20110023_Environmental Assessment_20100609 (4)

Appendix D
Response to Comments on
the Final Environmental
Impact Statement
D. Response to Comments on the
Final Environmental Impact
Statement
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) signed a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Bonner
Bridge Replacement Project on September 17, 2008. This appendix presents and provides
responses to comments on the FEIS received from the public, state, and federal environmental
resource and regulatory agencies, local agencies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
The written correspondence received is included in Appendix E. The comments and responses to
those comments are presented in the following sections:
D.1 Public Comments .......................................................................................................... D-1
D.1.1 Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor Comments ...................................................... D-1
D.1.2 Parallel Bridge Corridor Comments .................................................................. D-2
D.1.3 Other Comments ............................................................................................... D-2
D.2 Government Agency Comments and Responses ....................................................... D-3
D.2.1 Federal Agencies ............................................................................................... D-3
D.2.2 State Agencies ................................................................................................. D-32
D.2.3 Local Agencies-The Albemarle Commission ............................................... D-38
D.2.4 Non-Governmental Organization Comments and Responses ......................... D-39
D.1 Public Comments
This section presents the comments on the FEIS submitted by the public. These comments come
from oral testimony (phone calls), e-mails, and letters. The comments primarily included
expressions of support or opposition to specific alternatives, expressions of opinion on the
positive and negative aspects of a particular alternative or alternatives, and requests to begin
building whichever alternative is chosen. Fifteen total written and oral comments were received
before the end of the FEIS public comment period on October 27, 2008. The written
correspondence received is included in Appendix E.
D.1.1 Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor Comments
There were two comments that expressed support for the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor. Both
comments were non-specific in their support for a Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor Alternative.
There was one comment against the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor. Those opposed to the
Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor believe that the alternative is unrealistic and is a politically
correct alternative to appease environmental agencies. Those that supported the Pamlico Sound
Bridge Corridor gave the following reasons:
• It is the least environmentally damaging alternative;
• It is not subject to natural shoreline movement;
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-1 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
• The higher cost is offset by the environmental benefits; and
• It is preferred over the Parallel Bridge Corridor because the Parallel Bridge Corridor would
result in the following problems not likely to occur with the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor:
- Far greater effects of storm damage at Oregon Inlet;
- Much shorter life span;
- Expensive maintenance and repair;
- Destroy more than 30 acres of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge; and
- Require far more expense of taxpayer money.
D.1.2 Parallel Bridge Corridor Comments
Eleven comments were received that expressed support for the Parallel Bridge Corridor in general
during the public comment period. Four comments supported the Parallel Bridge Corridor with
no preference, while seven comments supported the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge
Alternative as the Preferred Alternative. Those opposed to the Parallel Bridge Corridor gave the
following reasons:
• Long-term maintenance of NC 12 through Refuge would be too expensive and
environmentally damaging;
• Concern about maintenance on a bridge that eventually would be in ocean;
• It would be less safe; and
• Negative economic impacts.
Those that supported the Parallel Bridge Corridor supported it because it maintains Refuge
access.
D.1.3 Other Comments
Other comments received indicated:
• The alternative chosen must maintain access to the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge;
• Private property would be negatively affected (visual and access) by some of the alternatives,
including the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative (listed as the Preferred
Alternative in the FEIS);
• The bridge should be built as soon as possible (four comments);
• Concern about the safety of the existing bridge; and
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-2 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
• With the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative, the improvement in Rodanthe is
needed more than the bridge.
A letter also was received from State Senator Marc Basnight (see Appendix E) who restated his
support of the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative as the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), as well as his position that the Bonner Bridge must
be replaced as soon as possible for the safety of local residents and visitors. He also provided
additional thoughts on the following issues: Refuge compatibility of the Phased Approach/
Rodanthe Bridge Alternative; continued road access required to state-owned property; the
terminal groin; CAMA development rules; fishing activities on northern Hatteras Island; and
blockage of the Natural Bridge to Old House Channel.
D.2 Government Agency Comments and Responses
This section responds to written comments on the FEIS submitted by state and federal
environmental resource and regulatory agencies, as well as local agencies. Each substantive
comment requiring a response is listed below, followed by a response. The comments in the
sections quote the correspondence received. The original correspondence is presented in
Appendix E.
D.2.1 Federal Agencies
US Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Comment: "Page 4-92, Section 4.7.3.2, Parallel Bridge Corridor with NC 12
Maintenance. It appears based on information presented in other sections of the FEIS that
dredging for the construction barge channel could have affects to submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) similar to constructing a haul road to complete the bridge behind (west
side) Bodie Island. A statement should be added saying that potential dredging impacts
would affect SAV. If these impacts are known they should be identified and quantified
similar to how they are identified for the haul road."
Response: Commitment 3 in the "Project Commitments" section of the FEIS and in
this Environmental Assessment (EA) indicates that temporary work bridges (rather
than dredging for barges) would be used for movement of construction equipment in
shallow areas where submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is present. The impact
would then be confined to the temporary impact of the work bridge foundation and
shading. If SAV is in waters deep enough tofloat a barge without dredging, the use
of a work bridge would not be necessary. In addition, Commitment 3 has been
updated to emphasize that dredging would not be allowed within SAV areas. This
issue also was discussed and resolved at the Concurrence Point 4A Merger Team
meeting for Phase I on November 10, 2008 (see Section 3.3.1 in this EA).
Comment: "It appears there still may be unresolved issues pertaining to whether or not the
Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative (Preferred) will require a compatibility
determination from the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. There are numerous references
in the FEIS that a compatibility determination is not required because the Preferred
Alternative [Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge] and any storm related NC maintenance to
existing Highway 12 fall within the terms of the easement permit. However on page 4-8, it
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-3 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
states, "the USFWS will be responsible for determining whether or not the Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative is consistent with both the Refuge's mission and
plans, including the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, as well as the provisions of the
National Wildlife Refuge System Act (NWRSA) of 1997." It is unclear whether or not the
term "consistent" encompasses the provisions of compatibility under the NWRSA of 1997."
Response: In its October 2008 comment letter on the FEIS, the US Department of
the Interior (USDOI) Office of the Secretary confirmed that If all the proposed
work (staging areas, construction, and future maintenance of existing NC 12) is
performed within the existing right-of-way and is in compliance with any terms and
conditions contained within the easement deed, a Refuge compatibility determination
will not be required. " NCDOT and FHWA believe this work can be performed
within the existing easement or within the historic confines of what would constitute
only a "minor" modification; however, a final decision regarding compatibility is the
responsibility of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Comment: "In some sections of the FEIS documenting construction techniques it mentions
SAV and wetlands will be bridged and in other sections it says there may be temporary
impacts to these resources. It is our preference that all wetlands and SAV's be bridged to the
maximum extent practicable to reduce impacts to these valuable resources. All impacts both
temporary and permanent will need to be identified and included as part of the Section 404
permit application."
Response: This preference is acknowledged and all impacts will be identified in the
permit application. Commitment 3 in the "Project Commitments" section of the
FEIS and in this EA indicates that temporary work bridges (rather than dredging for
barges) would be used for movement of construction equipment in shallow areas
where SAV is present. If SAV is in waters deep enough to float a barge without
dredging, the use of a work bridge would not be necessary. In addition, Commitment
3 has been updated to emphasize that dredging would not be allowed within SAV
areas. This issue also was discussed and resolved at the Concurrence Point 4A
Merger Team meeting for Phase I on November 10, 2008 (see Section 3.3.1 in this
EA).
Comment: "It should be noted that in addition to the U. S. Coast Guard Permit for the Oregon
Inlet Bridge (Phase 1) component a Corps Section 10 permit would be required for any utility
lines in or affecting navigable waters of the United States. A "utility line" is defined as any
cable, line, or wire for the transmission for any purpose of electrical energy, telephone, and
telegraph messages, and radio and television communication. Pipes or pipelines used to
transport gaseous, liquid, liquescent, or slurry substances over navigable waters of the United
States are considered to be bridges, not utility lines, and may require a permit from the U.S.
Coast Guard pursuant to Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899."
Response: Electric and telephone lines would be placed on the new Oregon Inlet
bridge so they would not affect navigable waters. No pipes or pipelines would be
built across Oregon Inlet in association with the new Oregon Inlet bridge.
5. Comment: "Issues pertaining to the removal or retention of the terminal groin still exist with
the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative. It appears based on information
presented in the FEIS that NCDOT needs the terminal groin to remain in place for its
preferred alternative [Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge]. NCDOT should act accordingly
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-4 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
in trying to obtain the necessary special use permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) for the retention of the terminal groin prior to the issuance of the Corps Section
404/10 permit, CAMA permit, and US Coast Guard Permit. A National Park Service (NPS)
Special Use Permit would also need to be obtained for the bridge terminus on Bodie Island.
Additionally, the Corps navigation section in a letter dated September 18, 2008 expressed
concern that delaying the application and issuance of the Special Use Permit may render the
constructed Navigation Zone useless and most likely jeopardize the structural integrity of the
newly constructed southern bridge abutment."
Response: The FEIS assumes that the terminal groin would remain in place, which
is also a critical issue for the USArmy Corps of Engineers (USACE) in its efforts to
maintain the navigation channel through Oregon Inlet. NCDOT will continue
coordinating with USFWS on terminal groin permit requirements, as well as with the
National Park Service (NPS) on its permit requirements. NCDOT plans to seek
retention of the groin in association with Phase I of the project. All permits needed
in association with the project will be obtained prior to the start of construction.
Comment: "It is recommended to prevent possible permit delays that NCDOT and FHWA
coordinate and complete a Memorandum of Agreement with the State Historic Preservation
Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in consolation with other
consulting parties, as per the requirement of Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act of
1966. Additionally, to prevent possible permit delays, coordination needs to be completed
with NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) specifically as it relates
to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). To date, we haven't seen any documentation that the NMFS
concurs with the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment which was completed for this project nor
have we seen any conservation recommendations proposed. Prior to Corps authorization for
this project, we will need to ensure that our legal requirements are satisfied and fulfilled
under Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Magnuson Stevens Act."
Response: Coordination with the ACHP and the HPO under Section 106 is
underway, and the final Programmatic Agreement will be finalized before the release
of the Record of Decision (ROD). Coordination with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 USC 1801 et seq.) has been completed. The findings of the
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) report prepared as apart of this coordination are
summarized in FEIS Section 4.7.62. These findings are affirmed by NMFS in their
FEIS comment letter of October 27, 2008 by the following recommendation: If
NCDOT moves forward with the currently selected plan [Phased Approach/Rodanthe
Bridge Alternative], we recommend early initiation of a long-term study to
characterize changes in habitats along Hatteras and Bodie Islands so that adequate
information is available for examining applications to USACE for project
authorization, including mitigation for unavoidable impacts to EFH " EFHfindings
related to the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative are presented in
Section 2.3.3.5 of this EA.
7. Comment: "Page 4-131, Section 4.7.10.3, Compensatory Mitigation. The FEIS states
"temporary impacts to wetlands would be mitigated on a 1:1 basis by restoring these areas to
their preconstruction condition." As we discussed in our December 14, 2005 comment letter
for the SDEIS, until these impacts can be more thoroughly assessed we are unable to agree
that a 1:1 ratio for temporary impacts is appropriate. Factors such as compaction and changes
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-5 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
to adjacent landscape sometimes limit how these areas can be restored. Mitigation ratios
and/or specific mitigation guidelines and conditions for temporary impacts will be assessed
during the permit process."
Response: NCDOT will continue to coordinate with USACE during the final design
engineering to identify adequately all temporary impacts to wetlands and
appropriate mitigation ratios. These issues will be resolved prior to the start of
construction during the permitting process, which includes Merger Team meetings
for Concurrence Points 4B and 4C.
Comment: "Pages 4-132, 4-134, 4-135, and 4-131, Section 4.7.10.3, Mitigation of
Permanent Wetland Impacts. The mitigation section is a little confusing since temporary
impacts are discussed in one context and permanent impacts in another (also Tables 4-25 and
4-26) but then it appears the later narrative sections describing the different types of wetlands
includes all impacts. Then the second to last paragraph on page 4-134 then states Section 404
jurisdictional wetlands will total 0.47 acres for the Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased
Approach/ Rodanthe Bridge Alternative. The total wetland impacts for the Parallel Bridge
Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative considering all permanent and
temporary impacts far exceed 0.47 acres. The Record of Decision (ROD) should clarify and
quantify all impacts described in this section of the FEIS. While we agree that potential
compensatory wetland mitigation includes on-site restoration and enhancement of in-kind
wetlands as compensation for as much of the permanently affected areas as possible, we are
in disagreement at this point in time that the mitigation credit available from the Balance
Farm Mitigation could provide for all or a portion of the mitigation required for the Preferred
Alternative [Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge]. Our basis for this is that the wetlands that
exist at the Balance Farm Mitigation Site are out-of-kind as compared to the impacts that
would take place for the proposed project. More in-depth analysis needs to be completed for
the mitigation options that may exist for this project and should be submitted ideally at the
time of permit application so they may be assessed accordingly without causing permit
delay."
Response: The commenter's position on proposed wetland mitigation is
acknowledged. NCDOT will continue to coordinate with USACE during the permit
process on appropriate mitigation sites. As noted by the commenter, FEIS Tables 4-
25 and 4-26 summarize the total permanent (0.47 acre) and temporary (7.12 acres)
wetland impacts, respectively, for the detailed study alternatives. Tables 2-5 and 2-6
of this EA present amended permanent wetland impact numbers for Phase I and all
phases (replacing Table 4-25 of the FEIS). They take into account revisions to
several detailed study alternatives within the community of Rodanthe and at Oregon
Inlet. They also reflect the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative
(Preferred). Temporary impacts remain as presented in FEIS Table 4-26
Comment: "We respectively would like to place emphasis on Section 2.15 on page 2-148,
Section 8.10.3 on page 8-32, and pages D-12-D-14 in Volume 2 of the FEIS which address
key points in selecting the Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge
Alternative as the LEDPA (preferred alternative) for this project. As this project proceeds
forward it should be duly noted that the agreement was that the `remaining phases of work in
the Phased Approach/Bridge Alternative indicate work on Pea Island will be done within the
existing easement via the construction of short bridge segments, or other alternatives as
determined at that time. The agencies concur, based on the information available today, they
can not conclusively say that permits or approvals will or will not be granted for these
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-6 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
additional phases. The agencies do agree that permits will not be granted for these remaining
phases of work until their applicable laws and regulations have been satisfied. The agencies
are reaching concurrence on this approach for the purposes of advancing the project to a ROD
but are making it clear the remaining phases of work may need further study after the ROD
but before any permits or approvals are granted."'
