NC Anti-port group says mega port analysis flawed (BusinessWeek)
WILMINGTON, N.C.
Opponents of a massive cargo terminal along North Carolina’s coast have filed a complaint challenging the conclusions of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study recommending that state and federal officials move forward with a feasibility study.
The nonprofit No Port/Southport claims the port inflated the economic benefits of a proposed international port according to a complaint filed Monday with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Inspector General.
The group says the corps’ analysis is based on the “capture” of container traffic from other Atlantic coast ports. Inclusion of captured economic benefits is prohibited by section 904 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, according to the complaint.
“Without consideration of captured benefits, the analysis would not find a surplus of benefits over costs,” writes retired Col. Albert Willis, a member of the No Port/Southport steering committee. Willis filed the complaint on behalf of No Port/Southport.
The group wants the corps to withdraw its report and remove the captured economic data from its analysis.
Penny Schmitt, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington district spokeswoman, said the reconnaissance study used existing information to determine in “broad brush” terms if the port would benefit the nation. Schmitt said if the report is approved, a feasibility study would address issues surrounding the port in more detail.
“To be authorized, the project will indeed have to meet stringent economic, environmental and engineering standards, including those set forth in section 904 of the Water Resources Development Act,” Schmitt said.
Karen Fox, a spokeswoman for the North Carolina State Ports Authority, would not comment on the draft report or the complaint, but said the Ports Authority was pleased the process is continuing.
“What is especially troubling is that the Wilmington District is using this badly flawed report to induce the State of North Carolina to provide a commitment to go forward with the project,” said Mike Rice, a No Port/Southport steering committee member.
The $96,000 reconnaissance study completed by the corps is only the first step in the port’s lengthy approval process.
Dee Freeman, secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, is reviewing the report and speaking with North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue to determine if the state will be the nonfederal sponsor of this feasibility study, said Jamie Kritzer, a spokesman for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Kritzer said there is no timetable for the department or Perdue to make a decision. If North Carolina decides to sponsor the study, it will split costs with the federal government. The feasibility study will cost approximately $10 million.
Construction is slated to begin in 2017, and the port is projected to reach full capacity in 2030. It would likely be funded by state and federal funds, and private financing. The State Ports Authority expects the cargo terminal to challenge New Jersey, Virginia and South Carolina ports for business.
But No Port/Southport says the site, on the mouth of the Cape Fear River between Wilmington and Myrtle Beach, S.C., won’t be able to support the traffic. It says the port would see a truck every eight-seconds, 14 long trains daily and twice-a-day docks by a post-Panamax container ship — too large to fit in the Panama Canal, and bigger than the largest naval vessel in the world.
