(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.”
“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.”
“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.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment