it avoids sensitive military and environmental areas, according to Apex.

“The 45 wind turbines at Timbermill Wind will be capable of producing up to 189 (megawatts) of clean, homegrown energy, enough energy to power up to 47,000 homes every year,” Montague said.

There are monthly construction updates on the Timbermill website, she added. Recently, workers have been readying for the turbines to be delivered.

Timbermill Wind is expected to produce more than $80 million in direct economic benefits over the project’s 30-year lifetime,​ plus dependable long-term revenue for local farmers and landowners, Montague added. “Approximately $33 million will be paid in taxes to Chowan County taxing districts, making the project Chowan County’s largest taxpayer.”

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Climate Advocacy Director Chris Carnevale explained to Coastal Review that wind energy is an important resource to use so “we all can have a reliable, low-cost, and environmentally responsible electricity system.”

Carnevale added that wind energy has a key role to play in a diverse portfolio of clean energy resources for providing reliable power 24/7.

“While we in the Southeast have mostly focused offshore for wind energy potential in our region, modern technology has made land-based wind energy, like the Timbermill project, a valuable opportunity that we should be taking advantage of,” Carnevale said. “Land-based wind farms, like Timbermill, not only provide reliable, low-cost power, but also serve as major sources of economic development and funding for rural communities and local residents.”

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources issued the permit for the onshore wind energy facility to Apex in March 2023. State officials said this permit is the first for a facility under a state law passed in 2013 that establishes a permitting program for wind energy facilities.

“Timbermill Wind has been a project of many ‘firsts’, and that’s a big deal. This project was the first in the state to receive approval from state regulators, which has helped to pave the way for future projects,” Southeastern Wind Coalition Program and Outreach Manager Karly Lohan said.

“Timbermill Wind is also the first project in North Carolina that achieved 40% domestic content for its manufactured components, allowing it to qualify for the 10% domestic content adder through the Inflation Reduction Act,” Lohan added. “This is just another example of how land-based wind development can invigorate North Carolina’s manufacturing supply chain and support economic growth across the entire state.”

In August, Apex and Google announced a power purchase agreement for the full 189-megawatt capacity of Timbermill Wind. This commitment, according to the announcement, is to support “Google’s 2030 commitment to powering its operations with carbon-free energy around the clock.”

Currently, North Carolina only has one commercial-grade onshore wind farm in operation: the 104-turbine Amazon Wind Farm U.S. East, powered by Avangrid Renewables, near Elizabeth City. The 208 MW facility, which has more than 500 workers, began delivering power in December 2016, and generates enough energy to power the equivalent of about 61,000 U.S. homes per year.

The Department of Energy has recognized the advantages and disadvantages of wind power.

Benefits are that the industry creates good-paying jobs, wind is a domestic resource that enables economic growth, benefits local communities, and is affordable, clean and renewable.

The challenges include competing with other low-cost energy sources, connecting the energy from the wind facility sites to where it’s needed, turbine noise and appearance, and impacts on wildlife.

According to a Global Wind Energy Council study released Tuesday, the United States is one of the top five markets for new wind installations, along with China, Brazil, Germany and India.

Worldwide, the wind industry has installed what the council said is a “record 117 GW of new capacity in 2023.” The council is a member-based organization made up of companies, organizations and institutions across 80 counties.

 “New installations in the onshore wind market passed the milestone of 100 GW while new offshore wind capacity commissioned last year reached nearly 11 GW, making 2023 the highest and the second-highest year in history for new wind installations for onshore and offshore, respectively,” states the Global Wind Report 2024. “116.6 GW of new wind power capacity was added to the power grid worldwide in 2023, 50% more than in 2022, bringing total installed wind capacity to 1,021 GW, a growth of 13% compared with last year.”

Currently, there are 16 active primary wind manufacturing plants in 12 states, and 450 wind-related manufacturing facilities in the United States supporting more than 20,000 manufacturing jobs.

Since the Inflation Reduction Act became law in August 2022, 123 new manufacturing facilities or facility expansions have been announced, the report states. This includes 12 onshore wind power manufacturing facilities, nine offshore wind facilities, 78 solar facilities, 20 grid-scale battery storage facilities or facility expansions and four grid connection facilities.

