Cape Fear Memorial Bridge Replacement

As we navigate the future of Wilmington’s infrastructure, conversations around the replacement of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge have reached a pivotal moment, and our community stands at a crossroads. We urge you to follow along with this important issue, which will have profound effects on the Wilmington National Register Historic District. 

Context

The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge has been declared functionally obsolete by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) due to escalating repair and maintenance costs. Each option for replacement is located in the Wilmington Historic District, requiring determination and mitigation of adverse effects to historic resources under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. HWF serves as a consulting party during the ongoing Section 106 review.

The United States Coast Guard has completed an assessment of reasonable needs for maritime navigation for the proposed Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement, analyzing three alternatives: 

  • ALTERNATIVE A: Movable span with a 65’ clearance, extendable to 135’
  • ALTERNATIVE B: Fixed span with a 135′ clearance
  • ALTERNATIVE C: Fixed span with a 100’ clearance

Currently, the federally-maintained vertical clearance under the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge is 135’. The Coast Guard released a NAVIGATIONAL IMPACT REPORT this summer and solicited public comments to determine reasonable needs for maritime navigation. Upon reviewing these comments, the Coast Guard will render a preliminary navigational clearance determination to identify the minimal vertical clearance required for the new bridge. Ultimately, the U.S. Coast Guard will make recommendations to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which will have the final say on clearance.

Potential Impacts on the Downtown Wilmington Historic District

The construction of a 135’ fixed bridge (Alternative B) poses significant threats to historic buildings in the study area, potentially leading to demolition or exposing them to indirect adverse impacts such as new traffic patterns, compromised sight-lines that detract from the historic setting’s integrity, and increased noise. Notably, Alternative B would necessitate a longer off-ramp, with bridge traffic landing on 5th Avenue, and an overpass above South 3rd and 4th Streets. 

According to maps supplied by the NC Department of Transportation, Alternatives A and C fit within the existing footprint of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, greatly reducing negative impacts on the Wilmington Historic District.

CLICK HERE to read HWF’s op-ed published in the Greater Wilmington Business Journal on July 15, 2024: THE CASE AGAINST A 135-FOOT CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL BRIDGE. 

WEIGHING THE ALTERNATIVES:

  • Alternative A: Although it preserves the existing footprint and protects historic neighborhoods, Alternative A is the most expensive option, costing nearly twice as much as Alternative B (approximately $450 million). Additionally, the maintenance and operational costs of a movable span are significant due to the need for unique parts and increased upkeep. Modern engineering practices favor fixed bridges for their cost-effectiveness and reliability, making Alternative A a highly impractical choice.
  • Alternative B: This option poses severe risks to the Wilmington Historic District, likely leading to demolitions of historic homes and indirect adverse impacts. The required longer off-ramp would result in significant alterations to 5th Avenue and necessitate an overpass above South 3rd and 4th Streets. Despite meeting navigational requirements, the detrimental effects on the historic district make Alternative B unfavorable. Additionally, the high costs of Alternative B make the project less competitive for funding through North Carolina’s State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).
  • Alternative C: Projected to be the least costly option, Alternative C fits within the existing footprint of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, significantly reducing negative impacts on the Wilmington Historic District. The NIR confirms that this alternative (100’ vertical clearance) meets current navigational needs. Given the depth limitations of the waterway, the argument for a higher bridge clearance is moot.

Thanks to everyone who attended the NCDOT public meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 8 and all those who submitted public comments. 

 

Analysis: Navigational Impact Report

The NAVIGATIONAL IMPACT REPORT (NIR) confirms that all three alternatives fulfill the reasonable need for navigation in the Cape Fear River, including Alternative C (100’ fixed span). Summarizing the data collected, the NIR states that “vessels are not currently navigating this waterway that exceed 100-feet in height,” and that it does not expect Alternative C to adversely affect recreational operations. 

However, the NIR incorrectly infers that the terminal storage site previously owned by Kinder Morgan might “accommodate a similar use” in the future, despite deed restrictions prohibiting storage terminal services, transloading services, and stevedoring services related to bulk liquid petroleum/chemicals distribution. These perpetual covenants require the site to adapt to new uses, invalidating any assumptions based on past uses for predicting future vertical clearance needs.

Furthermore, the NIR suggests that the sale of Kinder Morgan to a real estate developer is the primary reason for the current lack of commercial traffic in the waterway. A closer examination of the site’s draft restrictions—which refer to the depth of water needed to float a ship—reveals that its shallow draft made it less competitive compared to other terminals. This led Kinder Morgan to sell the property, concluding that their terminals south of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, with deeper drafts, better met their needs for accommodating larger ships. Former employees who spoke on record to the StarNews in 2009 confirmed loss of business due to the site’s restrictive draft, which is a mere 31’. 

We have been led to believe that the limitation on upstream industry is the height of the bridge, when in actuality, the depth of the water is the most consequential limitation—and the depth will not increase. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers eliminated the potential for federal funding to dredge north of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge in 2006 due to an unfavorable cost/benefit ratio. Tellingly, the scope of work for the Wilmington Harbor 403 project does not extend as far north as the Memorial Bridge. Thus, deepening the draft in this federal navigation channel is no longer feasible, significantly limiting the effectiveness of the old Kinder Morgan site.

The waterway’s depth restrictions preclude the passage of larger, modern vessels requiring greater draft and vertical clearance. Consequently, upstream industry has moved on; Kinder Morgan and similar businesses are relocating and centralizing south where the water is deeper. This undermines the argument for a bridge clearance above 100’.

Policy Recommendations

Alternative C effectively balances cost, navigational needs, and the preservation of historic neighborhoods. The restrictive covenants on the old Kinder Morgan site should not influence the decision for a higher bridge clearance. The depth of the waterway north of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge precludes the passage of larger vessels, and upstream industrial activities have already adapted to this reality. Rather than imposing the substantial negative impact of Alternative B on Wilmington’s historic district, it would be prudent to consider using eminent domain to acquire the Kinder Morgan site for future development. This approach respects the historical integrity of the community and aligns with current navigational and industrial realities.

In the News: