A recent WilmingtonBiz.com opinion piece argued that if Wilmington wanted other replacement options for the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge considered, “the time for that was two years ago.”
The historical record says otherwise.
In March 2025, while NCDOT was still considering three alternatives for replacing the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, I introduced a resolution asking Wilmington City Council to support continued consideration of Alternative C, then described as a 100-foot fixed-span bridge.
I did not invent this option. It was one of NCDOT’s official alternatives. And it remained under consideration.
At Council’s March 3, 2025 agenda briefing, NCDOT representatives told us the project was still in the planning phase and environmental studies were incomplete. NCDOT Board member Landon Zimmer said the agency wanted to keep its options open and needed more information before reaching a conclusion.
Most notably, when Mayor Bill Saffo asked why the public had been presented with three alternatives if 135 feet was effectively predetermined, NCDOT said it was not. The official City minutes record NCDOT saying it was “not set on a certain height.”
NCDOT engineer Trevor Carroll further explained that the agency had initially pursued a 100-foot option but expanded Alternative C to 100 feet, plus or minus 35 feet, so it could determine what height made sense.
That was March 3, 2025. My resolution supporting the 100-foot fixed alternative received no second.
Mayor Saffo then proposed a broader resolution urging NCDOT to “explore all practical alternatives” to avoid impacts on homes, businesses, and historic structures. I supported it, and Council adopted it unanimously.
Two months later, something important changed. In May 2025, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Coast Guard notified NCDOT that a new fixed bridge would require at least 135 feet of vertical clearance. NCDOT subsequently removed Alternative C from consideration.
That timeline matters.
It is inaccurate to suggest that Wilmington failed to raise the possibility of a lower bridge while there was still time. I raised it while a lower bridge remained an official NCDOT alternative, while NCDOT said it had not settled on a height and before federal agencies made the determination that led to Alternative C being eliminated.
What We Knew Then, and What We Know Now
There is another important difference between March 2025 and today: We have much more information.
When Council discussed the bridge in March 2025, NCDOT told us its environmental studies were incomplete. In August 2026, NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration released the Environmental Assessment comparing the two remaining alternatives.
Alternative A is a movable bridge with approximately 65 feet of clearance when closed and 135 feet when open. Alternative B is a fixed bridge providing 135 feet of vertical clearance. Both are estimated to cost more than $1 billion, but their impacts are significantly different.
According to the Environmental Assessment, the 135-foot fixed alternative would affect substantially more parcels, wetlands, floodplain, and noise receptors. Its approaches would extend farther into Wilmington and shift the downtown connection toward Fifth Avenue.
That information matters because bridge height does not affect only what happens over the river. A bridge must climb to its required clearance and descend from it. The higher the bridge, the longer those approaches generally must be, with consequences for neighborhoods, businesses, historic resources, environmentally sensitive areas and the city's street network.
Those consequences were not fully known when Council considered my resolution in March 2025. They are known much more clearly today. And that is precisely what an Environmental Assessment is supposed to accomplish: give decisionmakers and the public better information before a final decision is made.
The process is not over. NCDOT is accepting public comments through Oct. 15, and those comments will become part of the project record as work on the project continues.
The Question Behind 135 Feet
I have consistently said that the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge must be replaced. I also recognize the importance of protecting the $242 million federal Bridge Investment Program grant and the other public funding committed to the project. But protecting that funding and scrutinizing the assumptions behind a billion-dollar infrastructure decision are not mutually exclusive.
One question remains especially important: What are the current and reasonably foreseeable future navigational needs of the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear rivers north of the bridge?
That is not quite the same question as whether a particular bridge design would interfere with navigation. And I am no longer the only local elected official making that distinction.
All five members of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners recently signed a letter to Senators Thom Tillis and Ted Budd and Congressman David Rouzer asking Congress to authorize an updated assessment of current and future navigational needs north of the bridge.
Their letter makes an important point. NCDOT conducted a Navigation Impact Report as part of the replacement project. But, as the Commissioners noted, that report primarily examined how a replacement bridge might affect access through the waterways. It did not determine the waterways’ actual navigational needs. That distinction deserves attention.
The federal navigation project influencing today's 135-foot requirement dates to 1996. The county is asking that current and future economic activity be examined rather than relying solely on an analysis performed approximately 30 years ago. That is a reasonable question for a project of this magnitude.
The Conversation Has Changed
The county's letter is not the only development. On Sept. 1, Wilmington City Council unanimously adopted a resolution asking that additional alternatives beyond the two currently under review be considered, including alternatives that might be completed more quickly and potentially at lower cost.
This week, all seven members of Wilmington City Council signed a letter to our congressional delegation seeking federal assistance in addressing the navigation requirements affecting the bridge replacement.
Across the river, Leland Town Council is also discussing a resolution and congressional letter seeking reconsideration of the navigation assumptions affecting the project.
These governments may not ultimately reach identical conclusions about which bridge should be built. New Hanover County, for example, has said that if a new navigational assessment would jeopardize the project timeline and federal funding, it would support the movable-span alternative because of its lower impacts.
But something significant has happened nonetheless. The question of whether our federal navigation requirements accurately reflect the current and future needs of this stretch of river is no longer being raised by one Wilmington council member. It has become a regional question.
Asking Questions Is Part of the Process
Reasonable people can disagree about which bridge design best serves Southeastern North Carolina.
NCDOT has talented professionals working on an extraordinarily complex project, and Wilmington needs productive relationships with NCDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, the Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and our state and federal partners.
But partnership does not require silence. Nor should questioning an agency's assumptions be dismissed as misunderstanding its process.
In March 2025, when I asked Council to support continued consideration of a lower fixed bridge, we were told the studies were incomplete, more information was needed and NCDOT wanted to keep its options open.
Today, we have more information. The Environmental Assessment has documented the substantially different effects of the two remaining alternatives. The County Commissioners have asked for a current and future navigational-needs assessment. Wilmington City Council has asked our congressional delegation for federal assistance. Leland is considering adding its voice.
Meanwhile, the public-comment period remains open. If this is not the appropriate time to ask hard questions, when is?
Getting the Answer Right
Asking for an updated navigational-needs assessment does not require anyone to predetermine what that assessment should conclude.
Perhaps an updated analysis would demonstrate that 135 feet really is necessary to protect current and reasonably foreseeable future navigation. If so, the public deserves to see the evidence supporting that conclusion.
Perhaps it would demonstrate that a lower fixed bridge could adequately accommodate those needs. If so, we should know that before permanently eliminating that possibility.
Or perhaps it would point toward another solution. That is why we study alternatives before making decisions that will last generations.
The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge needs to be replaced. The replacement must safely carry people between New Hanover and Brunswick counties, protect legitimate navigation interests, and meet applicable state and federal requirements. But we should also understand what those navigation interests actually require.
In March 2025, I asked Council to consider a lower fixed bridge while it was still an official NCDOT alternative.
Today, Wilmington City Council is asking questions about additional alternatives. New Hanover County's five commissioners are asking for an updated navigational-needs assessment. Wilmington's seven council members have asked our congressional delegation for federal assistance. And Leland is considering a similar request.
None of that tells us what the correct bridge height is. It tells us something equally important: The question of what this river actually requires is still worth answering.
Salette Andrews is a member of the Wilmington City Council, elected in 2023. She serves on the Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority (Wave Transit) Board of Directors and the National League of Cities Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Federal Advocacy Committee. She is a U.S. Air Force veteran.