Response: Comment noted. These points were acknowledged again in the LEDPA
(Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative) amendment, which was
signed by FHWA, NCDOT, NCDENR, and USA CE in January 2010 to acknowledge
the agreement of the signatories that the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan
Alternative (Preferred) is the LEDPA. A copy of this agreement is included in
Appendix A.
US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service
1. Comment: "Our previous comment letters and material submitted in conjunction with the
Merger 01 process details the essential fish habitat (EFH) and federally managed fishery
species that could be adversely affected by the project over its design life. For brevity, that
information will not be repeated here."
Response: Comments previously submitted were addressed in FEIS Section 8.12.3.
In addition, an Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (CZR, Incorporated, 2008) was
prepared to assess impacts to EFH resulting from the Phased Approach/Rodanthe
Bridge Alternative. The EFH assessment was prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(16 USC 1801 et seq.), which requires federal agencies to consult with the US
Secretary of Commerce on all actions, or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or
undertaken by the agency that might adversely affect EFH The EFH assessment was
prepared in coordination with NMFS and the report's findings are summarized in
FEIS Section 4.7.62 and EA Section 2.3.3.5. These findings are applicable to the
NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred) given that they
represent the reasonably foreseeable range ofpotential actions and impacts for
Phase I and future phases of the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan based on
current knowledge. Impacts to EFH for both Phase I and future phases are shown in
Table 4-27 on page 4-105 of the FEIS
2. Comment: "While no beach nourishment is proposed in the short term, over the long term
the beach nourishment needed to protect NC 12 could significantly alter and degrade the
value of surf zone habitat to migrating fish and to fish that use the surf zone as nursery
habitat."
Response: Beach nourishment is not a part ofPhase I of the NC 12 Transportation
Management Plan Alternative (Preferred). However, in the course ofdeveloping the
details offuture phases and associated updates to the environmental impact
assessments contained in the FEIS and this EA, if the inclusion of nourishment was
found to be desirable and applicable environmental protection laws including the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act could be met, then
nourishment could be included in future phases. The impact of nourishment is
addressed in the FEIS for the length of the project.
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-7 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Comment: "The FEIS improves upon the SSDEIS in discussing the value of and impacts to
surf zone EFH in the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, however, the FEIS does not fully
consider the significant habitat changes associated with bridge supports in the surf zone and
ultimately the near shore ocean. As noted in our comments on SSDEIS and during the
Merger 01 process, NMFS believes habitat impacts associated with the Pamlico Sound
Bridge Corridor could be mitigated while the impacts associated with a bridge in the surf
zone are largely unknown."
Response: FEIS Section 4.7.6.2 discusses the potential impacts to surfzone EFH
resulting from the Phased Approach alternatives. These findings are applicable to
future phases of the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred)
given that they represent the reasonably foreseeable range of potential actions and
impacts for future phases of the alternative based on current knowledge. The
potential habitat changes are sufficiently understood and presented in the FEIS and
Section 2.3.3.5 of this EA, and FHWA and NCDOT would welcome and respond to
specific comments that NMFS may have.
4. Comment: "Under the phased approach alternatives, the maximum length of bridge over the
ocean beach is expected to be 8 miles in 2060 and 3.3 miles in 2020. NMFS notes there is
considerable uncertainty in these estimates and the impacts to fishery species and their
habitats from the project also are not well known."
Response: The estimates in FEIS Table 4-23 of the "Bridge Length and Area
beneath Bridge by Habitat and Year" for the Phased Approach alternatives are
based on the best information on shoreline erosion available. A high erosion
shoreline (i. e., a shoreline that experiences an erosion rate greater than past trends)
was assumed in developing alternatives for NC 12 maintenance through 2060 (see
page 3-57 of the FEIS). Any inaccuracy in these estimates would be addressed in
appropriate NEPA documentation to be completed prior to each future phase of the
NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred) in accordance with
23 CFR 771.129-130. In the FEIS, only the Phased Approach alternatives result in
bridges over open beach.
5. Comment: "Accordingly, we continue to support the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor as the
preferred alternative, and we disagree with the statement in Section 4.7.6, paragraph 1, line
16 that the Parallel Bridge Corridor would have less of an impact on fish and shellfish
communities."
Response: Disagreement acknowledged. FHWA and NCDOT reaffirm the statement
in Section 4.7.6 on page 4-102 that says: "The Parallel Bridge Corridor would have
less of a construction impact on fish and shellfish communities because of less bridge
construction over open water. " Further analysis presented in the October 2009
Revised Final Section 40 Statement indicates that the Pamlico Sound Bridge
Corridor is not a prudent option to avoid Section 40 resources such as Pea Island
National Wildlife Refuge. Therefore, the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor
alternatives have been dropped from further consideration.
Comment: "Page xxxiv, 7. Design Coordination: NMFS should be added to the agencies
participating in the project design and mitigation strategies."
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-8 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Response: Commitment 8 in the "Project Commitments" section of this EA (revised
from a similar commitment [Commitment 7] in the FEIS) specifically commits
NCDOT to coordinate design work with those who own the lands through which the
NC 12 easement passes, as well as the members of the project's NEPAISection 404
Merger Team. Merger Team members are listed in Section 8.3.1 of the FEIS. NMFS
would have an opportunity to participate in project design and mitigation strategies
for Phase I during the Merger Team meetings for Concurrence Points 4B and 4C.
7. Comment: "Page xxxiv, 9. Disposal of Dredged Material: Any dredged material disposal
site should be designed as a multi-purpose site in consultation with NMFS."
Response: Commitment 10 in the `Project Commitments" section of this EA (revised
from a similar commitment [Commitment 9] in the FEIS) says NCDOT would
coordinate disposal sites with appropriate agencies. That would include NMFS.
8. Comment: "Page xxxviii, 26. Submerged quatic Vegetation Survey: Any survey of SAV
in the vicinity of Oregon Inlet should follow protocols endorsed by NMFS."
Response: Commitment 26 in the `Project Commitments " section of the FEIS has
been revised in this EA to include this request. It is Commitment 27 in this EA.
9. Comment: "Page 3-61, 3.6.3.4 Potential for a Breach to Open in the Project Area: This
section provides substantial detail regarding the future conditions in the project area; however
it should be noted that the level of concern NMFS has over these conditions would be
substantially lessened by the construction of a Pamlico Sound Bridge Alternative."
Response: Position noted; however, the Pamlico Sound Bridge Alternatives have
been determined not to be feasible and prudent under Section 40 of the Department
of Transportation Act and subsequently dropped from further consideration. Also of
note, the NEPA1404 Merger team, through its elevation process, has determined that
neither Pamlico Sound Bridge alternative is practicable.
10. Comment: "Page 3-78, 3.7.3.2 Beach: This section should include information on the
invertebrates found in the beach intertidal zone or be relabeled as "Dry Beach" and a new
section should be added called "Wet/Intertidal Beach.""
Response: In response to this comment the first paragraph in FEIS Section 3.7.3.2
(page 3-78) is hereby replaced with the following (new material is in bold text):
These bare, transitional areas between the open water and upland terrestrial
community are characterized by sand flats. They typically consist of a dry berm
zone beyond the mean high tide line, an intertidal zone that is regularly covered
by tidal action, and a subtidal zone that exists below the low tide mark, including
the top and beachside of dunes. This community undergoes frequent, natural
disturbance and is typically void of vegetation, however, it can be characterized
by a small number of species and the dominance of succulents. Within the
project area, sea kale (Cakile harperi) and seaside pennywort (Hydrocotyle
bonariensis) dominate, with small occurrences of beach pea (Strophostyles
helvola), beach spurge (Euphorbia polygonifolia), and sea rocket (Cakile
edentula) situated along the highest wrack or seaweed lines. Invertebrates such
as the Atlantic ghost crab (Ocypode ceratophthalma) occur in the dry berm
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-9 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
zone and feed in the intertidal zone. Subtidal invertebrates include coquina
clams (Donax sp.), mole crabs (Emerita sp.), the spionid polychaete (Scolopsis
squamata), and several species of amphipod and occur in the intertidal and
wet beach zones (Street et al., 2005). Substantial erosion of the beachside of
the dunes in the Refuge occurred during Hurricane Isabel in 2003. Along the
southern end of Bodie Island near the campground, the beach within the project
boundary is approximately 400 feet (122.0 meters) wide; the widest point within
the project boundary at Rodanthe is approximately 700 feet (213.4 meters) wide.
The following additional reference is added to the FEIS as a result of the revisions
documented above:
Street, M. W., A. S. Deaton, W. S. Chappell, and P. D. Mooreside. 2005.
North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, North Carolina. 656 pp.
These two changes provide additional information related to the Affected
Environment. However, neither change is significant.
11. Comment: "Page 3-90, Table 3-20: The information on fish harvests is old and should be
updated to depict the most recent information from NCDENR Division of Marine Fisheries."
Response: This is background information that is not directly related to the impact
assessment or decision. An update is not needed in the current context of the project.
12. Comment: "Page 3-91, 3.7.6.3 Essential Fish Habitat: For clarity, we recommend this
section be combined with Section 4.7.6.2 EFH Assessment."
Response: FEIS Section 3.7.6.3 discusses EFH in terms of the "Affected
Environment" (i.e., FEIS Chapter 3 issues) and Section 4.7.6.2 discusses EFH-
related "Environmental Consequences " (i. e., FEIS Chapter 4 issues). All of the
natural and human environment-related issues discussed in the FEIS are arranged in
this format.
13. Comment: "Page 3-92, 3.7.6.3 Essential Fish Habitat: Table 3-22 Inshore and Marine
Essential Fish Habitats. The surf zone should be included in this table and a corresponding
section added to the text associated with this table."
Response: In response to this comment, FEIS Table 3-22 is replaced with the
following (new table row is in bold text):
Table 3-22. Inshore and Marine Essential Fish Habitats
Inshore Found in Project Area
Estuarine emergent Yes
Estuarine shrub/scrub (mangrove) No
Seagrass Yes
Oyster reef and shell bank Yes
Intertidal flats Yes
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-10 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Table 3-22 (concluded). Inshore and Marine Essential Fish Habitats
Inshore Found in Project Area
Palustrine emergent and forested (freshwater) Yes (interdunal swales)
Aquatic bed (tidal freshwater) No
Estuarine water column Yes
Marine
Live/hard bottom No
Coral and coral reef No
Artificial/manmade reef No
Sargassum No
Water column Yes
Surf zone Yes
In addition, the following new paragraph is inserted on FEIS page 3-94 after the
"Marine Water Column" sub-section:
Surf Zone
The surf zone includes shallow subtidal areas of breaking waves seaward of
the intertidal beach. These high salinity areas contain constantly shifting
sandbars, ridges, and swales that develop in response to wave energy. There
are high levels of sand transport and these areas experience rapid scour and
fill events. The burrowing benthic invertebrates present in this area are
abundant and provide an important fishery food source (Street et al., 2005).
In addition, the first sentence in the second paragraph in FEIS Section 4.7.6.2 (page
4-104) is replaced with the following (new material is in bold text):
Both replacement bridge corridor alternatives would produce turbidity, noise, and
siltation resulting from construction, which in turn would create localized, short-
term impacts to essential fish habitat (EFH) including estuarine emergent
wetlands, oyster reef and shell bank, SAV beds, intertidal flats, marine and
estuarine water column, and the surf zone.
Finally, FEIS Table 4-27 is replaced with the following (new table rows are in bold
text):
Table 4-27. Potential Construction Impacts to Inshore and Marine
Essential Fish Habitat
Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor
Inshore EFH Bridge Construction Dredging
Estuarine emergent Temporary disturbance; shading; None
some permanent loss from piles
Temporary indirect

Seagrass Temporary disturbance; shading, disturbance; potential for
some permanent loss
some permanent loss from piles because of turbidity and
siltation
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-11 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Table 4-27 (continued). Potential Construction Impacts to Inshore and
Marine Essential Fish Habitat
Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor
Inshore EFH Bridge Construction Dredging
Removal in areas where this
z
Oyster reef and shell bank Temporary disturbance; some habitat is present; potential
permanent loss of living
permanent loss from piles beds through direct or
indirect dredging impact
Temporary disturbance; some
Intertidal flats permanent loss of habitat from Removal of sediment
piles
Palustrine emergent and Small loss of wetland maritime
forested (freshwater grassland None
wetlands)
Estuarine water column
s Temporary increase in turbidity Temporary increase in
turbidity and decline in
(Pamlico Sound and decline in dissolved oxygen dissolved oxygen
Marine EFH Fill and Pile Dredging
Water column (Oregon
4 Potential temporary increase in Potential temporary
increase in turbidity in
Inlet) turbidity in Oregon Inlet Oregon Inlet
4
Surf zone (Oregon Inlet) Potential temporary increase in Potential temporary
increase in turbidity in
turbidity in Oregon Inlet Oregon Inlet
Parallel Bridge Corridor (Oregon Inlet and Rodanthe area bridges)
Inshore EFH Bridge Construction Dredging
Temporary disturbance; shading;
some permanent loss from piles
Estuarine emergent and temporary loss of habitat None
from construction of temporary
haul road for the Oregon Inlet
bridge
Estuarine shrub-scrub None None
mangroves
Temporary indirect

Seagrass Temporary disturbance; shading; disturbance; potential for
some permanent loss
some permanent loss from piles because of turbidity and
siltation
Removal in areas where this
z
Oyster reef and shell bank Temporary disturbance; some habitat is present; potential
permanent loss of living
permanent loss from piles beds through direct or
indirect dredging impact
Temporary disturbance; some
Intertidal flats permanent loss of habitat from Removal of sediment
piles
Palustrine emergent and Temporary disturbance; shading; None
forested (freshwater) some permanent loss from piles
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-12 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Table 4-27 (concluded). Potential Construction Impacts to Inshore and
Marine Essential Fish Habitat
Parallel Bridge Corridor (Oregon Inlet and Rodanthe area bridges)
Inshore EFH Bridge Construction Dredging
Estuarine water column
3 Temporary increase in turbidity Temporary increase in
turbidity and decline in
(Pamlico Sound and decline in dissolved oxygen dissolved oxygen
Marine EFH Fill and Pile Dredging
Potential temporary increase in Potential temporary
Water column (Oregon
I
l
t)4
turbidity in Oregon Inlet with increase in turbidity in
O
I
l
t
ith O
n
e
Oregon Inlet bridge regon
n
e
w
regon
Inlet bridge

4 Potential temporary increase in Potential temporary
increase in turbidity in
Surf zone (Oregon Inlet) turbidity in Oregon Inlet with Oregon Inlet with Oregon
Oregon Inlet bridge Inlet bridge
'Also Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) for summer flounder, red drum, and the
snapper grouper management unit.
