|
Port access road scores permit approval, funding
By Dan McCue
Staff Writer
A controversial proposed access road linking the S.C. State Ports Authority’s planned terminal at the former Charleston Naval Base to Interstate 26 came a step closer to reality Feb. 8, with one set of state officials reaffirming the project while another allocated much-needed funding for its development.
After more than an hour and a half of discussion, the state Department of Health and Environmental Control unanimously upheld the agency’s water quality permit for the road. Previously, the same panel had upheld the agency’s issuance of a water quality permit for the terminal itself.
Meanwhile, the state House Ways and Means Committee voted to spend 80% of the state’s contingency reserve fund—an amount of roughly $138 million—to pay for the 1.5-mile road.
SPA spokesman Byron Miller described the decisions, which came within hours of each other, as essential to keeping the port expansion on track.
“As we’ve said all along, from a practical standpoint, the port expansion can’t happen without the road,” he said.
But while the decision on the permit cheered the SPA, it was characterized as “disappointing” by those who had challenged it. The opponents contend that the road as planned would pose serious environmental and economic consequences to people and development projects in the area.
The S.C. Coastal Conservation League and the principals of the Magnolia Development project have 30 days from the receipt of written notification of DHEC’s decision to appeal to the state’s Administrative Law Court.
But it may be some time before either party reaches a decision on what to do next.
Nancy Vinson, water quality manager for the SCCCL, said her organization is planning to meet with port officials later this month. She said she’s hoping at that time to have “a good honest discussion of the impacts of the project and, hopefully, reach a consensus on what can be done about it.”
Vinson said she’s already held two lengthy meetings with the Maritime Association of the Port of Charleston, which she characterized as “very positive.”
While the SCCCL is awaiting the outcome of its meeting with the SPA before deciding whether to pursue an appeal, Robert L. Clement III, a principal of the Magnolia development, said he’s waiting for his consultants to do a thorough review of the DHEC decision.
Both Vinson and Clement said the judgment by DHEC board members Edwin Cooper of Charleston, Hugh McCall of Rock Hill and Coleman Buckhouse of Florence seemed to be based on a new air quality model that the agency received only hours before the hearing.
“Almost miraculously, the evening before the hearing, a new air quality model shows the terminal and access road doesn’t violate federal standards for particulates,” Vinson said. “I’m not breathing any easier today knowing the haste with which human health impacts were accessed. I’m looking forward to our meeting with the ports authority, their air quality experts and our own, to hash it all out.”
Clement said he and his staff intended to sit down with the decision, study it and make an informed decision about what to do next.
“I don’t know whether we’ll appeal, but I can say it doesn’t look like there was much of an effort to evaluate the impacts of this project.”
As currently envisioned, the new port access road would consist of a four-lane, limited-access roadway extending from the entrance of the proposed terminal to Interstate 26. Much of it will be elevated to minimize the impact to Shipyard Creek and existing road and rail infrastructure.
The plan also calls for significant improvements at the Meeting Street interchange and the creation of a new four-lane roadway to connect Stromboli Avenue to the interchange, which will also establish a new connection to Bainbridge Avenue.
Clement and others want to see alternatives considered that would allow for the eventual realignment of I-26 farther to the east through the neck region of the Charleston peninsula.
A consultant working at the behest of the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments has estimated that project would likely cost just under $293 million.
Tom Berry, a DHEC spokesman, said the hearing board made its decision fully anticipating that one or more of the parties will appeal its decision.
As for when the 30 days countdown to a deadline on the appeal will begin, Berry was uncertain.
“We always try to get written decisions out as quickly as possible, but it really depends on the details and complexity of the matters being decided,” he said. “Sometimes we get the decisions out in a matter of days; other times it’s a matter of weeks.”
In the meantime, the decision to spend a hefty portion of the state’s $171.5 million contingency fund on the road is moving toward a vote by the full House.
Lawmakers on the committee said they voted to release the funds because the Port of Charleston is critical to the state’s economy, supporting 280,000 jobs and 700 companies statewide.
The proposed $600 million expansion at the Navy base is expected to increase the port’s terminal capacity by as much as 50%. The resolution approved by the House committee would fund about half of the access road’s estimated $277 million price tag.
Dan McCue is a staff writer for the Business Journal. E-mail him at dmccue@charlestonbusiness.com.
|
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version