WILMINGTON — A federal grant that is set to cover half of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge’s 135-foot replacement is now on pause, an NCDOT representative said one day after agency workers told the Wilmington City Council the grant could be in peril if the council takes a stance on the bridge height.
READ MORE: New CF Memorial Bridge height to be determined in March, cost increases possible
“At this time, all USDOT grants, such as this one, have been paused, and we do not know yet when this CFMB grant will resume again,” NCDOT spokesperson Andrew Barksdale wrote in an email to Port City Daily Tuesday. “But, we are committed to continue our work on the necessary environmental documents, which are on track to be completed by 2026.”
This pause is a new development since last week, when Port City Daily asked Barksdale if the grant is in peril due to the January federal funding freeze by the Trump administration. On Feb. 24, Barksdale said the following:
“Locally, we have not been directed to pause or hold on any work, and we are continuing to complete the planning phase of this project.”
Wednesday afternoon, after the publication of this article, Barksdale told Port City Daily all USDOT discretionary grants have been paused per a Feb. 26 executive order establishing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.
The order states DOGE “shall review all existing covered contracts and grants and, where appropriate and consistent with applicable law, terminate or modify (including through renegotiation) such covered contracts and grants to reduce overall Federal spending or reallocate spending to promote efficiency and advance the policies of [Trump’s] Administration.”
Barksdale updated PCD with this information after having incorrectly attributed the pause to Trump’s federal funding freeze, which was rescinded Jan. 29, and failing to explain the discrepancy between NCDOT’s statement last week and this week. As Barksdale later pointed out, the Feb. 26 order happened between PCD’s inquiries.
North Carolina Department of Transportation officials Landon Zimmer and Trevor Carroll failed to mention the grant pause at Monday morning’s Wilmington City Council agenda review meeting. Both men were called on to answer questions about the bridge replacement process, specifically the height determination, due to a resolution that will be voted on by council Tuesday night.
Put forth by council member Salette Andrews, the resolution supports the 100-foot option for replacing the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and asks NCDOT officials to make it a priority. However, officials have hinted this could be a misstep on the path to getting the bridge funded and built.
It follows multiple reports, including an article from Port City Daily, on the Wilmington Historic Foundation’s stance that a 100-foot replacement be the best choice of three options. The other two include a 65-foot bridge with a movable span or 135-foot fixed bridge. The current structure is 65 feet, but can open up to 135 feet.
On Feb. 24, PCD reported the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are expected to determine the minimum height clearance of the new bridge this month. USACE accepted public comments on the matter until Monday.
“One of the factors that the Army Corps has to consider is part of the statute public interest,” HWF board member Sylvia Kochler said at Monday’s agenda review meeting. “There is no better body than this city council to communicate to Army Corps what the public interest is in the height of the bridge, not special interests, but the public interest. And we feel strongly that the public interest is best served by the 100 foot bridge.”
NCDOT officials Zimmer and Carroll were present at the request of council member Luke Waddell. They explained some of the factual inaccuracies in the proposed resolution and provided information on the bridge replacement process, while urging council to keep an open mind regarding the bridge height options.
Zimmer alluded to a possibility the projects’ grant through the federal Bridge Investment Program — worth $242 million, half the price of the 135-foot option — could be affected by the resolution.
“Would putting a stake in the ground jeopardize the grant? I think it possibly could,” Zimmer said.
NCDOT has not yet received the money and must complete a grant agreement by September 2026.
Carroll explained when NCDOT applied for the federal grant, the request was for “half of the cost of the bridge” and the application used the most expensive option, the 135 feet.
PCD asked Barksdale to clarify if the federal grant stipulates the bridge must be 135 feet; he dodged the question.
“We do not know at this time from USDOT under the new administration if any amount of this grant might be changed,” Barksdale said. “NCDOT applied for two additional federal grants, but recently found out we did not receive them. NCDOT will continue to work with our partners at the WMPO to find additional funding to move the project forward.”
The agency also has not been successful in obtaining other grant funding, and though it can still apply to other programs, if the $242 federal grant was off the table, a toll on the bridge replacement would be all but inevitable. For years, the bridge replacement has not scored well enough for funding on the NCDOT’s 10-year evaluation — until last year.
The project was submitted twice: once with a toll option and again without. The non-tolled option ranked 241, with the toll option ranking in the top 10 and NCDOT committing $85 million to it.
Council member Andrews said she talked with Wilmington’s intergovernmental affairs representative who “helped broker the deal” on the federal grant; Andrews got from this conversation that the grant was not contingent on the 135-foot option.
Not only could federal dollars be at risk, but according to Zimmer, state support could be in jeopardy as well.
“We’ve heard from our state representatives: They want 135 feet,” Zimmer said. “That’s what they want. We’re, again, still exploring all options. We want to see what’s out there. But if the state legislature has promised money towards the bridge, that’s another conversation that I would recommend we have before proceeding with a resolution.”
This is not the first resolution regarding the bridge to be taken up by council; in January 2024, council unanimously passed a resolution against implementing tolls on the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. Andrews pointed out this did not put a harmful “stake in the ground,” as the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization still voted to explore the tolling option.
The decision to submit the tolled option was much stressed over by the WMPO, made up of Cape Fear politicians; members whose constituents would be less impacted by a tolled bridge – the beach towns, Pender County, Brunswick County — voted for the tolled submission, while representatives from Wilmington, Leland and Navassa voted against. New Hanover County representatives were split.