Oyster reef and shell bank is also HAPC for the snapper grouper management unit.
'Pamlico Sound is also HAPC for Penaeid shrimp.
4Oregon Inlet is also HAPC for Penaeid shrimp, red drum, and the snapper grouper
management unit.
These changes provide additional information related to the Affected Environment.
These are not significant changes.
14. Comment: "Page 3-98, 3.7.6.4 Benthic Communities: Common surf zone benthic species
(such as Donax sp. and Emerita sp.) that are important food sources for fishery resources
should be included in this section."
Response: In response to this comment, the first paragraph in FEIS Section 3.7.6.4
(page 3-98) is replaced with the following (new material is in bold text):
Bottom-dwelling polychaetes, oligochaetes, amphipods, isopods, and the
commercially valuable oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and hard clam (Mercenaria
mercenaria) ingest both phytoplankton and zooplankton. Benthos (organisms
that live on or in the bottom sediments of a body of water) found near Oregon
Inlet, as documented by the NCDENR, indicate that polychaetes (Nereis
succinea, Laeonereis culveri, and Heteromastus filiformis), decapods
(Rithropanopeus harrisii and Palaemonetes pugio), amphipods (Corophium
lacustre, Gammarus fasciatus and G. palustrus), isopods (Cyathura polita and
Cassidinidea ovalis), tanaids (Hargeria repax), and mollusks (Rangia cuneata,
Geukensia demissa, Macoma balthica and Teredo sp.) are frequently found in the
nearby sounds. (Personal communication, August 14, 1990, Lawrence Eaton,
Division of Environmental Management.) Additional benthic invertebrates
that are also important fishery food sources are present in the project area
in the high salinity surf zone exposed to the ocean. These include
macrofauna such as mole crabs, coquina clams, the spionid polychaete, and
amphipods, as well as a high diversity of microscopic meiofauna (Street et
al., 2005).
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-13 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
This change provides additional information related to the Affected Environment. It
is not a significant change.
15. Comment: "Page 4-104, 4.7.6.2 Essential Fish Habitat: For clarity, we recommend this
section be combined with Section 3.7.6.3 Essential Fish Habitat."
Response: FEIS Section 3.7.6.3 discusses EFH in terms of the "Affected
Environment" (i.e., FEIS Chapter 3 issues) and Section 4.7.6.2 discusses EFH-
related "Environmental Consequences " (i. e., FEIS Chapter 4 issues). All of the
natural and human environment-related issues discussed in the FEIS are arranged in
this format.
16. Comment: "Page 4-107, 4.7.6.2 Parallel Bridge Corridor with NC 12 Maintenance: The title
of this section is confusing since it addresses impacts to EFH that are not within the context
of bridge maintenance."
Response: The phrase `Parallel Bridge Corridor with NC 12 Maintenance " as used
in the subheading on FEIS page 4-106 does not refer to short-term NCDOT efforts to
maintain NC 12 through the Refuge and in northern Rodanthe, but rather to the long-
term maintenance ofNC 12 associated with Phases H to IV of the Phased Approach
alternatives, and now also the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative
(Preferred). This phrase is used in this context consistently throughout the FEIS for
all of the alternatives in the Parallel Bridge Corridor.
17. Comment: "Page 4-134, 4.7.10.3 Compensatory Mitigation, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Beds: This section is out dated and should be rewritten to focus on the substantial
improvements in SAV mitigation techniques that have occurred since 1994."
Response: Commitment 3 in the "Project Commitments" section of this EA (revised
from a similar commitment in the FEIS) indicates that work bridges (rather than
dredging for barges) would be used for movement of construction equipment in
shallow areas where SAV is present. If SAV is in waters deep enough to f oat a barge
without dredging, the use of a work bridge would not be necessary. No update is
needed given NCDOT's commitment to this mitigation strategy. Commitment 3 was
updated for the EA to emphasize that dredging would not be allowed within SA V.
This issue also was discussed and resolved at the Concurrence Point 4A Merger
Team meeting for Phase I on November 10, 2008.
18. Comment: "NMFS remains concerned that bridge replacement alternatives that require long-
term beach nourishment and construction and maintenance of bridge structures in the surf
zone (i.e., the Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge) could result
in long-term adverse impacts to NOAA trust resources."
Response: Concern noted. Beach nourishment is not a part ofPhase I of the NC 12
Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred). However, if in the course
ofdeveloping the details offuture phases and associated updates to the
environmental impact assessments contained in the FEIS and this EA, the inclusion
of nourishment was found to be desirable and applicable environmental protection
laws could be met, then nourishment could be included in future phases. The impact
of nourishment is addressed in the FEIS for the length of the project.
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-14 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
19. Comment: "We acknowledge that alternatives within the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor
involve direct impacts to SAV and estuarine marsh, but we believe these impacts could be
adequately addressed through sequential mitigation."
Response: NCDOT will continue to coordinate with NMFS during the permitting
process on an appropriate compensatory mitigation plan, including during the
Merger Team meetings for Concurrence Points 4B and 4C.
20. Comment: "We continue to believe that the Pamlico Sound Bridge Alternative best supports
the purpose and need for this project with the least impact to important estuarine and marine
resources in the project area."
Response: Position noted; however, the Pamlico Sound Bridge Alternatives have
been determined not to be feasible and prudent under Section 40 of the Department
of Transportation Act and subsequently dropped from further consideration. Also of
note, the NEPA1404 Merger team, through its elevation process, has determined that
neither Pamlico Sound Bridge alternative is practicable.
21. Comment: "If NCDOT moves forward with the currently selected plan [Phased Approach/
Rodanthe Bridge Alternative], we recommend early initiation of a long-term study to
characterize changes in habitats along Hatteras and Bodie Islands so that adequate
information is available for examining applications to the US Army Corps of Engineers for
project authorization, including mitigation for unavoidable impacts to EFH."
Response: This comment relates to the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS rather than
the new Preferred Alternative, NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative.
EFH findings related to the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative are
presented in Section 2.3.3.5 of this EA.
US Department of Interior, National Park Service
1. Comment: "NPS concurs with the comments being prepared by USFWS on the FEIS."
Response: NPS' concurrence with USFWS' FEIS comments is acknowledged.
Responses to USFWS' comments are provided in the next section of this appendix.
2. Comment: "We continue to note that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) does
not adequately examine or address the economic and physical impacts to the Park's largest
concessioner, the Oregon Inlet Fishing Center (OIFC) nor does it adequately address impacts
on visitor access to the OIFC and other recreational sites in the project area (e.g., NPS
Oregon Inlet Campground, Ramp 4 accessing the Bodie Island Spit)."
Response: The NPS comment on impacts to the OIFC was responded to on page 8-
72 and 8-81 of the FEIS. Impacts to the OIFC are limited to the potential relocation
of its septic field. Minimal or no disruption of access (and associated economic
impacts) is anticipated for the OIFC, including Ramp 4 and the Oregon Inlet
Campground. NCDOT has been coordinating with NPS and OIFC management
since 2008 on several issues, including providing for access to the OIFC and other
recreational areas during construction. Coordination on these issues will continue
as the project moves into the final design and permitting stage.
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-15 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
3. Comment: "The FEIS does not address the environmental and financial consequences of the
loss of the "crack" by the fleet of Charter Boat Captains of the OIFC. The loss of the "crack"
would result in an increased consumption at an estimated volume of 90,000 gallons of fuel
annually, in addition to increasing the travel time for every trip of the Charter Fleet by one
hour roundtrip."
Response: Page 8-43 of the FEIS includes a summary of the discussion with OIFC
management on the loss of use of the crack. The discussion indicated that an extra
30 minutes would be required each way with the loss of the crack, so the one hour
increase in roundtrip is correct. The "crack, " however, is not the formally
designated navigation route between Oregon Inlet and the OIFC. The crack first
opened and was used by boaters in 199111992, and OIFC captains started
maintaining it with rope, buoys, and reflective tape in 1993. Vessels are operating
along this informal route in an area immediately west of Bonner Bridge, making the
"crack" impossible to avoid. The loss of the "crack" for use by OIFC Charter Boat
Captains would mean they would have to use the formally designated route. It
should be noted that both the Parallel Bridge Corridor alternatives and the Pamlico
Sound Bridge Corridor alternatives would both affect the "crack. " Prior to the
release ofa Record of Decision, NCDOT will investigate whether it is possible to
reduce the impacts ofPhase I to the "crack" and will coordinate with the NPS on its
findings.
Comment: "With respect to impacts on visitor access to other recreational sites in the
project area, implementation of the preferred alternative would necessitate the relocation of
Ramp 4 and mitigation for damage of the NPS-owned segment of NC 12 on Bodie Island
incurred as a result of transporting the projected 100 ton loads for construction of the bridge."
Response: Ramp 4 and the Oregon Inlet Campground driveway will be connected to
NC 12 at their current location. NC 12 is owned and maintained by NCDOT and not
NPS. If it is damaged by transport of materials and equipment during construction,
it will be repaired by NCDOT. It is expected, however, that virtually all materials
used in bridge construction will be transported to the site by barge and not over the
area's highway system. NCDOT will continue to coordinate with NPS access to
recreational sites within the Seashore during construction
Comment: "The FEIS discusses the necessity to use barging for the transportation and
erection of bridging structures, the possible dredging of NPS submerged lands at Oregon Inlet
that may be required to accommodate such barging, and the disposal of dredging spoil. The
NPS must be consulted for any barge channel dredging that occurs within Seashore
jurisdiction. NPS will not authorize any NPS-owned land within the Seashore to be used as a
borrow pit nor will it allow any dredged materials to be permanently deposited on NPS-
owned land, with the possible exception of Green Island following appropriate consultation
with other Federal and state agencies. NPS suggests NCDOT consult with the NPS, NC,
ACOE, WRC, and USFWS on the potential to apply dredge spoils to Green Island, a small
naturally occurring island, to improve habitat quality as a nesting site for American
oystercatchers and colonial waterbirds. NPS requests that NCDOT confirm that the area
referred to as the "Oregon Inlet Shoal" in the FEIS is in fact the submerged lands surrounding
Green Island. NPS suggests that NCDOT clarify whether the proposed floating of
construction barges and dredging of the Oregon Inlet Shoal would affect Green Island and in
fact be performed in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Biological and
Conference Opinions (USFWS 2008). All of the proposed activities related to replacement of
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-16 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
the Bonner Bridge must comply with the Terms and Conditions of the Biological and
Conference Opinions (USFWS 2008)."
Response: The area referred to in the FEIS as Oregon Inlet Shoal is also Green
Island. NPS will be consulted on all construction activities within the Seashore,
including barge channel dredging. The "Biological and Conference Opinion Terms
and Conditions" (included on FEIS page 4-139) state that dredge spoil excavated for
construction barge access must be used to augment either existing dredge-material
islands, or to create new dredge-material islands for use by foraging piping plovers.
No NPS owned land in the Seashore will be used as a borrow pit. No dredged
material will be deposited on NPS-owned land except following appropriate
consultation. Note that the Oregon Inlet Shoal is a naturally occurring island is not
a dredge material island.
Comment: "NPS acknowledges that, where possible, proposed actions have been described
in detail and corresponding impacts have been identified in this FEIS. However, a number of
proposed actions related to the preferred alternative for bridge replacement may require
additional environmental analysis and documentation (compliance) prior to the issuance of
NPS permits to implement each of these proposed actions within or with the potential for
impacting Cape Hatteras National Seashore. NPS reasserts that additional environmental
compliance would be required for any proposed action related to the preferred alternative not
fully evaluated in the FEIS and will require that NCDOT or its designee plan and prepare the
required documents. Among the proposed actions for which separate environmental
compliance documents may be required are:
- construction staging;
- construction of a haul road, use of dredge, or construction of work bridge to facilitate
construction of the north approach spans;
- relocation of septic fields near the Oregon Inlet Fishing Center;
- relocation of Ramp 4 beach access road on Bodie Island;
- dredging and disposition of dredge spoils;
- subsequent phases relating to other NC 12 construction and maintenance components;
- the fate of the terminal groin at Pea Island NWR;
- procedures involved in demolition and removal of bridge;
- Addressing ACOE concerns on substructure to protect the Davis Slew and confirmation
of the continued existence of the terminal groin.
Environmental compliance and resultant decision documents would be required prior to the
issuance of NPS permits to implement each of these proposed actions within the National
Seashore."
Response: NCDOT will provide any information requested by NPS for the topics
above that relate to Oregon Inlet bridge construction and Bonner Bridge demolition
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-17 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
as apart of its coordination with NPS during the final design, right-of-way
acquisition, and permit development ofPhase I. NPS will continue to be a member of
the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team that will select future phases of the project for
implementation, as discussed in Section 2.3.2.2 of this EA. NCDOT is currently
working with USFWS regarding the retention of the terminal groin at the north end
ofHatteras Island. NCDOT and FHWA are working with USACE and the US Coast
Guard, the federal agencies that issue navigation permits for the project, on issues
relating to the navigational channel and Davis Slough; other agencies will be
apprised of any decisions related to channel navigation as the project moves
forward.
US Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary
Comment: "The Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have provided
detailed comments on this project throughout the planning process; raising numerous
concerns about the effects of Parallel Bridge Corridor alternatives (including the [Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge]) on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). While the
FEIS does a better job of acknowledging our previously submitted comments, concerns still
remain about the project and its potential impact to the Refuge. Rather than repeat those
concerns here, the purpose of this letter is to succinctly state our views regarding the
proposed project."
Response: Observations noted.
2. Comment: "Specific comments related to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 will be
provided by the Service under separate cover."
Response: The letter referenced is dated November 2008 and the comments and
responses are presented below.
Comment: "Currently, with NC-12 passing through the Refuge at grade over its entire 11.8-
mile length, the Refuge has a predominantly natural character (in terms of both visual and
acoustic qualities). As such, the existing road represents a relatively small intrusion on the
quality of the wildlife viewing and photography activities of our many visitors. Similarly,
while the existing road does adversely affect the wildlife resources and ecological processes
of the Refuge, the current configuration represents the lowest possible level of such effects,
while maintaining a paved transportation corridor through the Refuge. Although an elevated
roadway through the Refuge would allow for westward sand migration to proceed unabated,
issues such as lighting and disorientation of sea turtle hatchlings, and shading of sea turtle
and migratory bird nests that require open, sun heated sand would increase. We recommend
NCDOT fully address measures or plans to off-set these new issues on the Refuge."
