S.C. Ports again seek cruise terminal permit

  • Posted: Sunday, August 17, 2014 7:21 p.m.
AP Photo/Bruce Smith, File
The cruise liner Crystal Symphony leaves the harbor in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2013. The South Carolina Ports Authority is renewing its request for a federal permit for a new $35 million cruise terminal in Charleston.
AP Photo/Bruce Smith, File The cruise liner Crystal Symphony leaves the harbor in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2013. The South Carolina Ports Authority is renewing its request for a federal permit for a new $35 million cruise terminal in Charleston.

CHARLESTON (AP) — Nearly a year after a judge tossed out a permit for a $35 million cruise terminal in Charleston, the South Carolina Ports Authority is once again seeking federal permission for the project.

Documents provided The Associated Press through the Freedom of Information Act show a new review of the contentious project will be more extensive than that conducted when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave initial permission in April of 2012. And another state approval is now needed.

The Ports Authority needs a federal permit to place additional pilings beneath on old waterfront warehouse it wants to renovate as a new terminal.

Environmental and preservation groups challenged the original permit and U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel tossed it out last September. He ruled while the Corps considered how the terminal would affect navigable waters it did not study the larger impacts on the city and its historic district.

In a July 23 letter to the Corps, James Van Ness, a Ports Authority vice president, asks the Corps again begin its review of the project.

In response, Charleston District Engineer Lt. Col. John Litz said he will use his discretionary authority to require an individual permit, meaning a more detailed review. The earlier federal approval came under a so-called nationwide permit that authorizes, with limited delay and paperwork, activities considered to have only minimal environmental impact.

Litz asked the Ports Authority for any information that will be helpful when the Corps issues a public permit notice.

“The proposed project has received substantial media attention regarding potential impacts to air quality, historic properties and roadway traffic in the vicinity of the existing marine cargo and passenger terminal,” he wrote. “Providing information about these issues will help inform the Corps’ public interest review and will also inform interested parties.”

The Ports Authority will also now need to apply for a separate state water quality certification. That wasn’t needed before because that state approval was encompassed in the federal nationwide permit.

Blan Holman, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which has represented groups opposing the terminal, welcomes the wider federal review.

“The Corps is right to take a fresh, public look at the major impacts this proposal will have on Charleston for years to come and options like shore power that could reduce them,” he said.

It’s been four years since the terminal was proposed and since Carnival Cruise Lines based its 2,056-passenger liner Fantasy in Charleston, giving the city a year-round cruise industry.

Those opposing the terminal want a limit on the number and size of cruise ships and want the ships to either use electric power from the shore or to burn low sulfur fuel while idling at dockside.

Supporters of the cruise industry say it’s only a niche market, creates jobs in Charleston and is being appropriately handled.

A challenge to a state permit for the terminal pilings is now before the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Comments { }

Commenting rules: Do not post offensive, racial or violent messages. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the commenter, not www.aikenstandard.com. Click 'report abuse' for any comments that you feel should be removed from the site. However, www.aikenstandard.com is not obligated to remove any comment posted on the site. Moderators do not have the ability to edit comments. Read the terms of use.