Wilmington port project encounters ‘some turbulence’

(Part 3 in a Series)

Is it worth it?

In 2020, the North Carolina State Ports Authority and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began exploring a plan to deepen and widen the Cape Fear River to attract larger cargo ships to the Port of Wilmington.

 

One of the groups that has been closely monitoring the proceedings is Clean Cape Fear, a grassroots organization that is concerned about public health and cleanliness of the river water.

 

Clean Cape Fear’s leadership criticized the USACE for “ignoring the region’s most urgent threat: PFAS contamination.”

The group asserts that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) “contains no PFAS analysis at all, despite years of documented upstream pollution and clear science showing that dredging can release buried contaminants.”

Here are the members of the Clean Cape Fear leadership team, from left: Emily Donovan, Lacey Brown, Rebecca Trammel, Jessica Cannon and Harper Peterson.

“The Corps studied turbidity and fish habitat but skipped the very chemicals driving enforcement actions in this watershed,” commented a Clean Cape Fear spokesperson.

“Even more troubling, no agency, university or nonprofit has tested PFAS sediment levels in the precise stretch of river targeted for excavation. Without baseline data, the public cannot know whether dredging will disturb concentrated ‘hotspots.’”

The Clean Cape Fear organization also stated: “We believe moving forward with dredging without PFAS sediment testing is reckless. It exposes the region to environmental, legal and economic risks that far outweigh any promised port benefits.”

“Clean Cape Fear urges the Corps to pause the project until comprehensive PFAS testing is completed and fully integrated into the environmental review. As it stands, the DEIS isn’t just incomplete—it’s unsafe.”

Maddie Burakoff, an associate editor at Audubon magazine, explained that PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are also known as “forever chemicals,” because they “are infamously long-lasting” and “increasingly linked with health risks in both wildlife and people.”

 

She said PFAS have been regularly discharged into the Cape Fear River by Fayetteville area manufacturers for nearly 50 years. The river has been a source for drinking water for half a million people and key habitat for nesting birds.

 

Journalist Patrick Sisson, writing for Scientific America magazine, said the Ports Authority rationalizes that the Wilmington Harbor Navigation Improvement Project is necessary to enable the Wilmington port to serve ever larger Post-Panamax ships (also known as Ultra-Large Container Vessels or ULCVs) “to keep the local maritime industry competitive in a global supply chain obsessed with efficiency.”

 The $1.35 billion dredging project is intended to deepen the Wilmington Navigational Harbor from 42 to 47 feet, allowing Wilmington to accommodate the larger, deep-draft container vessels.

“Nearby harbors in Charleston, S.C., and Savannah, Ga., have already been dredged to depths of 52 and 47 feet, respectively,” Sisson reported.

Presently, the Port of Wilmington contributes approximately $14.8 billion annually to North Carolina’s economy. 

USACE estimates that a deeper harbor would produce a 3% economic increase for the port.

 

In late February 2026, the North Carolina’s Division of Coastal Management (DCM), a unit of the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, issued a 15-page letter, objecting to the Corps’ proposed deepening of Wilmington’s Harbor, citing a lack of information about the project’s potential environmental impacts.

Emma Dill of the Greater Wilmington Business Journal reported that this decision did not sit too well with officials at USACE’s Wilmington Division office. Jed Cayton, a public affairs specialist with USACE, called the objection from the DCM “disappointing.”

“According to Cayton, the USACE has been working with state and federal partners on the project for the past three-and-a-half years,” Dill said.

“Given all the integration and engagement throughout this process,” Cayton stated, “the objection provided at this late stage in the process is disconcerting.”

Dill reported that the DCM was critical of the DEIS for not addressing public concerns related to the presence of PFAS in the dredging zone and how these materials would be handled.

The health of humans and wildlife, water quality impacts and long-term effects to the environment and ecosystems “must be considered,” the DCM insisted.

 

Furthermore, Dill reported that “the DCM states that the USACE assessed the impacts of the channel deepening and sea level rise largely in isolation, thus potentially underestimating how the project could accelerate tidal flooding and storm surge.”

Other concerns mentioned by the DCM included “the loss of fish and freshwater wetland habitats, shoreline and wetland erosion and economic uncertainties surrounding the project, such as changing global shipping patterns and supply chains,” Dill said.