Response: NCDOT and FHWA considered this comment and others regarding the
potential impacts of the Parallel Bridge with the Phased Approach bridging.
NCDOT and FHWA conducted additional agency coordination meetings to
reconsider other alternatives, including the Parallel Bridge with Road NorthBridge
South alternative, in response to this comment. Additional Phase I bridge length
within the Refuge is described in Section 2.3.2.1 of this EA. The elevation of future
phases will depend on the design approach taken, with the Road NorthBridge South
and Nourishment Alternatives retaining current road elevations and the All Bridge
and the Phased Approach placing NC 12 on abridge. Issues related to lighting and
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-18 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
sea turtle hatchling nesting and piping plover nesting are addressed in Section 4.7.9,
4.7.10.5, and Appendix E (USFWS' Biological and Conference Opinions [USFWS,
2008]) of the FEIS.
4. Comment: "Even though the information presented in the FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
is proposing a Parallel Bridge Corridor alternative, it still demonstrates that implementation
of any of the Parallel Bridge Corridor alternative may violate section 4(f) because the
Pamlico Sound alternative would appear to be feasible and prudent and would minimize harm
to the Refuge (a section 4(f) property)."
Response: FHWA issued a Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation on October 9, 2009.
The Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation included an evaluation of the Pamlico
Sound Bridge Corridor Alternative as a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative
under Section 40 of the Department of Transportation Act. FHWA determined that
the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor Alternative would not be a feasible and prudent
avoidance alternative as defined in 23 CFR 774.17. USDOI's December 3, 2009
letter provided comments on the Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation. The letter did
not disagree with this conclusion nor offer any additional information pertaining to
the analysis of the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor Alternative as a feasible and
prudent avoidance alternative under Section 40. Also see in Appendix F the
response to USDOI's comment 11 on the Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation.
Comment: "Though all alternatives have some form of 4(f) impact, the Preferred [Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge] Alternative has far greater impacts in quantity and quality on
lands protected by section 4(f). Based upon Section 4(f) directives, park and refuge lands
should not be used whenever there are feasible and prudent alternatives that would avoid or
minimize harm to those lands. The NCDOT, in previous planning documents, has clearly
demonstrated that the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor alternatives present feasible
alternatives from an engineering standpoint. This reduces the analysis to the question of
prudence, which seems to be only an issue of cost and visitor access. It was our
understanding that throughout the planning process NCDOT indicated that although the
Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor alternative was more expensive initially, it would be
comparable to the Parallel Bridge Corridor due to the extensive maintenance cost over the life
of the project. We recommend an independent economic analysis of the alternatives be
conducted because of the significant environmental effects and the fluctuating economics of
the project."
Response: NCDOT has performed sufficient detailed financial analysis of the cost
and funding aspects of the alternatives. Revised cost estimates were presented in the
Supplemental SDEIS that was issued in February 2007. These cost estimates were
also included in the FEIS. Cost estimates presented in the FEIS were presented to
USDOI representatives in the Merger Process; the cost estimates included the
methodology and the detailed data used in calculations. Representatives were given
time to review the information and were given the opportunity to provide comments
and additional data as part of the Merger process. USDOI representatives did not
comment on the cost information, provide information, nor suggest alternative
predictive methodology for analysis. The Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation
contained additional financial analysis to evaluate the Pamlico Sound Bridge
Corridor as a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. In addition, FHWA had its
own national highway finance experts from its headquarters office conduct a review
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-19 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
of the analysis, which confirmed the validity of the conclusions. Another independent
economic analysis is not warranted.
Comment: "There appears to remain a distinct possibility that the Preferred [Phased
Approach/ Rodanthe Bridge] Alternative will require activities to occur outside the existing
right-of-way, which would constitute either a permanent or temporary use of 4(f) properties.
More importantly, we disagree that implementation of the Preferred Alternate as proposed in
the right-of-way would not constitute a "constructive use" of 4(f) property. The 4(f)
evaluation presents NCDOT's and FHWA's conclusions regarding the effects of the
Preferred Alternative [Phased Approach/ Rodanthe Bridge] on the Refuge in terms of noise,
visual character, access, and ecology; all section 4(f) constructive uses. In each case, it is our
opinion that the analysis understates the magnitude of these effects in order to reach a
conclusion (page 5-18) that "...attributes of the Refuge would not be substantially impaired,
and thus would not be a constructive use of the Refuge." As stated repeatedly by the Service
and the Department of the Interior throughout the planning process, in particular the noise,
visual character, and access on the Refuge would be impacted by construction and operation
of a bridge alternative through the Refuge. It is our opinion that these impacts rise to the
level of substantial impairment as described in section 4(f) regulation 23 CFR 774.15."
Response: Based on consideration of this comment and other comments received
from USDOI, the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, and the
Southern Environmental Law Center on the Final Section 40 Evaluation, FHWA
revised several conclusions and published a Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation on
October 9, 2009. The Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation concluded that the
Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative would
constructively use the Refuge.
Comment: "Noise resulting from vehicles traversing the elevated bridges would replace
wind and surf as the prevailing sounds experienced by visitors and wildlife. Vehicles
traveling on elevated structures such as bridges produce more tire-to-pavement noise than
they do on an at-grade roadway. Also, exhaust noise will travel farther into the Refuge from
an elevated point of origin. Increased noise levels may negatively impact bird breeding
adjacent to the new bridge structure."
Response: As discussed in Section 4.10.3 of the FEIS, the Potential noise impacts
from the detailed study alternatives associated with wildlife are addressed in FEIS
Section 4.7.6.6 under "Noise Disturbance. " Noise level change in the Refuge is
presented in the last paragraph of Section 4.10.3 on page 4-154 of the FEIS in the
form of 66 dBA contour lines for existing conditions and 2025. The 2025 contour is
117 feet (35.7 meters) from the road centerline and applies to all of the Parallel
Bridge Corridor Alternatives. The existing conditions contour is at 96 feet (29.3
meters). The increase results from traffic growth. In general, noise levels adjacent
to a bridge are lower than with an at-grade road because the structure partially
blocks noise transmission. As one moves further from the bridge, the influence of the
bridge structure on noise levels declines and noise levels become similar to that of an
at-grade road.
8. Comment: "The large, concrete bridges would replace dunes and water as the predominant
visual features of the Refuge. We suggest that the FEIS plainly state that the Preferred
[Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge] Alternative would introduce a large elevated man-made
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-20 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
structure (bridge) through the previously open vista on the Refuge landscape; causing
negative impacts to the visual characteristics of the Refuge."
Response: FEIS Section 4.3.2 discusses the visual impacts to the Refuge as a result
of the detailed study alternatives. Among other items, this section states that the
Phased Approach and All Bridge alternatives would "introduce a sizeable new linear
man-made feature for approximately 10 miles (161 kilometers) through the Refuge, "
and "The bridge would dominate views from the dunes lining the beach and, as the
dunes disappear over time, it also would dominate views of the beach and ultimately
the ocean. " Consideration of this comment contributed to FHWA's Revised Final
Section 40 Evaluation, which was published on October 9, 2009. The Revised Final
Section 40 Evaluation concluded that the Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative would constructively use the Refuge. The
visual intrusions of the bridging in this alternative, particularly near the
impoundments, contributed to the constructive use determination.
Comment: "The FEIS places considerable emphasis on the ability of the Phased Approach to
provide paved-road access to the Refuge. However, the FEIS understates the fact that the
Preferred Alternative [Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge] would not provide any vehicular
access to the Visitor's Center or the impoundments, which are two of the major destinations
for Refuge visitors. Also overlooked in the FEIS is the quality of the visitor experience that
would be provided under the Preferred Alternative and the effect it would have on visitation.
While the FEIS notes that respondents to surveys indicated that most would continue to visit
the Refuge whether or not paved access were provided, it is unclear if the respondents
understood that under the Preferred Alternative the afforded access would be very limited,
and the activities they traveled to the Refuge in which to engage (bird watching, nature
photography, fishing) would be occurring adjacent to or under a bridge. As a result, even
though the Preferred Alternative would nominally afford access to the Refuge, the Visitor's
Center would no longer be available, and we anticipate that the quality of the visitor
experience would be degraded to the point that visitation may be reduced. This would
represent a substantial loss to the American public."
Response: Access changes in the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge with the
detailed study alternatives are discussed in Section 4.5.3 of the FEIS, including
changes in access to various facilities, such as the Visitor Center. It is acknowledged
that of the Parallel Bridge Corridor alternatives, the Phased Approach alternatives
would provide the least amount ofpaved road access, however, this is because of the
requirement that the Phased Approach alternative remain within the existing
easement. Access to the Refuge is an important component of this project, but it is
important to note that USDOI has consistently indicated a preference for the Pamlico
Sound Bridge Corridor, which would likely result in the elimination of all vehicular
access to the Refuge. In consideration of this comment, NCDOT and FHWA included
the importance of visitor access expressed by USDOI in its re-evaluation of the
Section 40 analysis, published on October 9, 2009. Visitor access would not change
with Phase I of the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative except that
the driveway connection on NC 12 to the fishing parking lot would move south to the
same area as the existing road to the (former) US Coast Guard Station.
10. Comment: "Over the project's life, ocean shoreline erosion predictions will place the
complex of bridges next to and over the beach habitat. The shading effect from the bridges
will affect nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat quality for some migratory birds - piping
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-21 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
plover, American oystercatcher, least tern, black skimmer, and nesting habitat quality for sea
turtles. Section 4.7.6 of the FEIS, beginning on page 4-102, falls short of presenting a
comprehensive analysis of project impacts on fish and wildlife resources inhabiting or using
the Refuge and project area. Through careful selection and use of literature for general
discussion of certain topics relative to impacts on wildlife from the project, there is a
deflection of issues and concerns. For example the FEIS selectively cites literature regarding
the minor effects of road-kill on wildlife species population demographics, and ignores
literature that demonstrates the major effect road-kill has on species population
demographics."
Response: Information on impacts to present and projected future shorebird and sea
turtle habitat are included in Section 4.7.9 of the FEIS and the Biological and
Conference Opinions (USFWS, 2008). The analysis in FEIS Section 4.7.6 (Fisheries
and Wildlife) is comprehensive and includes several literature references showing
that impacts ranging in severity would occur to fish and wildlife as a result of bridge
and road construction. The project's EFH report (CZR Incorporated, 2008) also is
available from NCDOT upon request. The literature referenced was that found by
the biological study team and no literature was deliberately ignored. The detailed
study alternatives (except for the alternatives that would include beach nourishment)
would allow more natural barrier island ecosystem function than the current
situation (FEIS Sections 4.7.7 and 4.7.8) and thus would improve habitat, and
existing negative impacts (e.g., roadkill and habitat disturbance from NC 12
maintenance) are projected to decrease as a result. Impacts to fish and wildlife and
their habitat under the NC 12 Transportation Management Alternative (Preferred)
are the same as those presented for the Parallel Bridge Corridor Alternatives in
Section 4.7.3 of the FEIS, except as revised by Sections 2.1, 2.3.2.1, and 2.3.6 of this
EA.
11. Comment: "Another point that should have been addressed is that some shorebirds move
back and forth from the ocean beach to overwash fans or mudflats in the sound on a regular
basis. The more often these species must fly near a highway, the greater the probability of
their becoming a road-kill statistic. Elevating the roadway to a bridge 30-40 feet above grade
within these areas of prime habitat will remove the road-kill potential from an at grade road,
but it fails to mention that birds perch (sometimes en-masse) on bridge abutments, and when
they land and take off, they will be doing so directly into bridge traffic. Some forms of
mitigation have been shown to reduce avian mortality along bridges but this type of
information is not mentioned in the FEIS; we recommend it be added."
Response: The Service's points regarding avian behavior are noted. At this time,
the Service has not provided guidance on physical bridge features that could
substantively reduce avian mortality without exacerbating the impacts to the historic
landscape under Section 106 Coordination with USFWS and other consulting
parties will continue during the final engineering design ofPhase I. Under the NC
12 Transportation Management Alternative (Preferred) for future phases, USFWS
would have an opportunity to identify any areas of prime habitat in existence at that
future time so that the possible increases in avian mortality with elevated structures
and possible mitigation measures could be assessed as part of the decisionmaking for
the future phase.
12. Comment: "NCDOT states in the FEIS that the project [Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge
Alternative] will be contained within the existing 100-foot-wide right-of-way. If all the
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-22 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
proposed work (staging areas, construction, and future maintenance of existing NC-12) is
performed within the existing right-of-way and is in compliance with any terms and
conditions contained within the easement deed, a Refuge compatibility determination will not
be required. However, we want to take this opportunity to express that we do not believe it
will be possible to maintain the existing NC-12 corridor and construct the new bridges
entirely within the existing right-of-way."
Response: Opinion noted. The referenced FEIS statement for the Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative was based upon the shoreline forecasts,
which were based upon the best available science, and upon current highway
construction and maintenance technologies.
13. Comment: "The FEIS indicates that significant NC-12 maintenance activities (other than
road scraping which occurs 1 to 2 times per month) currently occur 4 to 7 times per year.
Based on our records, these activities occur outside the existing right-of-way (requiring
permits from the Refuge) 2 to 4 times per year and have been increasing in frequency. These
activities include dune maintenance, dune reconstruction, dune translation (moving sand from
the back side of the dune to the seaward side) and sand bagging. Given the scope of these
activities and based on our experience in seeing these activities implemented in the past, it is
unlikely that it will be possible to conduct these activities completely within the right-of-way,
while being as efficient or effective as current practices."
Response: Opinion noted; however, as documented in the FEIS, construction of the
Phased Approach alternatives and future maintenance work can be completed within
the existing NC 12 easement in accordance with the NEPA/Section 404 Merger
LEDPA agreement. FEIS Section 4.68.6 of the FEIS describes how short-term
maintenance activities could be carried out within the existing easement. If a
decision were made in association with USFWS that work should be done outside of
the easement, NCDOT would continue to be responsible for obtaining any requisite
permits.