“From this total, 44 facilities have either completed or are currently under construction. Once all in operation, these 120+ facilities will support nearly 42,000 new manufacturing jobs.”

Harbors at North Carolina’s state ports cannot be dredged year-round, a U.S. District judge ruled earlier this fall.

The Army Corps of Engineers reinstated the seasonal dredging window for hopper dredging of the harbors at the ports in Morehead City and Wilmington after the judge’s Sept. 26 ruling.

“That made clear that the Corps was working to ensure that hopper dredging would not happen during the summer, this upcoming summer and until further notice, which is good news for coastal wildlife,” said Ramona McGee, the Southern Environmental Law Center senior attorney who represented the environmental groups that challenged the Corps’ move to lift the environmental window on hopper dredging.

“It’s an exciting decision confirming that the Corps failed to grapple with the facts before it and violated the law and how it went about its inadequate environmental review,” she said.

Officials in the Corps’ Wilmington District declined to comment citing potential future litigation.

The U.S. Department of Justice did not reply to requests for comment.

Federal agencies have 60 days to file an appeal to a court’s judgement, which means that the Corps’ has until later this month to decide its next move.

The Corps in 2021 entered an agreement with the state to drop the hopper dredging window, which is Dec. 1 to April 15, citing the need for more flexibility to maintain the deep-draft channels and save millions of dollars.

The Corps is able to lower costs for its harbor maintenance projects by obtaining regional contracts, which gives the agency a better shot at securing hopper dredges to work in harbors across a region rather than one state.

There are only 13 hopper dredges for the East Coast from Maine to Florida and across the Gulf Coast to Texas.

The Wilmington District is under the Corps’ Regional Harbor Dredge Contract, or RHDC, which includes the agency’s districts in Charleston, South Carolina, and Savannah, Georgia.

Under an agreement with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management signed off in early 2021, the Corps was allowed to clear the outer portions of the channels at the ports using a hopper dredge and bed leveling, where plow-like equipment is used to level out ridges and trenches created during dredging, any time of the year through Dec. 31, 2023.

The Corps agreed to monitor and report dredging and bed-leveling impacts on various species and their environment within the channels.

The Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, the North Carolina Wildlife Federation and Defenders of Wildlife, filed a lawsuit Aug. 4, 2021, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina that argued the Corps failed to conduct a full and accurate environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

“Even the Army Corps of Engineers implemented this decades-old policy of restricting dredging to the winter months based on the agency’s science and observations at that time,” McGee said.

Several fish species are present in the project areas between the months of April and June. Those include Atlantic sturgeon, American Atlantic sturgeon, American shad, river herring, shad, white shrimp, blue cap, gag grouper and summer flounder.

Protections for federally listed species, including Atlantic sturgeon, are included in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion, or SARBO, for dredging and material placement.

U.S. District Judge Louise Flanagan did not direct the Corps to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, but remanded any decision by the Corps to conduct such a study “for further consideration.”

“We haven’t heard whether or not the agency will do an EIS or an EA,” McGee said. “Fundamentally, the court’s order does mean the Army Corps of Engineers is required to go back to the drawing board with their NEPA analysis and fix the flaws that the court identified.”

Hopper dredges are preferable to maintain portions of harbors leading to the state’s ports because they are more efficient, safer and economical compared to other types of dredges, according to an assessment by the Corps. The dredges vacuum material from the channel floor and hold that material onboard the vessel.

A cargo ship departs the North Carolina Port of Wilmington. Photo: State Ports Authority

WILMINGTON – A presidential executive order directing federal agencies to expedite environmental reviews of infrastructure projects has some locals questioning whether the Wilmington Harbor Navigation Improvement Project could be on the fast-track list.

President Trump’s June 4 order calls for agencies to invoke emergency powers to speed up the environmental review and permitting of infrastructure projects.

Trump cited the need to help the national economy recover from the current health crisis, saying, “Unnecessary regulatory delays will deny our citizens opportunities for jobs and economic security, killing millions of Americans out of work and hindering our economic recovery from the national emergency.”

Critics of the order clapped back, arguing the executive order ignores environmental laws, including those under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and strips the public of having a voice in the process.

