N.C. group says port analysis flawed
Opponents challenge study
The Associated Press
Opponents of a massive cargo terminal in Brunswick County 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.
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 N.C. 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 near Southport, N.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
Karen Fox, a spokeswoman for the N.C. State Ports Authority, would not comment on the draft report or the complaint, but said the Ports Authority was pleased the process is continuing.
Telephone calls to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were not returned.
"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.
.