It is noted that no previous maintenance work performed on NC 12 has ever been
found to have significant environmental impacts under NEPA nor been found
incompatible with the primary mission of the Refuge. Prior to NCDOT paving NC
12, the Refuge staffperformed many maintenance tasks necessary to keep the public
road passable for vehicles. This is documented in the Refuge's Annual Narrative
Reports of 1939 to 1951 (http://www.fws.govlalligatorriver/ANRs.html).
14. Comment: "Also, we would like to remind you that by signing a Record of Decision on this
FEIS, all previous SUPS for maintenance and repair of the existing at grade NC-12 would be
nullified because the FEIS (now the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document of
record) clearly states NCDOT's intent to conduct all activities related to this project
(including existing NC-12 maintenance and repair) within the existing right-of- way. If any
work related to bridge construction, or maintenance or existing NC-12 maintenance goes
outside the existing right-of-way, you would need to re-comply with the Refuge's
Appropriate Use Policy and Compatibility Policy. If the requested use is found to be
appropriate and compatible, the Refuge is obligated to follow through with NEPA
compliance, Section 7 Endangered Species Act compliance, and compliance with several
laws relative to cultural and archaeological resources, including Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act."
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-23 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Response: Position and requirements understood; also see the response to the
previous comment.
15. Comment: "If the NCDOT is faced with an emergency, we have the ability to accelerate
everything through the administrative process under emergency declarations. However, since
we can reasonably anticipate storms, planning should occur now to avoid emergencies that
can be reasonably anticipated. Even if the administrative processes can be suspended for the
"emergency within the right-of-way," they can only be suspended by the Refuge Manager for
30 days and all corrective measures must be completed within that time frame. Full
compliance with administrative regulations must follow the corrective action."
Response: Position acknowledged; NCDOT understands USFWS' policies on
emergency repair requests. NCDOT will continue to work with USFWS on planning
future project phases and planning for potential emergency maintenance activities
that may be needed prior the completion of future phases.
16. Comment: "The Service issued an SUP in 1989 to NCDOT for construction of the terminal
groin for the purpose of protecting the existing Bonner Bridge. A new or revised SUP would
be required to keep the terminal groin for a different bridge or purpose. In 2003, NCDOT
and the Refuge decided to separate terminal groin issues from the Bonner Bridge replacement
NEPA document. As you recall, the decision in 2003, was to defer planning on the terminal
groin SUP renewal or on the removal of the terminal groin until a later date."
Response: NCDOT understands USFWS' position that a new or revised SUP is
required to keep the terminal groin for a different bridge or purpose. Towards that
end, NCDOT has initiated and will continue coordination with USFWS on
determining and meeting terminal groin permit requirements for Phase I of the NC
12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred). FHWA will not
authorize construction to begin with federal funds until USFWS's permit
requirements are satisfied. Also see the response to USDOI comment 18 in Appendix
F regarding the Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation.
17. Comment: "An assumption inserted into the FEIS analysis involves the dependency of the
Terminal Groin for the success of the Preferred Alternative [Phased Approach/Rodanthe
Bridge]. The discussion on page 3-65 is somewhat confusing and appears to be
contradictory. First, the new parallel bridge appears to be designed (at least for this stage of
planning) to have clearance for a much wider navigation zone. This would allow the Oregon
Inlet channel to migrate to some extent without impacting navigation or the new bridge. The
third paragraph actually states an assumption that the Corps of Engineers will terminate
dredging the channel for the bridge navigation span with the implication being that the
channel can move and maintain necessary depths through natural scouring and without
impacting navigation. Further down on the page (next to last paragraph) there is a statement
that removal of the terminal groin would pose new challenges for maintaining the current
navigation channel. This discussion leaves us unclear as to what the Preferred Alternative
will actually involve. The navigation channel, old bridge, new bridge, and terminal groin are
all in such close proximity that dredging in one spot versus another is likely to precipitate
changes in an adjacent site including the navigation channel underneath the bridge.
Basically, it appears that more analysis with regards to inlet dynamics and coastal processes
is critical to further model development."
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-24 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Response: The section referenced in Chapter 3, "Affected Environment, " discusses
potential Oregon Inlet movement through 2085 with and without the terminal groin.
It is not discussing the Parallel Bridge Corridor alternatives other than to assume
that the replacement Oregon Inlet Bridge would have a longer navigation zone than
the existing Bonner Bridge, which would increase the opportunity for USACE to let
the federal navigation channel move with the natural gorge. Removal of the terminal
groin would likely result in a change in the characteristics of Oregon Inlet creating
new challenges for maintaining the channel, particularly if the inlet becomes wider
and more shallow. Retention of the groin is a bridge design consideration and not an
interdependent action. NCDOT plans to seek retention of the groin in association
with Phase I of the project.
18. Comment: "Finally we note that NCDOT has not requested a new SUP to retain the groin.
As mentioned above, there are many issues related to the groin that will need to be resolved
before a new SUP could be issued. The FEIS does not provide sufficient basis for decision-
making regarding those issues, and additional analysis will be needed. This would appear to
be an area of considerable unresolved uncertainty."
Response: NCDOT plans to seek retention of the groin in association with Phase I of
the project. NCDOT has initiated and will continue coordination with USFWS on
determining and meeting the terminal groin permit requirements. The impact
assessment in the FEIS and this EA assume as a baseline that the groin remains in
place.
US Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service
1. Comment: "Specifically, the effects of artificial lighting on sea turtle nesting were not
sufficiently covered on pages 4-122 through 4-125, and..."
Response: Additional analysis regarding the effects of artificial lighting on sea turtle
nesting is included in the USFWS Biological and Conference Opinion presented in
Appendix E of the FEIS beginning on page E-32, specifically on pages 17, 18, 36, 37,
40, 41, 42, 44, and 45 of the Opinion. The information presented in the FEIS was
sufficient for the purpose of identifying the potential impact and determining the need
for formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Comment: "...the information regarding the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) on page 4-124
is outdated. Green sea turtles have nested within the action area as recently as 2002 and
2008."
Response: Additional information on the green sea turtle is included in the USFWS
Biological and Conference Opinion presented in Appendix E of the FEIS beginning
on page E-32, specifically on pages 8, 9, 17, 23, 27 and 30 of the Opinion. The
information presented in the FEIS was sufficient for the purpose of identifying the
potential impact and determining the need for formal consultation under Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act.
3. Comment: "on page 5-32, the FEIS states "The FHWA and NCDOT consider the
replacement bridge corridors (including the alternatives within the two replacement bridge
corridors) to be substantially equal in terms of the remaining harm to protected species in the
Refuge after mitigation". We disagree with this statement. The Parallel Bridge Corridor
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-25 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
would involve take of the following federally threatened and endangered species: piping
plover (Charadrius melodus), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), leatherback sea turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea), and green sea turtle (as determined in the Section 7 consultation for
the preferred Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative). The Pamlico Bridge Corridor
would not involve any take of federally threatened and endangered species. We do not view
take versus no take as being "substantially equal".
Response: The October 2009 Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation no longer makes
this statement.
4. Comment: "Also, the adverse effects (i.e. take) of the preferred alternative on federally listed
species are not "mitigated" by the conservation measures and reasonable and prudent
measures described in the biological opinion".
Response: We agree. We will clarify that our proposed conservation measures and
the USFWS reasonable and prudent measures are not mitigating the effects of the
proposed action. Rather, they are efforts to conserve the species and critical habitat.
The Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation no longer makes this statement.
US Environmental Protection Agency
Comment: "The vulnerability of maintaining a reliable transportation corridor along an ever
changing coastal barrier island is particularly a concern with the PBC-PA-RB Alternative.
After considering all of the issues presented in the 1993 DEIS, the 2005 SDEIS, the 2007
SSDEIS, and the FEIS, EPA continues to believe that the transportation agencies should re-
evaluate some of the preliminary alternatives that were not carried forward for detailed study,
including the rehabilitation of the existing Bonner Bridge combined with continued NC 12
maintenance activities. Based upon the most recent Outer Banks Task Force meeting in July
of 2008, current NCDOT Bonner Bridge maintenance contracts and rehabilitation projects
appear to be very successful in extending the useful life of the existing bridge and keeping the
NC 12 corridor open to traffic."
Response: Page 8-90 of the FEIS contains NCDOT's response to EPA's question
about bridge rehabilitation from EPA's April 20, 2007 comment letter. That
response was "Regarding rehabilitation, currently a major maintenance effort
(NCDOT TIP Project No. B-5014) is underway to add an estimated ten years to the
life of the current bridge. In order to rehabilitate completely the bridge for a long-
term life would require replacing every part of it; essentially building a new bridge
(and requiring the structure to be closed during construction) (see Section 2.2.4 of
the SDEIS and the FEIS. The capacity, environmental impact, and cost concerns
associated with a ferry alternative are addressed in Section 2.2.6 of the SDEIS and
this FEIS remain valid. A reassessment of the bridge rehabilitation and ferry service
alternatives is not needed. " Continued maintenance of existing NC 12 as an
alternative is reflected in the Parallel Bridge Corridor with Nourishment Alternative,
which was analyzed in detail in the SDEIS and FEIS but was not selected as the
LEDPA.
2. Comment: "EPA is also concerned with the adequacy of the proposed compensatory
mitigation plan for jurisdictional wetland impacts that is being offered by FHWA and
NCDOT."
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-26 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Response: NCDOT will continue to coordinate with USEPA during the permitting
process on an appropriate compensatory mitigation plan, including during the
Merger Team meetings for Concurrence Points 4B and 4C.
3. Comment: "On Page xxi, the FEIS states that a bridge within the replacement bridge corridor
(i.e., PBCPA Alternatives) alternatives would have a negligible effect on inlet migration,
profile, and gorge alignment other than the continued effect of the presence of the terminal
groin. However, it is the need to retain the terminal groin for these alternatives that has the
significant effect on inlet migration, profile, and gorge alignment."
Response: Retention of the groin maintains the status quo. As discussed on pages 3-
65 to 3-67 of the FEIS, removing the groin also would have a substantial effect on the
northern end ofHatteras Island, inlet location, and gorge alignment. Retention of
the groin is a bridge design consideration and not an interdependent action.
NCDOT plans to seek retention of the groin in association with Phase I of the
project.
Comment: "On Page xxi, the FEIS states that the Phased Approach alternatives (including
the preferred [Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge] alternative) would directly affect activities
on the beach front, from the presence of bridge piles on the beach and in the surf. These
alternatives appear to have the most substantial effect on recreational use of the PINWR
beaches, whereas the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor (i.e., PSBC Alternatives) alternatives
would have no effect."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT agree with this observation related to the impact to
recreational activities of the presence of bridge piles on the beach and in the surf
with the Phased Approach alternatives. This impact would not occur initially since
the project would be built in the existing NC 12 easement, but would occur only as
the beach erodes under the project's bridges. The impacts are discussed in Section
4.5.3.3 of the FEIS.
5. Comment: "On page xxxv in the Green Sheets (i.e., Project Commitments), NCDOT states
that they consider the 2060 high erosion shoreline to be reasonable for planning purposes.
NCDOT also plans to implement a monitoring program on Hatteras Island in the project area
to assist in decision-making for Phases III and IV. These monitoring studies may greatly
change the plans and timing for Phases III and IV."
Response: This observation and additional interagency coordination with EPA and
the other resource agencies influenced the decision to change the Preferred
Alternative to the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative considered in
this EA.
Comment: "EPA notes the changes in design for bicycle accommodations indicated on Page
xxxiii of the FEIS. The design of an 8-foot wide shoulder would be safer for bicycle and
pedestrian traffic than the current 2-foot wide shoulders on Bonner Bridge. EPA also
acknowledges that a bicycle-safe rail on the bridges would be provided. EPA requests that
FHWA and NCDOT consider the use of a 4-foot separated bicycle shoulders with rail
sections. This could reduce project construction costs by a total of 8 feet in width and also
serve to provide bicycle and pedestrian uses consistent with the new roadway's 4-foot paved
shoulders along NC 12. NC 12 south of Oregon Inlet is not a designated bicycle route. EPA
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-27 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
supports the Outerbanks Bicycle initiatives and strongly recommends the 4-foot outside
shoulders along NC 12 between Bonner Bridge and Hatteras Village."
Response: The commenter is mistaken in their assumptions on what would be
required to provide separated bicycle shoulders in the bridge. They cannot be
implemented in the way described by the commenter. Separation of bicycle traffic on
the bridge would require 2 feet on each side of the roadway for the placement of a
barrier plus 4 feet for bicycles, which would increase the current bridge width since
the currently proposed 8 -foot shoulder would still be needed for use by disabled
vehicles. Also, currently the 40 foot clear width would allow for the temporary
emergency designation of three lanes during evacuations, with two lanes moving off
of the island. I fa barrier is placed inside this 40 foot clear width, three lanes could
not be accommodated. NC 12 is a designated a bicycle route by NCDOT and shown
as a bicycle route on maps published by Bikecentennial. See Section 1.5.4 of the
FEIS.
7. Comment: "On Page 1-6, the FEIS discusses the USACE's plan to conduct a feasibility
study of Hatteras and Ocracoke islands to determine possible long-term solutions to the
transportation problems. This T.I.P. project # R-3116H and its associated feasibility study
are currently unfunded."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT agree with this observation.
Comment: "Section 2.10.1.2 of the FEIS includes a discussion of design criteria for the
bridges, to withstand wave energy, storm surge, and scour. However, it appears that
AASHTO has not finalized guidance on specifications. Therefore, the FEIS simply states
that NCDOT will design the bridges in conformance with requirements (unspecified) and to
deal with conditions that are anticipated. It remains unclear whether NCDOT and FHWA
have the ability to design structures that will withstand the heavy surf along the shoreline.
This issue has been generally discussed for several years during Merger team meetings. EPA
believes that these critical design and safety specifications need to be finalized before any
Phase 11 decisions are made (i.e., A bridge at Rodanthe)."
Response: Structures can be and are designed and constructed to withstand the
ocean environment. NCDOT will take into consideration the recently adopted
AASHTO guidelines (published in 2009) for designing coastal bridge projects in
designing bridges associated with the Preferred Alternative.
9. Comment: "A haul road is expected for construction of the northern approach to the Phase I
bridge. The FEIS indicates on Page 2-112 that this haul road will be constructed on top of
sandy soil. EPA requests that haul roads should not be used over wetlands as compaction
may prevent the wetland from being restored."