That’s troubling, she said, “especially for the port project which has a myriad of detrimental impacts. We won’t know the full scope of those impacts unless and until the federal government completes those necessary reviews. This project has enormous environmental consequences when you think about just the expanse of ecosystems and the expanse of associated impacts. It’s enormous and must be fully reviewed and vetted by the public.”

Dave Connolly, public affairs chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Wilmington district, said in an email last week that the Army secretary and all other federal government agency heads were directed to submit reports addressing the initial requirements of the executive order to the Office of Management and Budget no later than Friday, July 3.

“USACE is working through what the (executive order) means and what the implications are, and will provide that information to (the) Army to meet its reporting requirements,” he said. “We are unable to comment further on the EO at this time.”

NEPA on hold

About a year has passed since Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works R.D. James kicked back the North Carolina Ports Authority’s feasibility study to the authority, saying it needed significant revisions before receiving his stamp of approval.

The proposed project includes deepening the main shipping channel through the Cape Fear River from 42 feet to 47 feet and the ocean entrance to the river from 44 feet to 47 feet. The plan also recommends widening the channel in multiple areas.

Ports officials say the new depths and widths would allow the Wilmington port to remain competitive with other East Coast ports by making room for larger container ships from Asia.

The project cannot move forward without James’ recommendation for approval by Congress.

The ports authority has submitted revisions of the study to the secretary’s office and is awaiting a decision, which essentially has put the NEPA process on hold.

Under the amended Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act signed into law by President Trump in 2018, ports are allowed to jump-start projects by paying for their own feasibility and environmental studies rather than wait for federal funding.

Nonfederal projects must receive federal authorization and go through the NEPA process in order to receive federal funds under Section 203.

Under NEPA, a project’s impacts to the public must be thoroughly reviewed and disclosed to the public.

But some, including attorneys for Bald Head Island, have argued that the public should have been involved at the onset of the ports authority’s Section 203 process.

Port officials said they reached out to local officials for input as well as hosted a public meeting about the proposed project.

Last fall, the Corps opened a 30-day comment period on the proposed harbor project. Those comments will be reviewed as part of the preparation for the draft environmental impact study, or DEIS.

Among those comments was a letter from the Brunswick County branch of the NAACP, which raised several concerns about the proposed project’s potential affects to the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor, environmental justice communities and the overall environment of the Cape Fear River and adjoining waterways.

The branch argued that the ports’ study largely ignores the corridor.

“I know how important the port is to the economy of Wilmington but when we sit down and take a look at the risks of uncertainties what are the tradeoffs?” said Brayton Willis, a member of the branch’s environmental justice and climate committee. “To me, there’s a lot of unanswered questions and if congress drives down a single solution, a single alternative with this Trump executive order to streamline NEPA I think we’ve done a great disservice to our country, our environment and our citizens. To just limit public participation to one alternative makes it even worse.”

Brunswick County branch NAACP President Carl Parker, whose great-great-grandmother was enslaved on Orton Plantation, spent his childhood along the banks of the Cape Fear River that would be impacted by this proposed project.

His family fished the river and grew crops on their land not far from the river bank before the federal government took the land through eminent domain to establish Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point.

He recalled stories of how his father, who worked at the port once it opened, used winches to offloaded ships much smaller than the ones that sail to and from the port today.

“By them going and dredging out the river it has impacted a lot of people because now the fishermen don’t catch the fish they used to catch because the oxygen levels aren’t what they used to be,” Parker said. “I have a little bit more personal interest because of my raising up and haven’t forgot what it looked like before. It’s gotten to be so political and with the impact of the dredging and the larger ships going in for the ports to grow and be competitive with the other ports I’m just in a whirlwind of where this thing is going to take us.”

Will it make the list?

 Whether or not Wilmington Harbor Navigation Project will be identified as a project that should be expedited under emergency powers depends on how the Corps interprets the executive order, McGee said.

Federal agencies have for some time had the authority to invoke emergency provisions to expedite permitting.

Cases in which those provisions have be executed have, for the most part, been aimed in response to crises relating to natural disasters or industrial accidents.

According to an article published by global law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Interior and the Corps, must submit lists of pending projects based on their potential to positively impact the national economy.