The DCM continued: “These economic unknowns, when paired with the environmental and community risks identified…led (the agency) to conclude that the economic rationale for the proposed project remains insufficiently substantiated and fails to demonstrate that the purported benefits outweigh foreseeable costs to North Carolina’s coastal economy and public welfare.”

In response, Col. Brad A. Morgan, commanding officer of the Wilmington District of the Army Corps of Engineers, told Connor Smith of WECT News in Wilmington that his team “stands behind the work done so far, but will review the state’s concerns and continue working…to clarify information.”

 

Smith reported that USACE will continue executing its assignments of finishing the Environmental Impact Statement by October 2026.

“We remain committed to working with our state partners to find a way to deliver this project,” Col. Morgan said. “It’s got a significant amount of economic impact to the state, so obviously we’ll work by, with and through them in all that we do to try and progress forward.”

 

“We acknowledge a lot of their concerns,” Col. Morgan added. “We had been working over the last 3.5 years, we thought in collaboration and conjunction with them.”

There’s an obvious sense of tension just beneath the surface of carefully crafted wordsmithing.

D. Reid Wilson, North Carolina’s Secretary of Environmental Quality, stated: “If the Army Corps of Engineers can make changes to its proposal to protect people’s health and the environment, we are at the table to continue this conversation.”

 

He made it quite clear that the DCM – and the executive branch of North Carolina’s state government under Democrat Gov. Josh Stein – fully intends to “protect public health from ‘forever chemicals’ like PFAS and preserve treasured coastal resources in the lower Cape Fear River Basin.”

 

The Wilmington Chamber of Commerce continues to advocate moving forward on the harbor deepening project.

In a statement issued March 9, Megan Mullins, the chamber’s chief communications and public affairs officer, said: “Wilmington’s long-term competitiveness depends on maintaining the infrastructure that supports our economy. The port is not just a local asset. It is a statewide engine of commerce and opportunity, and getting this right matters to all of us.”

 

“We are disappointed that significant objections were raised at this late stage after years of collaboration,” Mullins commented. “When major infrastructure projects encounter uncertainty late in the process, it can slow investment and complicate long-term planning.”

“Environmental protection and economic vitality are not mutually exclusive,” she said. “North Carolina has demonstrated that it can balance growth with responsible coastal management. The chamber supports continued good faith collaboration among the Corps, the Division of Coastal Management and the North Carolina State Ports Authority to resolve outstanding questions quickly.”

A journalist who has been following the Wilmington port deepening story is Lisa Sorg of Durham, the North Carolina reporter for Inside Climate News, a nonprofit newsroom headquartered in Brooklyn N.Y.

 

Sorg interviewed Kerri Allen, coastal management program director with the North Carolina Coastal Federation, who said: “Seeing DCM take a close look at the potential impacts to our water quality, fisheries and wetlands – and thoughtfully weigh those resource concerns in this decision – is a powerful reminder of what responsible stewardship looks like.”

 

“Our coast is more than projects and infrastructure; it’s the natural systems and livelihoods that depend on them. When those impacts are carefully considered and public voices are heard, we’re making progress toward protecting what makes our coast so special.”

Expect the USACE and the Ports Authority to carefully weigh their options moving forward. Possible courses of action involve mediation and participation in formal dispute resolution mechanisms that are available through federal law.

There’s a lot at stake, Sorg pointed out. The U.S. Congress has earmarked more than $1 billion for the Wilmington dredging project (75% of the total cost), but it won’t release the funding until the problems with the proposal are addressed by the Corps, she said.

North Carolina’s share is about $339 million, money that still needs to be written into the state budget. Legislators may be influenced by their constituents on this issue.

What’s more, the North Carolina State Ports Authority doesn’t have an exactly squeaky-clean reputation when it comes to transparency.

State agency balks on Wilmington dredging project

(Part 2 in a Series)

Opposition to the proposed $1.35 billion Wilmington Harbor Navigation Improvement Project seemed to swell about a month ago when an agency of the North Carolina state government issued a formal objection to dredging plans set forth by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Port City Daily, an online newspaper based in Wilmington, was among the first news media outlets to report on Feb. 26, 2026, that the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management (DCM) had expressed “serious concerns” about USACE’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

 

Specifically, Tancred Miller, DCM director, said his unit declines to support the project because the DEIS contained “insufficient information regarding the exacerbation of PFAS contamination in the river,” according to Port City Daily.

 

Many of the concerns about deepening the channel in the Cape Fear River and the Port of Wilmington appear to focus on the PFAS issue.

 

“PFAS present serious environmental and public health threats,” say Dr. Vasilis Vasiliou (shown above) and Dr. Robert Bilott (shown below), both of Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

 

PFAS are synthetic chemicals widely utilized in consumer and industrial products since World War II, and “are now linked to alarming levels of contamination in drinking water supplies,” they said.

Dr. Bilott commented: “PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. They are a completely man-made family of chemicals, formed by artificially connecting carbon and fluorine. PFAS are known for their strength, stain resistance, grease protection and water resistance. They are used in a wide variety of products, and there are estimates that as many as 14,000 different PFAS compounds now exist.”

Dr. Vasiliou added: “PFAS are often called ‘forever chemicals’ because they contain an exceptionally strong bond, which makes them highly resistant to breakdown. As a result, they persist in the environment for decades or longer – in water, soil and even living organisms. Their environmental and biological persistence means they can accumulate over time, raising long-term concerns for ecosystems and public health.”

Dr. Jamie Alan, a researcher at Michigan State University in East Lansing, said: “Unfortunately, PFAS can easily get into the air, food, soil and water. Once you’re exposed to PFAS, they can accumulate in your body…where they can settle in the liver, kidney and blood.”

 

She mentioned that PFAS have been linked to a slew of diseases like obesity, hormone suppression and infertility, liver and thyroid diseases…in addition to a variety of cancers.

Local environmentalists assert that the Corps’ DEIS is seriously flawed, because USACE “has resisted conducting sediment testing for PFAS.”

“The Corps didn’t even mention PFAS in its entire DEIS,” reported science writer Patrick Sisson in a recent article for Scientific American magazine.

 

Folks like Kemp Burdette of the Cape Fear River Watch organization have expressed alarm, citing the long history of PFAS poisoning in the Cape Fear River.

 

In 2017, it was revealed that for several decades toxic contaminants were routinely discharged into the river by manufacturers located in the Fayetteville vicinity. It all flows downriver.

To drive the point home, Sisson referenced comments by Emily Donovan (shown below), a leader within the Clean Cape Fear grassroots community action group, who once proclaimed: “Churches in Brunswick County baptize their babies in PFAS-contaminated tap water.”

 

Kerri Allen of the North Carolina Coastal Federation told Sisson: “The Cape Fear River has a long and storied history of just being horribly abused and mistreated. The science is clear that PFAS are present in Cape Fear River sediments, and dredging has the potential to mobilize that contamination,” Allen said.

 

The proposed project, which would unearth 35 million cubic yards of soil and sand, could really stir up an environmental nightmare, unsettling the contaminated sediments, thereby worsening the region’s substantial PFAS problem. Some fear it’s an “environmental train wreck” waiting to happen.

Sisson said: “What’s unfolding on the Cape Fear is a preview of a much larger regulatory ‘blind spot’ in USACE’s national mission and the broader maritime economy.”

He said: “As scientists race to better understand the interplay of PFAS, salinity and sediment, there’s no effort by the Corps to factor the risk of these chemicals into its key mission of maintaining about 12,000 miles of inland and intracoastal waterways, 13,000 miles of coastal waterways, and 400 ports, harbors and turning basins.”

Burdette commented: “PFAS is a pretty big deal. This area has been contaminated for roughly 50 years. You should really do a lot of modeling and sampling.”

“Deepening a channel can allow tides and storm surges to push farther upriver, bringing salt water with them,” Sisson wrote. “Unearthing the sides of the Cape Fear will not only disturb ecosystems, it will likely also drive the salt-water intrusion even farther upriver.”

The likely result would be an expansion of the “‘ghost forests’ – clusters of native bald cypress trees that have been weakened, warped and ruined by salinity,” he said.

Brayton Willis of Leland, N.C., a retired senior project manager with USACE, now heads up the North Carolina Gullah Geechee Heritage Trail, which traverses both sides of the Cape Fear River between Wilmington and Southport.

He’s so passionate about protecting the environment that he’s written a poem, “Ghost Trees of the Cape Fear River,” published in 2023. You can access it at CoastalReview.org.

 

As a guest columnist for the Coastal Review, a news service provided by the North Carolina Coastal Federation, Willis offered comments about the Wilmington Harbor Navigation Improvement Project:

“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,” Willis wrote.

“…The degradation of our environment directly affects our citizens, taxpayers and the species that depend on healthy ecosystems. As the Corps prepares its final EIS, it is essential to find more sustainable alternatives than digging us into a deeper hole” from which we can’t escape.