Response: The preference of the commenter is noted. Commitment 3 in the "Project
Commitments" section of this EA (revised from a similar commitment in the FEIS)
indicates that SAV areas would be bridged. This issue was discussed at the
November 10, 2008 Concurrence Point 4A Merger Team meeting for Phase I of the
project (replacement of Bonner Bridge). NCDOT indicated that minimizing
environmental impacts such as fill in wetlands would be a factor in selection of the
Design-Build contractor. NCDOT would continue to coordinate with USEPA during
the permitting process regarding construction access procedures, including during
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-28 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
the Merger Team meetings for Concurrence Points 4B and 4C. See the response to a
similar question related to haul roads made in USACE comment 1.
10. Comment: "On Page 2-127, NCDOT commits to implement an island monitoring program in
the project area and to conduct breach response-related data gathering to help determine
where acceptable sand could be found to close breaches, and options available for bridging a
breach. EPA believes that this monitoring program is an essential component of the long-
term strategy for addressing unpredictable and dynamic shoreline erosion problems along the
NC 12 corridor."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT agree with this position. The monitoring program is
listed as Commitment 17 in this EA (Commitment 16 in the FEIS, and it is a
component of the new Preferred Alternative, the Parallel Bridge Corridor with
NC 12 Transportation Management Plan.
11. Comment: "On Page 2-133 of the FEIS, the Highway Cost by Expenditure Timeframe for
the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge from 2021 to 2060 is believed to be under-estimated,
considering the extended construction and bridge maintenance that is expected. Considering
that NCDOT and FHWA do not appear to have reliable information on the design
specifications for these bridges that will be in the surf zone and out at sea, the costs may be
much higher than the amount estimated. Also, the estimates are presented in 2006 dollars,
which may also significantly underestimate the future costs for additional bridges."
Response: The unit costs used in the FEIS for the Phased Approach alternatives
reflect the ultimate presence of the Phase II to IV bridges in the surf zone and
beyond. The cost estimates were developed by NCDOT and independently verified by
both an independent engineering firm not otherwise associated with the project and
by FHWA. Cost estimate details were presented to the NEPA/Section 404 Merger
Team during the selection of the LEDPA at a meeting on June 20, 2007. Current
year dollars, as opposed to a dollar inflated to the expected year of expenditure, are
customarily used when planning and evaluating highway projects. Further, the costs
for the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative are based on bridging all
potential "hot spots. " While there is scientific consensus on the location of the
potential hot spots, there is less consensus and more uncertainty whether a breach
will form at each potential hot spot. The FEIS included costs associated with
bridging each potential hot spot so as not to underestimate the cost of the Parallel
Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach Alternatives.
12. Comment: "On Page 2-141 of the FEIS it states that the Refuge costs include costs to
provide alternate access to the Refuge. These costs are only considered for the two PSBC
alternatives. However, the need for alternate access may be applicable for the Phased
Alternatives also, if the shoreline is allowed to naturally migrate, and existing paved access
roads are lost to the ocean."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT agree that the need for additional Refuge access is a
possibility with the Phased Approach and All Bridge alternatives. However, tourist
sites, such as the visitor center, are forecasted to be affected by shoreline erosion.
USFWS consistently indicated in their comments on the Pamlico Sound Bridge
Corridor that Refuge access is their responsibility. The Phased Approach and All
Bridge alternatives would provide access until that area is threatened by shoreline
erosion. If desired and implemented by USFWS, the tram service noted in Table 2-12
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-29 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
could provide access between the access points provided by the alternatives that
include bridges in the Refuge.
13. Comment: "The FEIS does not identify potential disposal sites for excavated, dredge, and fill
material generated by the bridge construction. On Page 2-146 of the FEIS it simply states
that appropriate locations will be determined near the time of construction. EPA requests that
FHWA and NCDOT investigate potential environmentally acceptable locations as soon as
possible and in concert with the USACE and other regulatory agencies. These disposal
locations also need to be identified and detailed for any future Concurrence Point 4A Merger
meetings on avoidance and minimization."
Response: NCDOT will coordinate with the appropriate regulatory agencies on
disposal sites when the project is closer to construction and final construction
procedures are known. Authorization by regulatory agencies to dispose of dredged
materials in wetlands or in SAV areas is not expected.
14. Comment: "EPA recognizes that Sections 3.6.3 and 4.6.6 of the FEIS discuss potential
shoreline changes during the life of the project (through 2060), and include a discussion of
accelerated Sea Level Rise. The Peer Exchange (a panel of coastal engineering and geology
experts) did not recommend revising the 2060 shoreline. The FEIS states that the conditions
expected to occur in the shoreline forecasts in the FEIS are those which "Scenario 2 [20th
century rate + 2 millimeters per year] considers `virtually certain' to occur (overwash,
erosion, and inlet formation)." However, the likelihood of "Scenario 3 [20th century rate + 7
millimeters per yearf was not extensively discussed in the FEIS. According to Page 3-59,
Scenario 3 "will lead to further loss of island width and `threshold behavior' leading to island
segmentation and disintegration." Based on recent projections, it appears increasingly
probable that a greater rate of sea level rise than 2 millimeters per year will occur, and
therefore the potential for Scenario 3 should be further considered during planning of future
Phases. As the FEIS indicates, the potential for Scenario 3 should be investigated as part of
the future monitoring prior to construction of Phases II - IV."
Response: Changes in sea level rise forecasts would be considered when planning
for the implementation offuture phases of the Phased Approach alternatives and the
NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred).
15. Comment: "On Page 3-64 of the FEIS it is unclear whether the terminal groin would need to
remain after Phase II bridges are constructed. The potential for removing the terminal groin
after Phase II should be fully investigated in a future NEPA document."
Response: The FEIS is based on the groin remaining in place, and coordination
related to required permits is underway. NCDOT plans to seek retention of the groin
in association with Phase I of the project.
16. Comment: "Section 4.6.8 of the FEIS discusses potential impacts that the bridge piles would
have on scour, breakers, waves, `longshore' sediment transport, beach erosion, and potential
for island breaches [with the Phased Approach alternatives]. However, the FEIS does not
discuss the impact of the waves, scour, sediment transport, and other offshore coastal process
on the bridge piles. It remains unclear whether a bridge may be practicably maintained on the
beach and in the ocean."
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-30 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Response: As described in FEIS Section 2.10 for the Phased Approach alternatives,
structures can be and are designed and constructed to withstand ocean
environments. I fa Phased Approach alternative is selected, the bridge piles would
be designed to withstand the waves, scour, sediment transport and other offshore
coastal processes.
17. Comment: "Section 4.7.2 of the FEIS discusses water quality impacts from construction and
operation of the alternatives. Temporary BMPs must be implemented prior to construction to
adequately treat construction storm water from the project. The PSBC alternatives have a
slightly larger amount of impervious surface than the preferred alternative [Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge] (86.6 acres vs. 72.4 acres). The FEIS provides estimated annual
pollutant loads for the various alternatives for several pollutants. Also, several potential
BMPs are described. It appears that end-of-pipe treatment is feasible at the northern and
southern ends of the PSBC alternatives, but may be more difficult to construct on the
replacement bridge alternatives due to slope requirements of the bridge, and potential issues
with acquiring land for water treatment on the Refuge side of the bridge. The FEIS indicates
that it is not possible to provide treatment for the entire bridge length of either the PSBC
alternatives or the short bridge alternatives. As future bridge phases of the PBC/PA
Alternative pass into the sea, storm water treatment would not be possible on those sections.
In Section 4.7.6.5, the FEIS states that runoff from Bonner Bridge is currently not captured
and treated, so the proposed project will not change runoff in the vicinity. However, the
Bonner Bridge was constructed prior to passage of the Clean Water Act, which prohibits un-
permitted discharges of pollutants to waters of the U. S., including Oregon Inlet and the
Atlantic Ocean. FHWA and NCDOT have not demonstrated how they will comply with the
Clean Water Act requirements for future phases of the project."
Response: Site specific conditions would be addressed as future phases warrant
under the applicable Clean Water Act regulations at the time.
18. Comment: "Page 4-114 of the FEIS describes the timing of construction for the four phases
of bridges in the Phased Approach alternatives. This section describes 7 years of construction
for Phases I and II (together), followed by a 7-year gap of no construction, then 10 years of
construction for Phase III, a 10-year period of no construction, then 10 years of construction
for Phase IV. This totals 27 years of construction over a 44-year period, although the FEIS
states that it is 17 years of construction. Given the unknowns in this project concerning
shoreline erosion, breach/inlet formation, and other unpredictable factors, this timeline may
change considerably, with phases built sooner than predicted. The FEIS does not investigate
the potential impacts of 27 years of construction in a shorter overall timeframe, although it
seems likely."
Response: The construction duration and estimated year for starting construction on
each phase of the Phased Approach alternatives is stated on pages 2-124 through 2-
126 of the FEIS. Phase I was expected to start in 2009, Phase II would be post-2015,
Phase III would be post-2020, and Phase IV would be post-2030. The construction
duration for Phases II to IV is estimated to be approximately three years from letting.
The construction duration for Phase I is estimated to be 3.5 years. Therefore, based
on current estimates, the total construction duration for the Phased Approach
alternatives is expected to be approximately 12.5 years.
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-31 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Also, in response to this comment, the first paragraph on page 4-114 of the FEIS is
replaced with the following text shown in bold:
The two Phased Approach alternatives include bridge construction over
four phases, with construction in different parts of the Refuge, as described
in Section 2.10. Thus, there would be four periods of construction
disturbance within the Refuge. As currently planned, Phase I is expected to
start upon the release of a Record of Decision for the project, Phase II would
be post-2015, Phase III would be post-2020, and Phase IV would be post-
2030. The construction duration for each of Phases II to IV is estimated to
last approximately three years from letting; Phase I is estimated to last 3.5
years. Therefore, based on current estimates, the total construction
duration for these alternatives is expected to be approximately 12.5 years.
Periods of no construction are expected between Phases II and III and
between Phases III and IV. Without phasing, construction noise disturbance
in the Refuge with the Parallel Bridge Corridor alternatives would occur
over a single construction period of approximately four years.
This change does not represent a significant change to the findings of the FEIS. It is
acknowledged that the timeline could change based on future conditions in the
Refuge, which is one reason why the decision was made to change the Preferred
Alternative to the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative as
documented in this EA.
19. Comment: "Page 4-134 and 4-135 of the FEIS discuss on-site or other opportunities in close
proximity to the project to provide compensatory mitigation for any permitted impacts. The
FEIS also recommends that the Ballance Farm Mitigation Site may be used for all
compensatory mitigation requirements. However, Ballance Farm is a considerable distance
from the project site and it was not intended to provide mitigation for the B-2500 project. It
is also in a different 8-digit Hydrologic Unit (HUC). More importantly, the tidal marsh
mitigation at Ballance Farm is freshwater marsh, not salt marsh. Therefore, mitigation at
Ballance Farm would be out-of-kind and out-of-HUC. EPA prefers that wetland impacts on
the Outer Banks be replaced with in-kind wetland mitigation on the Outer Banks. If there are
opportunities to restore wetlands on-site or on the Outer Banks, those opportunities should be
pursued first. There may be several on-site opportunities for wetland mitigation. Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) must be mitigated as close to the project as possible and within
appropriate areas. We defer to NOAA and DCM on the determination of SAV mitigation."
Response: NCDOT will continue to coordinate with USEPA during the permitting
process and during the Merger Team meetings for Concurrence Points 4B and 4C to
develop an appropriate compensatory wetland and SAV mitigation plan.
D.2.2 State Agencies
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
1. Comment: "Having carefully reviewed the final Section 4(f) Evaluation, we do not concur
with FHWA's finding that the proposed undertaking will not constructively use historic
properties. The document notes that the Preferred Alternative [Phased Approach/Rodanthe
Bridge] will have a "Sizeable visual intrusion into the landscape of the Refuge and views in
Rodanthe will be affected."
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-32 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
The Refuge is an outstanding example of the national wildlife refuges created in the early
20th and associated with efforts of the Civil Conservation Corps to protect and revitalize
natural resources. Retaining its key original elements and integrity of location, setting,
materials, feeling and association, the Refuge as a historic landscape will not only be
adversely affected, it will be substantially, visually impaired by the presence of a bridge of
the height and length proposed with the Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge (Preferred). While the bridge may not eliminate the Refuge's
ability to function as a wildlife refuge, it will destroy its integrity as a historic landscape.
Similarly, the introduction of a thirty-foot elevated bridge with flanking one-way frontage
roads in the Rodanthe Historic District will not only adversely affect the historic district, it
will substantially impair the characteristics which make the district eligible for listing in the
National Register. The district, which is comprised of one and two-story buildings that are
linked by their association with and views to the National Register-listed Chicamacomico
Life Saving Station, will be completely dominated by the bridge proposed as part of the
Preferred Alternative [Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge]. Views to the Pamlico Sound,
which are part of the historic viewshed from the station's tower and are still an important part
of the visitor's experience will be destroyed as will the visual relationships between the
district's contributing buildings. In an effort to minimize the degree of impairment caused by
the proposed bridge, the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation suggests that modern development
adjoining the district has already diminished this connection. However, the photographs in
the Finding of Adverse Effect Documentation, prepared by the NCDOT Historic Architecture
and Landscapes Section for the undertaking, clearly illustrates that this connection exists
today and that a nearly three-story bridge will dwarf the one and two-story buildings that
make up the historic district.
Given the serious access problems and visual impacts caused by the proposed bridge, we
believe that the Preferred Alternative [Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative]
substantially impairs the functions, features and attributes of the Rodanthe Historic District
and Chicamacomico Life Saving Station and, thereby, constitutes a constructive use of the
historic properties."
Response: Based on this comment, FHWA and NCDOT modified the conceptual
designs for the Road North/Bridge South, All Bridge, and Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge alternatives to remove them from the Rodanthe Historic
District. The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) agreed that these changes
reduced the effects of these alternatives on the District and the Chicamacomico Life
Saving Station from an Adverse Effect to No Adverse Effect, eliminating the potential
for a constructive use of these resources. This outcome also applies to the NC 12
Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred).
NCDOT and FHWA considered the HPO's views on the constructive use of the
Refuge as a site on or eligible for the National Register ofHistoric Places, and this
comment contributed to a re-evaluation of determinations made in the Section 40
Evaluation published with the FEIS. NCDOT and FHWA published a Revised Final
Section 40 Evaluation, which changed several determinations from the document
published with the FEIS. One change included a determination that the Parallel
Bridge with Phased Approach alternatives would constructively use the Refuge,
concurring with the HPO's view expressed in this comment.