“Due to their central role in major infrastructure projects, certain federal departments have received more targeted directives,” the article states. “For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Transportation are specifically instructed to expedite ‘all authorized and appropriated’ projects within their jurisdictions.”

What that means for the proposed harbor navigation project is unclear.

“I don’t see why the Wilmington harbor enhancement deepening program wouldn’t be a part of this,” said Sen. Harper Peterson, D-New Hanover. “Obviously you have to balance economic development with environmental and cultural interests and equity. That’s the purpose of the NEPA program. In the long run it benefits everyone. What the haste for this is or why we’re trying to run around the NEPA process is perplexing. What really grates against all the interest groups is when you don’t include them and this seems to be an example of that.”

Rep. Deb Butler, D-New Hanover, said the Section 203 process has given people a feeling that the decision on the proposed project is preordained.

“As I understand this, these projects would still be subject to (the Water Resources Development Act), but the concern is that the way this is developing, it really is short-cutting public notice and public comments and it’s really gutting NEPA,” she said.

“That certainly would be a very terrible eventuality because this is an enormous project, the effects of which are far reaching and perhaps of which are unknown and so the more eyes on it the better. The port is an enormous economic engine and we want it to be successful and productive, but any project of this magnitude has to be thoroughly and thoughtfully vetted,” Butler continued. “I feel like the port is nimble, they are successful, they are very competitive relative to their larger counterparts on the East Coast. But, at the same time, we have enough environmental challenges.”

Second in a series

WILMINGTON – Dredging, sandbags and sand-filled tubes, beach renourishment projects and a terminal groin – all have added up to millions spent to combat erosion on the Village of Bald Head Island’s beaches.

Within the past 15 years, more than $47 million has been spent on a multitude of erosion mitigation projects on Bald Head’s shores where, island officials maintain, sand loss has been exacerbated since 2000 when the Cape Fear River’s navigation channel was deepened, widened and realigned closer to the island’s west and south beaches.

The village took the fight to protect its beaches to court in a December 2010 lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers. The lawsuit alleged the Corps was in breach of contract of its dredge-and-sand-disposal schedule to return dredged, beach-quality sand every two years during a six-year cycle onto the island’s shoreline.

A district court judge dismissed the lawsuit. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4^th Circuit upheld the district court judge’s ruling.

The North Carolina State Ports Authority is initiating another harbor project, one that proposes to further deepen and widen the river channel to accommodate larger ships sailing from Asia to the East Coast.

“We do know that the channel, to date, has done a lot of damage to the beaches and we’ve had to spend $47 million protecting those beaches,” said Bill Cary, an attorney representing the island. “The current draft report does not commit to placing sand on the beaches. It does not evaluate any erosion impacts. And, now they’re making it bigger, deeper, wider?”

Meaningful public involvement

Cary, who is with the law firm Brooks Pierce, said island officials have not been given the opportunity to adequately voice their concerns through the process under which the ports authority is pursuing federal authorization and congressional approval for the harbor project.

Under amendments signed into a law a year ago for Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, ports can pay for project feasibility studies and environmental reports rather than wait for federal funding to cover the costs of those studies.

Nonfederal sponsored projects have to get federal authorization before moving forward and, in order to receive federal funds, projects must complete the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, process, which is headed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

NEPA includes soliciting public comments.

But Cary argues that the public should have been given the opportunity to provide input throughout the Section 203 study process.

In a letter dated Aug. 29 to North Carolina State Ports Authority Executive Director Paul Cozza, Cary wrote that the ports authority’s report “was prepared essentially behind closed doors, without public input.”

“The lack of public input affects the analyses and conclusions of the entire NCSPA Report,” he wrote. “An after-the-fact NEPA review (as NCPA now proposes) cannot cure the failure to involve the public from the outset.”

“The lack of public input affects the analyses and conclusions of the entire NCSPA Report.”

Bill Cary, attorney

Cary goes on to write that the ports authority should withdraw the report and “fully involve the public in the scoping and analyses required, as contemplated by the Section 203.”

“Given the history of the Channel’s impacts on Bald Head Island, the exclusion of the Village and the public from any meaningful input into the design and plan of NCSPA’s proposed project is all the more troubling,” Cary said.

The ports authority hosted a public information meeting on the proposed project on Aug. 8, 2018.

