Southport aldermen adopt resolution pressing state agencies for stronger mitigation, monitoring of Wilmington Harbor deepening

Southport’s Board of Aldermen voted unanimously at a workshop to adopt a resolution urging stronger monitoring and mitigation in response to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ draft Environmental Impact Statement for proposed deepening and widening of the Wilmington Harbor navigation channel.

The board’s action came after experts, local residents and nonprofit representatives told aldermen they were concerned the DEIS does not fund long‑term monitoring, understates erosion and wake impacts to shorelines and bird nesting islands, and omits sufficient contaminant testing. “There is no new work for bird islands, no habitat improvements for birds,” said Lindsay Addison, coastal biologist with Audubon North Carolina, after reviewing the DEIS. “It calls for no mitigation for impacts to birds.”

The Audubon presentation, backed by local volunteers, focused on Battery Island and other nesting sites that Audubon said support roughly 30% of North Carolina’s coastal waterbird population. Jamie Pratt of TI Coastal Services, working with the city, told aldermen the corps’ preferred alignment could shift the dredge prism about 384 feet closer to the city dock and—counting side slopes—bring the top of the slope roughly another 150 feet closer, increasing exposure to wake‑induced erosion.

Carrie Allen of the North Carolina Coastal Federation told the board the corps’ economic case is thin and the DEIS omits monitoring and adaptive mitigation plans. “The corps is not planning to do any monitoring of this at all,” she said, calling for funded, independent monitoring of contaminants (including mercury and PFAS) and habitat impacts.

Bill Carey, an attorney and economic analyst retained by local interests, criticized the corps’ benefit‑cost analysis and the DEIS process. He said the corps did not sample the sediments slated for dredging and that the corps’ national benefit forecast relies on assumptions that, if corrected, would cut the corps’ reported benefit‑cost ratio below feasibility thresholds. Carey urged aldermen to submit strong comments under the Coastal Zone Management Act and to press state legislators for an independent study of state benefits.

Mayor (name not provided in transcript) and aldermen pressed staff and the consultants on technical specifics—how side slopes and shoaling were modeled, whether beneficial‑use plans count as mitigation, and what would happen if sediment resuspension elevated local contaminant levels. Audubon cited prior local sampling showing post‑storm spikes in sediment mercury and said dredging could similarly mobilize contaminants.

After discussion, Alderman Holman Mosteller moved to adopt a resolution emphasizing the need to protect marshes, shorelines and bird habitat, to press for enforceable mitigation, and to coordinate with regional partners. The motion passed unanimously. The board also unanimously directed the town manager to prepare and submit written comments to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management and the Department of Environmental Quality for the state consistency review and to consider supplemental comments to the Army Corps.

The resolution and the manager’s directive are intended to ensure the town’s concerns about monitoring, contaminant testing, mitigation funding and enforceable mechanisms are considered before the corps finalizes the project or receives state concurrence. Town staff and outside consultants said they will prepare draft comments and may reconvene aldermen for refinements.

The workshop concluded with the board voting to adjourn. The DEQ/DCM state comment period mentioned by presenters was described in the meeting as open through Dec. 20 (date cited from the corps’ DEIS).