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-33 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Comment: "We would finally note that we understand from discussions with the Merger
Team and as outlined in Section 2.15 - Preferred Alternative [Phased Approach/Rodanthe
Bridge], that there will be an opportunity to explore possible adjustments in the alignment
and specific plans for Phases II-IV in order to address changes that may occur in the project
area due to its dynamic and unpredictable nature, especially in the undertaking's APE for the
historic properties."
Response: The commenter's understanding is correct. This opportunity is re-
enforced by the decision to change the Preferred Alternative to the NC 12
Transportation Management Plan Alternative assessed in this EA.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Coastal Management
1. Comment: "Please note that the narrative concerning land use planning and the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) on pages 4-4 to 4-5 is not completely accurate. Please see the
attached memorandum written by the DCM District Planner Charlan Owens dated 10/13/08
for more information."
Response: The additional CAMA plan information included in the commenter's
letter is noted and is incorporated by this reference in the FEIS findings.
Comment: "A formal DCM review of the project to determine consistency with the state's
Coastal Management Program cannot occur until a CAMA major permit application is
received. At that time, the CAMA major permit application will be circulated to the network
of state agencies that comprise North Carolina's Coastal Management Program. The statutes,
rules and policies of each of these agencies must be considered during the review of the
CAMA permit application. This process will also include a consistency review by the DCM
District Planner of the CAMA land use plan in effect at the time of permit authorization."
Response: Requirements understood.
Comment: "Due to the complexity of the project and the extent of environmental impacts
that are proposed, NCDOT is urged to submit the CAMA major permit application for this
project to DCM a minimum of one year prior to the anticipated construction let date. During
the CAMA major permit application review process, DCM may have additional comments
after examining the more detailed environmental information that will be provided with the
permit application."
Response: The Design-Build contract would likely outline a timeline that affords the
Design-Build contractor at least 12 months from the execution of the contract to the
successful completion of the permitting process. The prospective contractors would
be made aware of this anticipated timeline.
Comment: "DCM may also place conditions on any CAMA permit that is issued to avoid,
minimize and/or mitigate environmental impacts. The comments provided in this letter shall
not preclude DCM from requesting additional information throughout the CAMA major
permit application review process, and following normal permitting procedures.
Furthermore, nothing in this letter shall be interpreted as providing an opinion on the ultimate
outcome of any CAMA permit decision. Such a decision can only be made following a
complete multi-agency review of the final permit application. DCM will work closely with
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-34 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
NCDOT, the Design-Build contractor, and the relevant state and federal agencies, to ensure
that the final project is consistent with the N.C. Coastal Management Program, including the
N.C. Administrative Code [i.e. N.C. Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) rules]."
Response: Position understood.
5. Comment: "Given the importance of this transportation link and the advancing age of the
existing Bonner Bridge, DCM continues to urge DOT to move expeditiously towards the
development of a final project design that satisfies the transportation needs of the residents
and visitors of Bodie, Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands, while also ensuring that coastal
resources are adequately protected."
Response: Comment acknowledged; it is FHWA and NCDOT's intent to move
expeditiously towards the development of a final project design for Phase I of the NC
12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred) that satisfies the
transportation needs of the residents and visitors of Bodie, Hatteras and Ocracoke
islands, while also ensuring that coastal resources are adequately protected. FHWA
and NCDOT also intend to develop expeditiously an agreement or protocol with the
land management agencies to determine timing and triggers for future phases of
work.
6. Comment: "Consistency Determination: The preferred alternative [Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge] is consistent with/not in conflict with the Dare County 2003
Land Use Plan certified by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) on July 24, 2003."
Response: The Consistency Determination for the Phased Approach alternatives
with respect to the Dare County 2003 Land Use Plan is noted.
7. Comment: "Dare County is in the process of updating their Land Use Plan (LUP). A Major
Permit Application for project construction would be reviewed based on the LUP in effect at
the time of permit authorization."
Response: Requirement understood.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Marine
Fisheries
1. Comment: "The Division acknowledges the Phases II - IV will present substantial challenges
before the various agencies will be satisfied so appropriate permits and approvals are granted.
As this agency has indicated in previous memos, concern is expressed with construction of
bridges that will ultimately be in the surf zone. However, at the time of permit application for
the other phases, all reasonable, practicable, and feasible alternatives will be considered and
evaluated in pursuit of the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative."
Response: Position understood. The decision to change the Preferred Alternative to
the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative responds to this expectation.
2. Comment: "This agency continues to recommend that same type of fishing access for the
public be maintained at the north end of Hatteras Island. The FEIS indicates that the
temporary traffic maintenance bridge could be left in place for a fishing pier. This agency
supports this possibility."
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-35 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Response: The temporary traffic maintenance bridge that was part of the Phased
Approach alternatives could be left in place for a fishing pier ifpermitted by the
Refuge. The temporary traffic maintenance bridge is not necessary to construct
Phase I of the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative. However,
providing catwalks on the new structure, leaving a portion of the old structure in
place, or constructing a boardwalk remain as potential methods to restore fishing
access under the NC12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative. NCDOT will
continue to work with federal and state agencies and local government to restore
fishing access because NCDOT supports the provision of some type of fishing access
at the north end ofHatteras Island, and a commitment to this effect has been added
to the list ofProject Commitments (Commitment 7). Ultimately, the parameters of
the public fishing access under any build alternative are up to the Refuge manager.
3. Comment: "In summary, the Division supports the Parallel Bridge (Phase I) and Phases II -
IV in the future as needed. In the future when permit applications are submitted for Phase II
- IV each phase must be evaluated to include avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation. All reasonable, practical and feasible alternatives must be considered and
evaluated for each phase."
Response: Position understood. The decision to change the Preferred Alternative to
the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative responds to this expectation.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
1. Comment: "According to the Green Sheet and, as discussed in the text, the NCDOT and the
contractor are planning on jetting the piles in place before being seated to their final
elevation. The DWQ understands the necessity for completing this project as quickly as
possible and jetting is quicker than some other methods. It is also understood that the
velocity through Oregon Inlet is high and may negate some potential turbidity and noise
problems, which during tourist season may be undesirable. However, the DWQ does not
generally prefer this method. Other methods allow for better control of turbidity. If the
NCDOT and its contractor(s) plan on pursuing this method, then the NCDOT will need to
provide a plan in the 401 Water Quality Certification application that adequately addresses
turbidity concerns to the best extent practicable."
Response: Comment noted. The Design-Build contract for any build alternative
would require each prospective contractor to include their proposed means and
methods for minimizing turbidity in their pre-bid Technical Proposal. The means
and methods would then be evaluated as part of the contractor selection process. In
addition, approaches to minimize jetting impacts are discussed on pages 2-110 to 2-
111 of the FEIS. Additionally, this issue was discussed at the November 10, 2008
Concurrence Point 4A Merger Team meeting for Phase I of the project (replacement
ofBonner Bridge). It was agreed thatNCDOT's Design-Build contractor would
utilize construction techniques to minimize damage to wetlands/SAVIOregon Inlet
from jetting spoils.
2. Comment: "There is mention on the document of dragging barges into position for use as a
temporary work bridge. The DWQ does not approve of dragging barges along the bottom. It
is preferred to float the barge into position, and then sink it. The dragging of barges is very
destructive to the bottom and subsequently to aquatic life."
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-36 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Response: Comment noted. The Design-Build contract for any build alternative
would not allow the dragging of barges except in unavoidable localized situations.
The prospective contractors would be required to address this situation in their pre-
bid Technical Proposal, and this information would be evaluated as part of the
contractor selection evaluation criteria.
3. Comment: "The DWQ would prefer that temporary dredging during construction be kept to
a minimum. The use of temporary work bridges, when possible, is preferred. At the very
least, dredging should be kept to a minimum during the spring in order to reduce potential
impacts to fisheries resources."
Response: Comment noted. This issue was discussed at the November 10, 2008
Concurrence Point 4A Merger Team meeting for Phase I of the project (replacement
ofBonner Bridge). Substantial and unreasonable use ofdredging would be
discouraged in the Design-Build contract for any build alternative. Prospective
contractors would be required to outline the extent of dredging that they anticipate in
order to satisfy their design and construction requirements. The anticipated extent of
dredging therefore would be apart of the contractor selection criteria.
4. Comment: "The document indicates that not all stormwater on the bridge may be able to be
collected and treated. The DWQ does not allow stormwater to be discharged from bridges
directly into stream or wetlands without proper treatment and velocity dissipation. The
NCDOT will be required to find a way to properly collect and treat all stormwater from the
bridge."
Response: NCDOT acknowledges this comment and would design the bridge to
accommodate bridge deck drainage for any Parallel Corridor alternative in a
manner consistent with recent projects with similar characteristics.
5. Comment: "NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to,
bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers
need to be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any
construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401
Water Quality Certification Application."
Response: Position acknowledged. All impacts will be reflected in the 401 Water
Quality Certification Application.
6. Comment: "The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address
the proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater shall not
be permitted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters."
Response: NCDOT acknowledges this comment and would design the bridge to
accommodate bridge deck drainage for any Parallel Corridor alternative in a
manner consistent with recent projects with similar characteristics.
7. Comment: "Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater
shall be directed across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed
swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please
refer to the most current version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices. "
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-37 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Response: NCDOT acknowledges this comment and would design the bridge to
accommodate bridge deck drainage for any Parallel Corridor alternative in a
manner consistent with recent projects with similar characteristics.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "We remain concerned with the uncertainty of the impacts associated with an
elevated roadway located waterward of the dune line. More specifically the indirect and
Cumulative Impact (ICI) assessment does not address this topic. It is necessary, to
understand, to the greatest degree possible, the situation of the roadway to the shoreline with
the formation of new inlets. Furthermore the ICI does not fully address the extent of indirect
impacts to wildlife associated with the migration of the shoreline toward the elevated
structures."
Response: The impacts associated with an elevated roadway are considered a direct
impact and are discussed in relation to shoreline migration in Sections 4.7.3.2 and
4.7.62 of the FEIS. The former includes a table (Table 4-23) that shows the change
in the habitat type bridged and the latter includes a discussion of the effect of bridge
piers in the ocean on EFH
Comment: "In addition, Section 2.10.2.5 states: "...after the issuance of the Record of
Decision for this project, NCDOT will confine future NC 12 maintenance to the existing NC
12 easement". Further in this section it is then stated: "Availability of funds recognizes that
future funding analyses indicate that funding availability will continue to limit how much can
be built at one time and the need for phasing." Both philosophies are not possible. If beach
erosion is accelerated or funding continues to be inadequate, the only option will likely be
hardening the shoreline and therefore significantly impacting habitat within the project area."
Response: The intent of the statement quoted was to indicate that it is unlikely that
the balance of the Phased Approach Alternative (after Phase I) could be built in a
single second phase. Instead, funding was expected to be available for a multi phase
program (four phases were assumed as most likely in the FEIS) over the fifty year
time span assumed (with some flexibility, ifneeded, to accommodate a different
pattern of erosion than that forecast in the FEIS).
3. Comment: "The document adequately address potential impacts and conservation measures
for the construction of the preferred alternative [Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge],
however several question remain from our March 16, 2007 comments on the phased approach
alternatives, as well as the FEIS."
Response: NCWRC s March 16, 2007 comments were responded to in FEIS Section
8.12. Since these comments were made, the Preferred Alternative has changed.
FHWA and NCDOT will continue to coordinate with and seek input from NCWRC.
D.2.3 Local Agencies-The Albemarle Commission
1. Comment: "The Albemarle RPO recommends the short bridge alternative for the new
Highway 12 bridge. This option is more financially feasible considering the budget shortfalls
we are facing throughout the state and nationally."
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-38 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Response: Position acknowledged. The Parallel Corridor Alternatives have been
characterized locally as a "short" bridge.
2. Comment: "Most importantly, the Albemarle RPO requests the expedited construction of a
new Highway 12 bridge due to the critical nature of this project. ... Continual repairs to the
bridge remain futile, and the construction of a new and much wider bridge is necessary for
the traffic volume it carries. If the Bonner Bridge must be taken out of commission without a
replacement, motorists will be required to take a 100-mile detour to access Hatteras Island."
Response: Position acknowledged; however, FHWA and NCDOT would like to
clarify that repairs to the existing bridge have not been 'futile. " The current repair
contract is expected to keep the existing bridge in service without weight restrictions
for approximately 10 years. All the Parallel Corridor alternatives under
consideration would provide the same two traffic lanes as is currently provided. The
new Oregon Inlet bridge will have two 8 -foot (2.4-meter) shoulder. These shoulders
are wider than Bonner Bridge's 2 -foot (0.6 meter) shoulders and will allow room for
movement around stranded vehicles and accidents, as well as accommodate
bicyclists.
D.2.4 Non-Governmental Organization Comments and Responses
This section responds to written comments on the FEIS submitted by non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). The comments in the sections that follow consist of quotes from the
correspondence received. Each substantive comment requiring a response is listed below. The
original correspondence is presented in Appendix E.
North Carolina Coastal Federation
Comment: "In December 2005, NCCF submitted a letter to DOT recommending an
alternative route that would build a bridge down the west side of Pea Island, using top-down
construction methods (such as that used on the Highway 17 bypass in Chocowinity) to
minimize impacts to wetlands, aquatic grass beds, and other sensitive natural communities. A
copy of that letter is attached. While there would still be environmental impacts during
construction, the natural communities would quickly recover once Pea Island was allowed to
move and shift as a natural barrier island. Building a bridge on the west side of the island
would provide better protection for both the transportation corridor and the refuge. We found
what may be a brief reference to our alternative on page 2-77, in Section 2.6.4. The passage
reads, "Relocating NC 12 west of the freshwater ponds in the Refuge was dropped because
meeting participants agreed that it would have the greatest impact on Refuge operations and
use." We believe this option has been dismissed too quickly. With some creative thinking, it
may be possible to provide a way for refuge operations to continue as needed; for the public
to have access to the most popular parts of the refuge, including North and South ponds; and
for a reliable transportation corridor to be built and maintained. Please note that we are
proposing a somewhat different alignment than the corridors studied in the 1990s and early
2000s, and that our approach calls for top-down construction of each platform."
Response: The NC Coastal Federation's position is acknowledged; however, our
response to the alternative suggested in the Coastal Federation's December 2005
letter in Section 8.12.3.7 of the FEIS is unchanged. The reasons for not relocating
NC 12 west of the ponds, as discussed in FEIS Section 2.6.4, remain valid.