“If not for us, then how about our kids, grandchildren and their grandchildren?”

Ramona McGee of the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill believes “enough is enough.”

 

She said: “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.”

“We are grateful that the Division of Coastal Management is standing up for North Carolina’s coastal resources and communities,” McGee said.

Questions bubble up to challenge Wilmington port project

(Part 1 in a Series)

While the North Carolina State Ports Authority insists that deepening the harbor channel at the Port of Wilmington will provide a significant boost to the state’s economy, a coalition of environmental groups is questioning whether the $1.35 billion taxpayer-funded project should go forward.

Feeling the heat, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wilmington District voluntarily requested in December 2025 that the massive project be paused temporarily and put on hold. Its request was granted in late January 2026 by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management.

The Corps said it needed additional time to consider objections that surfaced in more than 1,500 public comments.

Essentially, the proposal calls for deepening the Cape Fear River shipping channel from its current 42 feet to 47 feet to accommodate larger, deep-draft container ships. 

Work to deepen the channel and widen it in several places would include substantial amounts of dredging and even blasting.

The scope of the project spans roughly 26 miles, from the harbor entrance near Bald Head Island up to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge in Wilmington. 

Construction could begin in 2030 and take about six years to complete, sources said.

Groups such as the North Carolina Coastal Federation (headquartered in Carteret County) have suggested the project “could devastate the natural resources that make coastal North Carolina unique.”

 

“For the mere purpose of saving shipping companies an unidentified amount of money, the Corps proposes to destroy more than 1,000 acres of wetlands, risk harm to threatened and endangered species, threaten groundwater quality and increase coastal and riverine erosion,” the Coastal Federation contends.

“The Wilmington port expansion poses many threats to the environment of the Lower Cape Fear region, which is rife with wildlife and natural resources, boasting spectacular barrier islands, tidal creeks and salt marshes.”

The bottom line, according to Coastal Federation officials, is that as proposed, the Ports Authority harbor project “would cause irreversible harm to the Cape Fear River, its wildlife and surrounding communities.”

Among the Coastal Federation’s specific objections to deepening the channel is the fear that allowing more saltwater to intrude farther upriver can change the salinity levels in sensitive tidal forests and potentially kill the trees there.

Also, the Coastal Federation believes that deepening the harbor will amplify storm surge and flooding, increasing risks to homes, businesses and critical infrastructure during hurricanes and other extreme weather events.

Further, the Coastal Federation fears that increased vessel tonnage will lead to more wakes that erode shorelines and increase the risk of vessel strikes on turtles, fish and marine mammals.

Additionally, the Coastal Federation says the project will disturb primary nursery areas where young fish and crustaceans develop, as well as critical habitat for the federally endangered Atlantic sturgeon, which spawn in the river.

 

(The Coastal Federation is a member-supported nonprofit organization that was formed in 1982 to “protect and restore the North Carolina coast.”)

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission listed additional concerns that the channel deepening project could have on “wildlife resources in the project area.” 

It noted that “more than 330 bird species rely on this region throughout the year, including bald eagles and brown pelicans.”

Citing the fact that the lower Cape Fear River supports 30% of the state’s coastal shorebird population, the commission suggests the Corps reassess potential impacts to the habitats of nesting waterbirds that might occur with “larger and increased vessel use.”

(The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission is an independent state regulatory agency that was created in 1947 to manage fish and wildlife resources within the state. The agency reports directly to the legislative and executive branches, rather than a cabinet secretary.)

In response to the pause, a Ports Authority spokesperson told Emma Dill (shown below) of the Greater Wilmington Business Journal: “A project of this magnitude deserves close scrutiny. We appreciate the due diligence of both the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.”

  

On top of the estimated outlay of $1.35 billion for construction, the channel would require an annual investment of about $14 million for maintenance.

Ports officials say that “deepening the channel will boost the Port of Wilmington’s competitiveness and allow it to accommodate fully loaded ships.” As it is, ships currently have to be “light-loaded to get in and out of the port.”

The Ports Authority maintains: “Demand for access to the Wilmington harbor is growing as North Carolina strengthens its position as a freight gateway. In order to keep pace with demand and open new opportunities, the Port of Wilmington seeks to enhance its navigational channel to allow deep-draft vessels to efficiently navigate to the port.”

