Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 12:00 pm
MOREHEAD CITY — Opposition is organizing against a state plan to develop a wood pellet export facility at the state port here.
Environmental groups announced Thursday their concerns about the proposed project, which is also the topic of a planned Oct. 30 joint meeting between county commissioners and the Morehead City Council.
Details of the meeting had not been formally announced in a public notice by either the county or the city as of presstime for this edition.
The pellets would be made from forests in Eastern North Carolina and shipped to Morehead City by rail. Supporters say the commodity is a renewable resource that is good for the environment. But others are concerned about the impact here.
The N.C. Coastal Federation, based in Ocean, and the Clean County Coalition that was formed in 2011 to fight the then-proposed sulfur melting and handling facility at the N.C. Port of Morehead City, said Thursday they have asked the State Ports Authority and other state agencies to adhere to state law and assess the potential environmental effects of state plans to store and ship wood pellets at the port.
The Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill sent a letter Tuesday on behalf of the federation and the Clean County Coalition asking for the review. The letter was sent to Thomas Bradshaw, executive director of the Ports Authority; N.C. Department of Transportation Secretary Eugene Conti, and N.C. Railroad Co. President Scott Saylor.
The groups said using forests in Eastern North Carolina as Europe’s fuel source could have “severe environmental implications for the region’s woodlands,” according to their letter. Also, the increased train and truck traffic through Morehead City could be unsafe, create problems with noise and dust and affect the town’s tourist-based economy, they write.
“This proposed project has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to Morehead City, including its residents, visitors, local businesses and environment,” the letter states. “It also has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to North Carolina forests from accelerated harvesting to meet the demand for wood pellet export.”
European countries eager to reduce their carbon footprint are increasingly turning to wood as a biofuel alternative to coal because it is thought to release less carbon dioxide. The environmental groups said several recent studies have questioned that claim.
More than 1.5 million tons of pellets, mostly from Southern trees, were shipped from the United States to Europe last year, according to the groups. That number is expected to reach 5.7 million tons in three years.
State Environmental Policy Act requires the potential adverse effects to be studied before the project moves forward. And any project on public land or that involves public money requires a state action, such as a permit, and a review of the potential environmental effects. The proposed wood pellet facility meets all three requirements of the law, the groups said in their letter.
“The law is meant to reduce surprises, to study all the possible effects before public money is spent or a shovel of dirt is turned,” said Todd Miller, executive director of the N.C. Coastal Federation. “This is a state project, using taxpayer-owned land. These state agencies need to adhere to the law.”
Mr. Miller said the state should have followed the law several years ago when the SPA paid $30 million for 600 acres near Southport for its planned international shipping terminal. The plan has since lost political support.
“If the law had been followed in that instance, public opposition would have surfaced during the review process, as would the land’s true value,” Mr. Miller said. “It would have led to more prudent decisions.”
Clean County Coalition President Dick Bierly said not much is known about the wood pellet project or how it or the increased train volumes might affect Morehead City.
“How much noise will that create? What will it do to traffic? How would tourists react?” Mr. Bierly said. “Those are the types of questions we need answered before we can adequately assess this project. The review that the law requires would begin to provide those answers. It seems to me that asking these state agencies to follow the law is not an unreasonable request. “
The groups seek, under the state’s public records law, for all written and electronic records regarding the project.
“This is exactly the type of project that the law is designed for,” said Geoff Gisler, staff attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “A public entity using public money to build a public project that will have long-term impacts on the environment demands an opportunity for public input, state law requires it.”
Environmental groups announced Thursday their concerns about the proposed project, which is also the topic of a planned Oct. 30 joint meeting between county commissioners and the Morehead City Council.
Details of the meeting had not been formally announced in a public notice by either the county or the city as of presstime for this edition.
The pellets would be made from forests in Eastern North Carolina and shipped to Morehead City by rail. Supporters say the commodity is a renewable resource that is good for the environment. But others are concerned about the impact here.
The N.C. Coastal Federation, based in Ocean, and the Clean County Coalition that was formed in 2011 to fight the then-proposed sulfur melting and handling facility at the N.C. Port of Morehead City, said Thursday they have asked the State Ports Authority and other state agencies to adhere to state law and assess the potential environmental effects of state plans to store and ship wood pellets at the port.
The Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill sent a letter Tuesday on behalf of the federation and the Clean County Coalition asking for the review. The letter was sent to Thomas Bradshaw, executive director of the Ports Authority; N.C. Department of Transportation Secretary Eugene Conti, and N.C. Railroad Co. President Scott Saylor.
The groups said using forests in Eastern North Carolina as Europe’s fuel source could have “severe environmental implications for the region’s woodlands,” according to their letter. Also, the increased train and truck traffic through Morehead City could be unsafe, create problems with noise and dust and affect the town’s tourist-based economy, they write.
“This proposed project has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to Morehead City, including its residents, visitors, local businesses and environment,” the letter states. “It also has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to North Carolina forests from accelerated harvesting to meet the demand for wood pellet export.”
European countries eager to reduce their carbon footprint are increasingly turning to wood as a biofuel alternative to coal because it is thought to release less carbon dioxide. The environmental groups said several recent studies have questioned that claim.
More than 1.5 million tons of pellets, mostly from Southern trees, were shipped from the United States to Europe last year, according to the groups. That number is expected to reach 5.7 million tons in three years.
State Environmental Policy Act requires the potential adverse effects to be studied before the project moves forward. And any project on public land or that involves public money requires a state action, such as a permit, and a review of the potential environmental effects. The proposed wood pellet facility meets all three requirements of the law, the groups said in their letter.
“The law is meant to reduce surprises, to study all the possible effects before public money is spent or a shovel of dirt is turned,” said Todd Miller, executive director of the N.C. Coastal Federation. “This is a state project, using taxpayer-owned land. These state agencies need to adhere to the law.”
Mr. Miller said the state should have followed the law several years ago when the SPA paid $30 million for 600 acres near Southport for its planned international shipping terminal. The plan has since lost political support.
“If the law had been followed in that instance, public opposition would have surfaced during the review process, as would the land’s true value,” Mr. Miller said. “It would have led to more prudent decisions.”
Clean County Coalition President Dick Bierly said not much is known about the wood pellet project or how it or the increased train volumes might affect Morehead City.
“How much noise will that create? What will it do to traffic? How would tourists react?” Mr. Bierly said. “Those are the types of questions we need answered before we can adequately assess this project. The review that the law requires would begin to provide those answers. It seems to me that asking these state agencies to follow the law is not an unreasonable request. “
The groups seek, under the state’s public records law, for all written and electronic records regarding the project.
“This is exactly the type of project that the law is designed for,” said Geoff Gisler, staff attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “A public entity using public money to build a public project that will have long-term impacts on the environment demands an opportunity for public input, state law requires it.”
Contact Mark Hibbs at 252-726-7081, ext. 229; email mark@thenewstimes.com; or follow on Twitter @markhibbs.
No comments:
Post a Comment