North Carolina International Port

In early 2006 the North Carolina State Ports Authority (NCSPA) conceived its proposal for a North Carolina International Terminal to be created on property that it purchased just north of the town of Southport, NC between the Progress Energy Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant and the Sunny Point Military Ammunitions Port. The NCSPA purchased the property in early 2006 for $30 million from Pfizer.

Site Proposed for North Carolina International Terminal (facing southwest)

Planned Scope and Infrastructure Investment

Conceptual designs for the North Carolina International Terminal call for a high-density, automated container terminal capable of serving 12,000-TEU vessels with at least a 50-foot draft (the existing navigation channel serving the Port of Wilmington in the Wilmington Harbor has a dredge depth of 42 (+/-) feet). Development of the North Carolina International Terminal on the existing footprint could result in a terminal that could handle as many as 2-3 million TEUs a year, which is equivalent to the capacity currently handled by container terminals such as Charleston and Savannah. Construction cost projections as of June 2010 are approximately $4.4 billion (escalated).^[1]

Development will require additional transportation infrastructure expenditures to accommodate the movement of cargo to and from the terminal by both road and rail. Currently, both road and rail access to the proposed North Carolina International Terminal site are limited and will require substantial improvement to accommodate the expected cargo volumes and to alleviate additional traffic on local roadways.

New Container Traffic and Job Creation Opportunity

In support of their land purchase and the proposed construction, the NCSPA has stated that there are currently few ports on the U.S. East Coast that can offer the deep draft conditions and large container terminals that will be required in the future. New locks and channels are now under construction in the Panama Canal, with completion scheduled for 2014, allowing for much larger "post-Panamax" containerships to transit the canal. At that point, many containers that are now transiting the Pacific and unloading at west coast ports and moving via rail to points east will move more economically to east coast ports through the canal.^[2] It is intended that the proposed port capitalize on this new container growth and provide new job opportunities for the region and the state.

Excess Capacity Projected at Existing East Coast Ports

In competition with the proposed port, the majority of existing east coast ports are now investing in dredging and expansion projects to attract the larger post-Panamax vessels. In February 2011, Alberto Aleman, the CEO of the Panama Canal, addressed the issue of expanding capacity on the east coast "Two deeper, wider ports along the US Eastern seaboard and one in the Gulf coast should be enough to handle the growth in traffic, instead of the approximately 13 port expansions now underway. The East Coast has many ports, and the large container ships are not going to stop at every port."^[3] Given a future environment of such excess capacity where the new post-Panamax vessels can find existing east coast ports competing with each other for business, it is likely that the proposed Southport site will be in a difficult competitive position. North Carolina manufacturers will have a number of existing cost-competitive overseas shipping port options to keep them competitive with other east coast manufacturers without a taxpayer-subsidized port in Southport.

Public and Political Support versus Opposition

Support: The NCSPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Int'l Longshoremen's Assoc. and North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue lead the list of supporters.^[4] In September 2011, the Brunswick County Commissioners passed a resolution endorsing a USACE feasibility study of the proposed port.^[5] The resolution was presented by Yes Port NC, also a supporter of the port proposal.^[6]

Opposition: All six communities in the affected lower Cape Fear region have expressed their opposition to the proposed port, including Southport, Caswell Beach, Bald Head Island, Saint James, Boiling Spring Lakes and Oak Island.^[7] On June 29, 2010, US Congressman Mike McIntyre, who represents the affected 7th Congressional District and is the Vice-Chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, announced his opposition to the proposed terminal.^[8] Rep. McIntyre cited most of the negative issues listed below as the basis for his opposition. The US Fish and Wildlife Commission has also expressed its opposition.

Impact on the Environment, Quality-of-Life and Property Values

Opponents of the megaport, including Save the Cape and NoPort Southport, have expressed their opposition based on concerns for its environmental impact in this ecologically sensitive area; as well as local health and quality-of-life impacts associated with imposing major port traffic on this small residential coastal community (Southport, North Carolina).^[9][10] In addition, the proposed deeper dredging required to support post-Panamax containership vessels threatens shoreline integrity of Cape Fear coastal communities (Oak Island, North Carolina) and (Bald Head Island, North Carolina) as well as threatening the integrity of the fresh water aquifer (required for potable water throughout the region) that runs immediately below the existing Cape Fear River seaway and would be destroyed by seawater impingement if the specified dredging depths occurred.^[11] Consistent with other major port areas along the eastern seaboard, port opponents fear that residential property values in the affected lower Cape Fear would decrease substantially.

Terrorism Risk

The affected municipalities in the lower Cape Fear, as well as US Congressman Mike McIntyre,^[12] have expressed substantial safety and security concerns; since the proposed port site is located adjacent to both a nuclear power plant (Brunswick Nuclear Generating Station) and the world's largest weapons, ammunition, explosives and military equipment terminal (Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point).

Public Investment Requirement

Due to its remote location and absence of freeway and major rail services that are common to other existing container ports in the U.S., taxpayers would be required to fund the expansive public works construction projects needed to deal with the high volume of truck and rail traffic into and out of the Southport area before securing any assurances of private investment that the NCSPA states is necessary for the port proposal to proceed. US and North Carolina taxpayers would be required to commit to the infrastructure improvements with no assurance that private investors will "come to the table" to invest in the port venture.

Private Commercial Investment

In over five years since the inception of the Megaport concept, the NCSPA has not found a commercial partner willing to participate in this investment, posing substantial doubt as to the commercial viability of the proposal. Projects already underway or planned for deep water access at competing east coast ports, targeted to attract post-Panamax vessels, further exacerbate the commercial viability of the NCIT proposal.

Current Port Proposal Status

After having declared a "hold" on their pursuit of the Southport megaport proposal on July 21, 2010 in the face of public and political opposition,^[13] NCSPA Board Chairman Carl Stewart stated that he and the Port Authority Board remain committed to continue pursuing the Southport megaport proposal at this site in the future.^[14] Shortly after the reorganization of the NCSPA under the NC Department of Transportation in March, 2011,^[15] the NCDOT announced the development of a Maritime Strategy Study to include, among other issues, reconsideration of the NCIT proposal.^[16] Results of the study are to be presented in early 2012.

References

1. ^ NCIT Review of Planning Concepts and Privatization Options, P.F. Richardson Assoc., June 2010
2. ^ Panama Canal Expansion Impact on US Economy
3. ^ Panama Canal Expansion seen boosting volume at 3 US Ports
4. ^ Governor Perdue Supports Southport Megaport Construction Despite Regional Opposition
5. ^ County Commissioners Endorse Port Study
6. ^ Yes Port NC Supporting NCIT Feasibility Study
7. ^ Southport Takes a Stand Against Port Proposal
8. ^ Congressman McIntyre Opposes Port Proposal
9. ^ Potential Environmental Problems from Building the Proposed North Carolina International Terminal, Michael A. Mallin, Ph.D.
10. ^ Save the Cape: North Carolina's Cape Fear....A Region at Risk
11. ^ It's too late for a megaport here
12. ^ Repr. McIntyre Cites Port Terrorism Risk
13. ^ Megaport Proposal Shelved Indefinitely,
14. ^ Port Authority Remains Committed to Pursuing Southport Megaport in Spite of Opposition
15. ^ NC Executive Order 85: Consolidation and Reorganization
16. ^ North Carolina Maritime Strategy