“A more efficient channel would modernize the port, attract more import and export business, help mitigate East Coast congestion and help North Carolina Ports become an even stronger player in this competitive landscape, thereby supporting the economies of Wilmington, New Hanover County, eastern North Carolina and the entire state.”

The goal is to accommodate larger, deep-draft container vessels, including ultra-large container ships.

Natalie English, president of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, expressed her organization’s support in a statement:

 

“A modern port is fundamental to future-proofing our economy. Without the deepening project, North Carolina risks losing market share to ports that are already preparing for the next generation of vessels. The global shipping industry continues to trend toward larger, more efficient ships that require deeper channels….Failure to act would shift cargo, investment and job creation to competitor states.”

Several municipalities – including Bald Head Island, Caswell Beach, Kure Beach, Leland, Oak Island, Southport, Sunset Beach and Wilmington – are wary. 

Through formal resolutions, they are imploring the Corps to revisit the harbor deepening project and re-examine various potential impacts, including the loss of fish habitats and harm to certain wetlands. 

Tarpon Springs, Fla., takes its name from a ‘silver king’ fish

Here’s a bit of local history about Tarpon Springs, a small city on Florida’s Gulf Coast, that was settled around 1876. 

The place was named by Mary Ormond, daughter of Alexander Ormond, who had relocated here, most likely from North Carolina.

 

Local historians said the young Ormond girl was “inspired by abundant tarpon fish found in the local waters”…often seen jumping in Spring Bayou, a warm, spring-fed tributary of the Anclote River.

The tarpon is universally known as the “silver king,” because its large, shimmering, silvery scales reflect sunlight brightly during their aerial, acrobatic leaps. 

With small teeth, they lack the ability to chew. Instead, tarpon use their massive, bony “bucket mouth” to swallow prey whole – mainly mullet, pinfish, sardines and crustaceans.

 

Today, the tarpon is a premier “catch-and-release-only gamefish.” Adult tarpon typically weigh between 60 and 130 pounds and measure roughly 4 to 6 feet long. However, females can grow to more than 300 pounds and 8 feet in length.

During winter months, when the Gulf of Mexico waters cool down, manatees travel inland to the warmer water of the spring, making it a popular spot for manatee viewing. Most of the shoreline is part of Craig Park, a popular recreational site.

 

A bronze statue of “Ama the Mermaid” was added to the park grounds in 2014. Standing 6-foot-4, Ama was cast in Thailand by French sculptor Amaryllis Bataille.

 

Since 1906, Spring Bayou has been the site of the annual Greek Orthodox Epiphany celebration, where young men dive into the water to attempt to retrieve a white cross each year on January 6.

On the calendar, Epiphany marks the end of the 12 days of Christmas. It commemorates the Magi’s visit to baby Jesus (Three Kings Day).

Known as the “Tarpon Springs Epiphany Cross Dive,” the tradition features young men (ages 16-18) who dive into Spring Bayou in search of a small white, wooden cross thrown by the Archbishop. The average depth in this section of the bayou is about 8 feet.

 

The event symbolizes Christ’s baptism in the Jordan River, and the custom was initiated by the Greek sea sponge divers who began arriving in Tarpon Springs in the early 1900s and established St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Cathedral. 

(Tarpon Springs has the highest percentage of Greek Americans living in any U.S. municipality.)

A white dove is released just before the cross is tossed, representing the Holy Spirit. 

Approximately 75 boys jump from a ring of small boats to find the cross. The teen who retrieves the cross receives a year of blessings and a necklace bearing a gold cross. His name is also engraved on a church monument.

 

In 2026, the winner of the competition was Athos Karistinos, 18, a senior at Palm Harbor University High School who is dual-enrolled at St. Petersburg College. 

Athos Karistinos’ father, Anesti, also retrieved the cross in 1991. His grandfather had worked at the town “Sponge Docks” as a deep sea sponge diver.

Teenage girls are barred from diving for the cross. Dr. Joanna Theophilopoulos Bennett, who specializes in pediatric medicine, is on a crusade to change the exclusionary rules. A parishioner at St. Nicholas, she maintains that “the male-only rule is both arbitrary and theologically unjustifiable.”

 

Ironically, Joanna Theophilopoulos was selected in 2014 as the female teenage member of the choir to serve as the “dove bearer” for the event. That was a great honor and high responsibility, she said, “but the fact I would never have the chance to dive for the cross was always in the back of my head growing up.”