Mayor Bill Saffo reiterated the importance of council’s and the Historic Wilmington Foundation’s opinions on the bridge height on Monday.
“The impacts to us is much greater than any other community,” Saffo said, noting legislators across the bridge in Brunswick County “killed” the Skyway Bridge project a decade ago due to impacts on their constituents’ neighborhoods.
Saffo went on: “We represent the citizens that are coming to us, and the impact that it’s having is happening in the historic district, primarily, no different than what happened on the west bank in Brunswick Forest and those communities over there that did not want the bridge — they moved it over.”
The 135-foot bridge would require a longer off-ramp, ending at Fifth Avenue instead of Third Street, and an overpass above S. Third and Fourth Streets, both impacting Wilmington’s historic district.
“You ask this community to give them an option, and they’re giving you an option,” Saffo said. “We’re hearing it from the community. And if we do it, we stand to jeopardize the construction of the bridge and I don’t get that.”
Carroll said the USACE is asking for public input from citizens, but not a comment from the city itself. He also negated Saffo’s claim NCDOT was “focusing” on the 135-foot option and said they were still exploring all options.
Much of the Historic Wilmington Foundation’s argument is based on the U.S. Coast Guard’s Navigation Impact Report, which provides a project overview, summarizes the characteristics of the waterways upstream, downstream and within the project area, identifies users of the waterway, and discusses potential impacts and improvements to navigation at the proposed bridge site.
Zimmer said the NIR is only a maritime height analysis and other data points, such as historical and environmental impact studies, still need to be completed. He cautioned against basing an opinion on the NIR alone, though also pointed to section 18 of the report, claiming the study found the 100-foot option does not meet current clearance guides set forth by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Section 18 states:
“Under Alternative C [100-foot] the proposed vertical navigational clearances for the proposed bridge would accommodate heights of existing vessels along the waterway, thus reasonably accommodating current navigational needs. It should be noted that if uses along the waterway change in the future (i.e. additional industrial or commercial uses are developed), the vertical clearance included in Alternative C may limit the navigational ability for these future uses.”
Opponents to the 100-foot limitation, including Wilmington Chamber of Commerce CEO Natalie English, home in on those future possibilities. The Wilmington Business Journal posted an op-ed from English Monday. English wrote: “Wilmington’s economy depends on maritime activity, and restricting navigational access could stifle growth, deter investment and burden taxpayers with costly retrofits in the future.”
Her argument is that the bridge should be accommodating of a future with potentially larger ships serving potentially more properties north of the bridge. She, along with Zimmer, note property owners north of the bridge could be negatively impacted by a lower bridge height. At Monday’s meeting, Zimmer said he knows of one property owner exploring litigation options should the bridge height be limited.
The HWF argues the bridge height should be determined based on current needs. The NIR shows there has been a sharp decline in bridge lifts to accommodate vessels taller than 65 feet; 381 openings accommodating 188 vessels (many of the openings were for maintenance or training) compared to 2023’s 168 openings serving 69 vessels. This marks a 63% decrease since 2019, the biggest drop from 2022 to 2023, which is attributed some to the relocation of Kinder Morgan — an energy infrastructure company that moved from north of the bridge to the south of it in June 2023.
Since the relocation, there have been no bridge lift calls, though the NIR anticipates if Kinder Morgan was replaced with a similar industrial use, bridge lift calls would increase.
The HWF also notes bridge height is not the only determining factor for attracting larger ships; they also need deeper waters. The NIR notes there were no plans to deepen the Wilmington harbor north of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge (USACE’s ongoing harbor deepening project would be south of the bridge).
Aside from industrial ships, cruise ships also need deeper water to navigate than the river can now offer and also require a cruise ship terminal, which the Historic Wilmington Foundation pointed out is not planned at this time.
Aside from the economic needs, the HWF also highlights the discrepancy of price points. NCDOT has released cost estimates for two options, however, as previously reported on PCD and confirmed by Zimmer and Carroll Monday, prices have significantly increased and will be revaluated. NCDOT blamed inflation.
The last publicized prices include $765.9 million for a 65-foot bridge with a moveable span and $452.9 million for a 135-foot fixed-span bridge. While the construction costs are lower for the latter, right-of-way acquisition is more expensive.
A price has not yet been released for the 100-foot fixed-span option, but the HWF have estimated it to be around $250 million. Council member Waddell questioned where the HWF came up with that number, with representatives confirming it was based on the calculations of the other options.
Waddell also took issue with “factual inaccuracies” in the resolution, namely that the 100-foot option would not require a toll. The NCDOT representatives confirmed that has not been determined.
Council member Charlie Rivenbark asked the NCDOT officials what happens if, hypothetically, the minimum height clearance is set at 100 feet.
“This is one of the data points that we’re going to have to put into our design, and then we will work from there again, all these designs are still preliminary,” Carroll said.
When Carroll asked if that answered his question, Rivenbark said it was like Carroll was playing chess and he was playing checkers.
Zimmer admitted the department could communicate better with local governments on the decision-making process.
“There’s no deadline here; no decision’s been made,” he said. “We want input so we can adjust and make decisions. We’re not asking for 100 foot or 135 foot. We just want to keep our options open and get information as we go forward.”
Reach journalist Brenna Flanagan at brenna@localdailymedia.com.
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our morning newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.ur inbox every morning.