“There was no speaker,” Cary said. “There was no question and answer period. We had fully expected that public scoping and public involvement means public meetings. There weren’t any other subsequent public meetings.”

Bethany Welch, the ports authority’s senior manager of communications and business outreach, said in an email that the ports made multiple efforts to reach out to elected officials in surrounding communities throughout the Section 203 study process.

Welch said that in February the ports executive team met with Bald Head Island officials to talk about the Section 203 process and “create an open dialogue, and to answer any questions or address any concerns.”

Village Manager Chris McCall said that meeting was the first and only one island officials have had with ports officials.

“They talked about the project, but they were still in the working stages of the feasibility study and at the time they didn’t have much in the way of details,” McCall said. “Up to this point there hasn’t been much in the way of public involvement and that needs to happen as this thing moves forward. For folks to think that the channel has zero effect on Bald Head Island is not accurate to say. We’re not looking to fuel any flames on this. We just want to make sure the process is followed correctly and that we have opportunity to work with them. If it happens we just want to make sure there are things in there like the mitigation funding that will help with costs of things down the road.”

Audubon North Carolina Executive Director and National Audubon Society Vice President Andrew Hutson said in a statement that the project could be an opportunity to create and protect bird habitat.

“As we saw from a similar harbor project in 2000, this effort could have significant impacts on birds,” he said. “But there’s a huge opportunity here to turn lemons into lemonade. Dredged material and other long-term mitigation measures can create and protect bird habitat. We will be following the process closely to make sure we don’t lose this opportunity.”

The ports authority has established the email address WH203study@ncports.com for the public to submit questions, comments or concerns.

The ports will continue to update its website with up-to-date information as it becomes available, Welch said.

“It is our goal to be as transparent as we can throughout the duration of this project,” she said. “We encourage any and all public feedback.”

NEPA process just beginning

During a public scoping meeting hosted Sept. 26 by the Corps of Engineer’s Wilmington district, Cary pressed Corps staff about the Section 203 study process.

Jenny Owens, the district’s environmental resources section chief, told the crowd of roughly 30 people gathered in a room of the Coastline Convention Center in downtown Wilmington that the Corps is at the very beginning of the NEPA process.

She said the Corps is waiting for the ports authority’s response to the Office of the Secretary of the Army for Civil Work’s review of the Section 203 report.

The Corps last month opened a 30-day public comment period on the proposed harbor project.

Those comments will be reviewed as part of the preparation for the draft environmental impact study, or DEIS.

The DEIS will identify resources that exist in the proposed project area, including fisheries and river bottom habitat, threatened and endangered species, and human and cultural resources. The study will examine the potential impacts the proposed project to those resources, water and air quality, and potential hazardous and toxic wastes.

Comments will be accepted at WHNIP203@usace.army.mil through Oct. 12.

The Corps will continue to solicit public input throughout the NEPA process, which could take at least a year or more to complete.

Learn more

• Read Part 1: Federal Review Finds Port Study Deficient

Next: Was the draft report credible?

WILMINGTON – The North Carolina State Ports Authority’s proposed Wilmington harbor project area includes a congressionally designated cultural corridor, one a local branch of the NAACP is urging federal regulators to protect.

The Brunswick County branch of the nation’s oldest civil rights organization has raised a number of concerns in its comments to the Army Corps of Engineers’ Wilmington District about the proposed project’s potential affects to the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor, environmental justice communities as well as the overall environment of the Cape Fear River, and adjoining waterways.

“The point that we were making in the letter is that this is a congressionally designated heritage corridor,” said Brayton Willis, a member of the branch’s environmental justice and climate committee. “We’re pointing out the importance of recognizing this historic and culturally significant area and I think it’s incumbent upon those that want to do work in these areas that they not only look at protecting and preserving the historic nature of that area, but also make sure that we deal with issues of environmental justice as well.”

The civil rights organization submitted its comments last week on the project, which would widen and deepen the harbor channel to make way for larger container ships being used in Asia.

Willis, a retired Corps senior project manager and strategic planner, said that the heritage corridor has received little to no acknowledgement in the ports authority’s draft feasibility study or previous projects, including the Cape Fear River Crossing highway-bridge.

Work on that proposed project came to a halt in August after transportation officials determined it lacked enough public support to fund.

