N.C. Ports Authority asks to ‘pause’ massive harbor project

Environmental groups are applauding the issuance of correspondence by the North Carolina State Ports Authority that virtually guarantees extended delays associated with “the Wilmington (N.C.) Harbor Navigation Expansion Project.”

 

Cece Nunn, managing editor of Greater Wilmington Business Journal, reported on Oct. 5 that Brian E. Clark, executive director of N.C. State Ports Authority, wrote a letter requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) “suspend further consideration” indefinitely on the project.

 

Nunn said the Ports Authority has been working for 10 years to deepen the Cape Fear River and Wilmington Harbor from 42 to 47 feet to accommodate larger, fully loaded ships. The deepening project carried an estimated price tag of $1.35 billion.

According to Nunn, Clark stated in his letter, “While we are certain the economic benefits from such a project could have lasting positive impacts on the entire state, what has become clear during this process is a need to pause and give adequate study and reflection to the potential environmental impacts of a project of this magnitude, including the potential impacts of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as PFAS.”

Curiously, the letter was dated Sept. 18, 2026. 

It isn’t mentioned in the “News Releases” section on the Ports Authority website (as of Oct. 9).

Nunn said the USACE issued its final reports on the proposed deepening in July 2026, acknowledging that “uncertainties remain concerning PFAS, which are chemicals that have polluted the Cape Fear River for decades and could be found in sediment dredged in the harbor deepening.”

“Known contamination exists upstream, but it is not known if the sediment proposed to be dredged is contaminated. At the time this EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) was prepared, this concern and the associated controversy remain, and the lack of resolution is hindering resolution of other issues that require state agency approvals and certifications,” the July report stated.

Nunn stated that Clark’s letter asserts that the Ports Authority has a responsibility to ensure that it proceeds in a thoughtful and thorough manner. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the state and our host communities that we pause and allow our next steps to be guided by sound science and rigorous research.”

Clark’s letter also stressed that the Ports Authority values its partnership and “close working relationship” with the USACE Wilmington District.

“We are embarking on our new strategic plan, which calls for an overall increase in tonnage traversing the Wilmington Harbor,” Clark said. “We will no doubt lean on that close relationship while we seek to utilize the current channel to the fullest extent possible.”

Erin Carey, deputy director of the N.C. Chapter of Sierra Club, based in Raleigh, told the Greater Wilmington Business Journal that the chapter applauds “the Ports Authority’s decision to pull back from the Wilmington Harbor expansion project.”

 

“From the very beginning, this project has demonstrated highly questionable economic value for the people of the Cape Fear region,” Carey said. “Environmentally, there are many harmful outcomes, from threatening wetlands that provide habitat and protect communities from flooding, to dredging that would stir up PFAS settled in sediment on the harbor floor.”

“We’re glad that the Ports Authority recognizes not only these threats, but the lack of any practical need for expanding the harbor,” she added.

Also commenting on the Wilmington Harbor issue was Trista Talton, a staff writer with CoastalReview.org, the news service operated by the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which is based in the community of Ocean on N.C. Route 24 in Carteret County.

 

In a post dated Oct. 6, Talton said the scope of the harbor project extends for about 28 miles from the mouth of the Cape Fear River up to the port at Wilmington. Some sections of the river were also scheduled for widening “to accommodate larger, deep-draft container vessels. Authority officials have argued that deepening the shipping channel will attract more import and export business and boost job growth in the state.”

“The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management raised objections earlier this year about the proposed project,” Talton said. “Division officials argued that the draft EIS failed to adequately assess cumulative flooding impacts or thoroughly detail areas where dredged material would be placed, did not sufficiently account for potential effects on fisheries habitat, freshwater wetlands, shorelines, or state, historic and other sites along the river, and did not evaluate PFAS in the lower Cape Fear River sediment.”

“The river, which is the drinking water source for tens of thousands of North Carolinians, has for decades been polluted by upstream dischargers that use human-made chemical compounds commonly referred to as ‘forever chemicals’ because of their resistance to breaking down in the environment.

Hannah Nelson, a staff attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center office in Chapel Hill, told CoastalReview: “We applaud the Ports Authority for setting this expansion aside, and I hope that state officials can now prioritize action that protects the Cape Fear River and the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on it each and every day.”

 

“There are already ways to reach the economic goals in the area using our existing channel,” Nelson said. “We don’t need to be deepening just for the sake of deepening, so I’m glad to see that they’re planning to utilize what they already have and hoping that any future development comes with rigorous analysis and a resilience approach.”

North Carolina Coastal Federation Coastal Management Program Director Kerri Allen said the organization appreciates the Ports Authority’s decision to pause consideration of the proposed project.

 

“This is an important step that gives us the opportunity to take a thoughtful, science-backed look at the potential environmental impacts of a project of this scale,” Allen said. “For years, partners, along with residents, researchers and others, have raised questions about those impacts, including the potential risks associated with PFAS.

“Those questions deserve careful study, and we’re encouraged that the Port recognizes they shouldn’t be constrained by a predetermined timeline,” Allen said. “We look forward to continuing to engage constructively as this work moves forward and making sure future decisions are grounded in sound science and protect the long-term health of the Cape Fear River and our coastal communities.”