“In that case the heritage corridor was not recognized as well,” Willis said. “What we did and will continue to do is to put a spotlight on this and other critical issues such as global warming. We’re going to pay hard attention to projects like this as we move forward.”

The Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor runs up the East Coast from Florida to just shy of Jacksonville and extends 30 miles from the coast inland. It is one of 55 designated National Heritage Areas throughout the country and one of two in North Carolina, according to the National Park Service.

Gullah Geechee are descendants of Africans enslaved on rice, indigo and Sea Island cotton plantations of the lower Atlantic Coast.

The NAACP’s Brunswick branch asks the Corps to work with the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission, the National Park Service and the local Gullah Geechee community to avoid, minimize and mitigate any potential impacts.

“We also encourage the (Corps) to reach out and engage local Gullah Geechee groups and individuals in our community and other (environmental justice) communities in a meaningful way to solicit their input on this project,” the letter states.

The organization also asks the Corps to identify environmental justice communities within and adjacent to the project area and evaluate impacts associated with increased river and highway traffic, noise and the potential to introduce invasive species, as well as impacts to fisheries and water and air quality.

The letter states that one of the group’s greatest concerns is how the proposed harbor project will impact environmental resources in the face of global warming.

“We are now witnessing king tides, rising seas levels, and the incredible damage caused by recent hurricanes and major storms. We ask that your evaluation of this project look well forward into the future and contain a thorough examination of the full range of risks and uncertainties related to greenhouse gas emission impacts and required mitigation. We strongly suggest that USACE review and analyze the findings and observations related to climate change and its impacts on stream flow and runoff patterns as well as the warming of lakes and rivers, with effects on thermal structure and water quality.”

The Corps is in the beginning stages of reviewing the proposed project through the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, process. Through NEPA, the Corps will assess likely environmental impacts of the proposed project and project alternatives.

First in a series

This story has been updated to correct a misstatement regarding the Wilmington port’s 2017 cargo statistics.

WILMINGTON – The Wilmington Harbor Navigation Project is the first in the United States to be funneled through a national review process that gives ports more flexibility in building their projects.

Ports are allowed under the amended Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act signed into law a year ago by President Trump to kick off projects more expeditiously by paying for their own feasibility and environmental studies rather than waiting for federal funding.

Under Section 203, nonfederal projects have to receive federal authorization and go through the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, process in order to receive federal funds.

As it stands, the North Carolina State Ports Authority’s draft feasibility study must be heavily revised before it would pass muster, according to a federal review of the study.

The feasibility study and the process under which it was conducted are also being criticized by at least one beach town questioning how the proposed project to widen and deepen the harbor channel might affect its beaches.

‘Needs significant revisions’

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works R.D. James would not likely make a “positive determination of project feasibility” based on the current draft study, according to the secretary’s office and Army Corps of Engineers’ headquarters staff.

Without James’ recommendation for approval by Congress, the project cannot move forward.

His office in July released a review summarizing the ports’ feasibility study/environmental report as one that needs “significant revisions before it would be considered to be legally and policy sufficient.”

The 15-page review details deficiencies in the ports authority’s report, including the lack of a thorough economic analysis.

“North Carolina Ports is in the process of writing its comments to the Office of the Secretary of the Army for Civil Work,” Bethany Welch, the ports’ senior manager of communications and business outreach, said in an email.

The draft feasibility study calls for deepening the main shipping channel through the Cape Fear River from 42 feet to 47 feet and the ocean entrance to the river from 44 feet to 47 feet. The plan also recommends widening the channel in multiple areas.

Those new depths and widths would allow the Wilmington port to remain competitive with other East Coast ports by making room for larger container ships coming to the East Coast from Asia.

Ports officials say the changes would accommodate vessels that can carry 14,000 20- by 8-foot shipping containers.

Ships of this size can now be navigated through the Panama Canal, a newly expanded portion of which opened in June 2016.

In order for these larger ships to call at the Wilmington port, the width of the port’s turning basin also needs to be expanded by 124 feet, ports authority officials say.

The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management earlier this year rejected the ports authority’s application for a Coastal Area Management Act major permit modification to widen the turning basin.

The ports authority appealed the denial and, last April, the Coastal Resources Commission granted a variance for the project, which includes dredging 17.76 acres designated primary nursery area, or PNA, and the excavation of a little more than one acre of coastal wetlands.

In its variance request, the ports authority said that without the turning basin expansion, the Wilmington port “would lose the ability for North Carolina to maintain presence in the global container shipping market,” which would, in turn, adversely impact the state’s economy.

That argument is one of several points of concern discussed in the federal policy review assessment, which states that the planning objectives in the draft feasibility study are unclear and “could potentially lead to the pre-selection of an alternative plan.”

The review goes on to state that the ports authority’s feasibility study lacks documentation from shipping companies supporting the argument that those companies would not use the port.

The study appears to overestimate future shipping projections from the Asia route, according to the review.

The ports’ economic analysis assumes that by 2025, 272,615 vessels from the Asia route would use the Wilmington port. That’s nearly double the number of ships – 179,713 – from non-Asia routes projected to call at the port within that same time period.

The Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, or WCSC, indicates that the Wilmington port handled 178,865 TEUs, or twenty-foot equivalent units — a measure of shipping container volume, during 2017.

The ports authority’s study projects a 137% increase in shipping traffic between 2017 and 2025.

“It appears that the commodity forecast has been significantly overestimated,” the review states. “Correcting that error would result in a dramatic reduction in project benefits.”

The review also calls into question the study’s assumption that 100 percent of the shipping fleet from Asia will transition to the largest shipping container vessels, a presupposition that the review says is “unrealistic.”

Environmental considerations

The feasibility study also lacks information about alternative dredging depths, the potential implications of those alternative depths to the environment, and the effects of sea level rise.

Maintaining the port for the next 50 years to accommodate larger ships from Asia “seems to be a corporate objective rather than a planning objective,” and that “it seems that depths between 42’ and 46’ were eliminated from consideration due to flawed objectives,” according to the assessment.

Jerry Diamantides, senior economist with contractor David Miller & Associates, told the authority’s board of directors in August that the feasibility study showed that deepening the channel to 47 feet would have only minor environmental impacts.

But the study should look beyond channel depth increments and include detailed alternatives such as relocating facilities, according to the federal assessment.

Federal reviewers also said the report understates environmental effects of the project, including its impact on river bottom habitats. The study needs to more accurately describe the long-term or permanent effects the project will have on that habitat, according to the assessment.

The port authority’s environmental study also needs to fully integrate impacts of sea level rise, including future changes in water levels, saltwater intrusion, and induced flooding.

It is unclear when the ports authority will turn over a revised study to Washington. Ports authority officials have said they hope James will recommend the project to Congress before November 2020.

Next: Lack of public input at issue

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Walter B. Jones has asked the Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate all possible outcomes of its proposal to move the Morehead City Port channel 700 feet west, away from Shackleford Banks and toward Atlantic Beach, the Carteret County News-Times reported.

Jones wrote that he “fully support(s) the Corps’ mission to maintain the channel and support navigation” in a Nov. 28 letter to Col. Robert Clark of the Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Office. Jones added that he also understood the Corps’ proposal to shift the navigation channel away from Shackleford Banks with the hope to reduce dredging needs and ease navigation.

“While I support these goals, I share concerns that the Corps has not evaluated potential impacts to the adjacent beaches and Fort Macon State Park,” Jones continued in the letter. He urged the Corps to fully investigate any ramifications of moving the western boundary of the channel, including effects on adjacent beaches, before going ahead.

Greg Rudolph, manager of the Carteret County Shore Protection office, raised issue with the proposed boundary move last month.

He wrote a letter to the Corps asking that measures be taken to ensure the move won’t result in serious erosion of the eastern end of Bogue Banks. Rudolph also requested that the Corps prepare a full environmental impact statement or a mitigated finding of no significant impact before moving forward.

Rudolph said the issue dates back to when the eastern end of Shackleford Banks began rapidly eroding into the port channel about a decade ago. The type of dredging now required has become more costly and as a result the Corps is looking for ways to reduce the amount of dredging needed to keep the port open. However, he added, the steps to do that should not come at the cost of erosion at Fort Macon and Atlantic Beach.

Learn More

• Full Story in the Carteret County News-Times