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-39 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Comment: "If this alternative is seriously studied, it is our feeling that it will provide a
practical solution. It will minimize the long-term economic, social and environmental costs of
the project by locating the road where it can best be integrated into this dynamic island
system. In contrast, we are very concerned that the Phased Approach, as described in the
FEIS, will leave the public without a reliable transportation corridor as storms continue to
cover the highway with sand and ocean water."
Response: See the response to the commenter's comment I above. The comment
specifically refers to the Phased Approach alternatives, which when complete would
limit paved road access in the Refuge to two points. The Refuge, however, has
indicated that they will provide alternative access. Visitor access would not change
with Phase I of the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative except that
the driveway connection on NC 12 to the fishing parking lot would move south to the
same area as the existing road to the (Former) US Coast Guard Station. Refuge
access would be a consideration in final decision making related to future phases.
3. Comment: "We believe the Phased Approach represents a good-faith effort to resolve this
contentious issue. Nonetheless, conditions have changed so quickly on the north end of
Hatteras Island that the approach as presented in the FEIS is no longer a practical option.
Even if bridges are built immediately over the hot spots, it will only be a matter of a few
years before they are on the beach, sustaining the full impact of the surf."
Response: The FEIS (Section 4.6 8) discusses the likelihood that portions of the
Phased Approach alternatives would eventually be located in the surfzone, as well
as in the ocean, to the east ofHatteras Island, and the bridge structures would be
designed accordingly.
Southern Environmental Law Center
1. Comment: "After reviewing the Supplement, the SDEIS, associated scientific research, and
the FEIS, we continue to support the Pamlico Sound Bridge alternatives and do not agree that
any of the alternatives that utilize the Parallel Bridge corridor, including the preferred
alterative, the Phased Approach, are viable alternatives."
Response: The commenter's position is acknowledged. See the evaluation of the
Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor as a feasible and prudent alternative in Appendix G
of the Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation; responses to the commenter's comments
on that appendix that are presented in Appendix F of this EA.
Comment: "The Phased Approach ... cannot meet the purpose and need or the Outer Banks
Task Force objectives because it fails to protect NC 12 from shoreline movement during the
project life, fails to take into account channel migration and to let the channel move, and fails
to preserve the natural barrier island system. The Phased Approach will have significant
effects on Hatteras Island and the transportation corridor cannot be maintained safely and
efficiently within this dynamic environment. The Phased Approach attempts to continue to
maintain a fixed transportation corridor on a shifting barrier island at the cost of public safety,
reliability, and ecological protection."
Response: The Phased Approach meets the purpose and need expressed in the FEIS.
By placing portions ofNC 12 on a bridge, the Phased Approach alternatives protect
NC 12 from shoreline movement and provides for Hatteras Island access. The longer
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-40 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
navigation zone on the Oregon Inlet bridge would provide additional opportunities
for allowing the dredged channel in Oregon Inlet to move in response to the
changing location of the natural gorge. Preserving the natural barrier island system
is not a purpose of the project, however, the Phased Approach alternatives would
allow for natural overwash to occur on Hatteras Island. This also is the case for the
other detailed study alternatives, including the NC 12 Transportation Management
Plan Alternative, except for the alternatives that would involve beach nourishment.
3. Comment: "The Pamlico Sound Bridge is the only alternative that will work and can be
authorized pursuant to applicable federal laws."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT do not agree with this comment and respectfully
refer the commenter to Appendix G of the Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation and
our responses to the commenter's comments on that appendix that are presented in
Appendix F of this EA.
4. Comment: "NC 12 and its associated maintenance are steadily degrading the Refuge, and the
Phased Approach does not protect against this degradation."
Response: The FEIS Sections 4.6.8.6 and 4.7.8 discuss expected future NC 12
maintenance activities and the resulting potential impacts until all phases of the
Phased Approach alternatives or phasing of any of the detailed study alternatives,
including the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred). The
degradation of island features, such as the impoundments, would likely result from
allowing the natural processes to occur under the Phased Approach alternatives.
5. Comment: "The Phased Approach is not a viable, or lawful, alternative."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT disagree with the comment.
6. Comment: "The Phased Approach would keep NC 12 under construction for the life of the
project as short bridges are perpetually built through the Refuge north of Rodanthe."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT do not agree with this comment. The construction
duration and estimated year for starting construction on each phase is stated on
pages 2-124 through 2-126 of the FEIS. As currently planned, Phase I is expected to
start immediately after the release of the ROD, Phase H would be post-2015, Phase
III would be post-2020, and Phase IV would be post-2030. The construction duration
for each ofPhases H to IV is estimated to last approximately three years from letting
and Phase I is estimated to last 3.5 years. Therefore, based on current estimates, the
total construction duration for all phases is expected to be approximately 12.5 years.
It is acknowledged that the timeline could change based on future conditions in the
Refuge, and that is one reason why the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan
Alternative (Preferred), including an island monitoring program, is proposed as the
preferred alternative.
7. Comment: "The "phased" short bridge locations are estimated based on current shoreline
erosion and inlet formation predictions. Shoreline changes, however, are often episodic in
nature and are difficult to predict precisely. An inlet could form or the shoreline erode prior to
or during a planned construction phase."
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-41 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Response: The observation of the commenter is correct. Phasing as planned and
described in the FEIS and EA accounts for this concern in two ways: 1) Phase H is
defined to address the locations ofNC 12 most threatened by shoreline erosion and
to bridge four of the five potential island breach locations; and 2) a monitoring
program is incorporated so changes in the evolution of the shoreline from what was
forecast for project planning purposes can be taken into account in the
implementation offuture phases. (See Section 2.10.2.5 of the FEIS.) FHWA and
NCDOT note the same commenter is critical of our acknowledgement of the episodic
nature of coastal dynamics when he/she asserts that "certainties " in predictive
modeling are being ignored in subsequent comments (Comment 4, Appendix F,
Section F.3).
8. Comment: "The effect of climate change has not been adequately evaluated. Any increase in
storm intensity and/or sea level rise may cause substantial revisions to the current predictions,
further exacerbating the uncertainty associated with predicting inlet/breach locations and
timing."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT do not agree with this comment. A Peer Exchange
was conducted to assess the effects of Global Climate Change on Accelerated Sea-
Level Rise for the project in May 2008. The experts in attendance at the Peer
Exchange concluded that the analyses in the FEIS accounts for accelerated sea level
resulting from climate change, as well as its possible effects, to the extent possible
given the amount of future uncertainty involved. The participants of the peer
exchange are listed on page 3-61 of the FEIS. One participant was Dr. Stanley Riggs
who was one of the authors of the information related to sea level rise attached
(Attachment A) to the commenter's comments. The new Preferred Alternative also
provides an opportunity to address shoreline uncertainty by finalizing design
decisions closer to the time each project phase is implemented.
9. Comment: "The FEIS attempts to respond to this natural uncertainty by proposing a
monitoring program and by acknowledging that some of the phases may be different than
those evaluated in the FEIS. This proposal, however, amounts to a blank check that cannot
pass legal scrutiny."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT disagree with this statement. The monitoring
program is an essential component of prudent long-term project implementation and
an opportunity to identify and take into consideration the evolving shoreline closer to
the time of implementation for each phase. Further, FHWA and NCDOT would need
to meet the requirements ofNEPA and other environmental laws when implementing
all future project phases.
10. Comment: "As the FEIS acknowledges, the Phased Approach would substantially interfere
with fishing, surfing, and other beach activities and will severely limit and reduce access to
the Refuge. In contrast, the Pamlico Sound Bridge is safer, more reliable, and more
protective of the environment."
Response: Position acknowledged, but FHWA and NCDOT do not agree with the
commenter's assessment of the Pamlico Sound Bridge in the comparative context
which it is relayed. All of the alternatives presented for detailed study to date would
be safe and reliable. We note also that neither of the Pamlico Sound alternatives
were selected as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-42 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
through the Merger Process. Practicability necessarily must be weighed into project
decisions. FHWA and NCDOT also note the Pamlico Sound Bridge would likely
eliminate all paved road access to the Refuge during the life of the project.
11. Comment: "The Pamlico Sound Bridge would not be subject to ocean overwash, inlet
formation, or erosion. It would allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to preserve and
protect the Refuge and the associated wildlife. Furthermore, the Pamlico Sound Bridge is the
only alternative that can be authorized pursuant to applicable federal laws."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT agree the Pamlico Sound Bridge would not be
subject to ocean overwash, inlet formation, or erosion. This is also true of many of
the Parallel Bridge Corridor options. FHWA and NCDOT also believe that all of the
options would allow USFWS to preserve and protect the Refuge and associated
wildlife, and have documented anticipated impacts to these resources in the
collective planning documents produced to date. FHWA and NCDOT disagree the
Pamlico Sound Bridge is the only alternative that can be authorized pursuant to
applicable federal laws, but note the commenter's opinion.
12. Comment: "The Phased Approach rests on faulty legal assumptions, inadequate economic
analysis and flawed predictions about engineering around future coastal conditions within the
project area."
Response: Position acknowledged, but FHWA and NCDOT do not agree with this
comment.
13. Comment:
1. "The Phased Approach fails to comply with the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act.
A) NCDOT and FHWA must demonstrate that bridge replacement is compatible with
the purposes of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge.
B) The Phased Approach cannot comply with the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act.
1. Restricting the Phased Approach to the current NC 12 easement does not exempt
the Phased Approach from a compatibility determination.
2. The Phased Approach cannot be found to be compatible.
C) Only the Pamlico Sound Bridge alternative complies with the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act.
Of particular significance is the policy's statement that cumulative, indirect, and direct
impacts of the use in conjunction with other existing or planned uses of the refuge and uses of
adjacent lands and waters are all to be considered in determining whether the ecological
integrity of the refuge is maintained. Thus, in the case of Bonner Bridge, the Refuge
Manager's compatibility determination of replacement of the bridge under any alternative
must consider all the impacts related to both NC 12 and the subsequent construction of the
Phased Approach.
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-43 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
The FEIS rests on the erroneous assumption that any activity can take place within the
existing right-of-way and not trigger a compatibility determination. The National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act requires the Refuge Manager to consider direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts associated with existing or planned uses of the refuge and the impact
on adjacent lands and waters. This analysis should include the effect on the Refuge from
keeping NC 12 in its current location; the impact on the Refuge from construction spanning
the life of the project; the impact on the Refuge from measures taken within the easement to
address shoreline erosion or storm events; and impacts on the Refuge from the final Phased
Approach-a bridge that sits in the ocean and on the shore of the Refuge."
Response: While NCDOT has not yet requested a formal compatibility
determination for any of the alternatives, FHWA and NCDOT note that in its October
2008 comment letter on the FEIS, USDOI Office of the Secretary confirmed that If
all the proposed work (staging areas, construction, and future maintenance of
existing NC-12) is performed within the existing right-of-way and is in compliance
with any terms and conditions contained within the easement deed, a Refuge
compatibility determination will not be required. " Further, the congressional record
shows that the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 was not
intended to eliminate or restrict existing highway right-of-way from Refuges. In
addition, although not related to a compatibility determination, the analyses listed in
the final sentence of these comments are addressed in the FEIS in Sections 4.6 and
4.7.6.
14. Comment: "Finally, the final Phased Approach is a bridge in the Atlantic Ocean. This ocean-
side bridge will be a new feature on the beach, which the FEIS fails to evaluate adequately.
For example, an ocean-side bridge may affect erosion rates, inlet formation, ocean overwash,
etc. Once these natural processes are interrupted, the bridge will impact migratory bird and
other wildlife habitat. Although the FEIS refers to studies conducted on a pier, it is illogical
to assume that a pier would have the same effects on the adjacent shoreline as a bridge that
travels parallel to the shore for miles. The FEIS also acknowledges the disastrous impact
from storms like Hurricane Katrina on bridges, but fails to analyze the increased impact on a
bridge that would bear the brunt of an impact from a hurricane. For these reasons, the Phased
Approach is not compatible with the Refuge."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT do not agree with this comment. The Interstate 110
bridge in Biloxi withstood the disastrous impact from Hurricane Katrina. Its
substructure is located in the surf zone of the Gulf ofMexico. FEIS Section 4.6
includes substantial detail on off-shore coastal processes with the Phased Approach
alternatives. FEIS Section 4.7.6 discusses the potential impacts of the Phased
Approach alternatives on wildlife and fish habitat. In addition, the bridge would be
designed to take into account hurricanes. These findings equally apply if the Phased
Approach location and design is adopted as a part of future phases of the NC 12
Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred).
15. Comment: "For example, maintenance of an existing right-of-way is subject to review and
approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is restricted to minor actions such as
minor expansions or minor realignments to meet safety standards. See Final Compatibility
Policy Pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 65 Fed.
Reg. 62484, 62490 (Oct. 18, 2000). The Phased Approach's impacts on the Refuge are far
from minor, include significant direct and indirect effects, and cannot be determined to be
compatible. Furthermore, the FEIS fails to provide adequate information about how
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-44 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
construction and maintenance could be restricted to the easement, which NCDOT has never
done within the Refuge. The FEIS adds to this oversight with contradictory statements about
activities outside the easement that could be part of future phases and maintaining that no
work will occur outside the existing right-of-way. See e.g., FEIS at 2-96, 2-147, and 4-8."
Response: Future short-term NC 12 maintenance work, as well as all phases of the
project can be confined to the existing easement. USDOFs comments on the FEIS
indicate that a compatibility determination would not be required with the Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative because this alternative falls within the terms
of the NC 12 easement permit.
If in the course of developing the details of future phases of the NC 12 Transportation
Management Plan Alternative (Preferred) and associated updates to the
environmental impact assessments contained in the FEIS and this EA, the
implementation of a future phase that is outside the existing easement was found to
be desirable and applicable environmental protection laws including the
compatibility determination could be met, then such an alternative would be
implemented.
16. Comment: "The FEIS acknowledges that future phases may not be built; may include
different components from a "mix and match" menu; and may not meet federal legal
requirements. These difficulties are not adequately addressed within the FEIS and in essence
create a carte blanche approach that cannot be compatible with the Refuge. And NCDOT
cannot rely on the existing easement as a legal shield to a compatibility analysis."
Response: The Phased Approach alternatives are not a carte blanche approach
because they assume that specific bridges would be built at specific times and
specific locations, based upon the best available science. USDOI's comments on the
FEIS indicate that a compatibility determination would not be required with the
Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative because this alternative falls within
the terms of the NC 12 easement permit. The uncertainties noted in this comment for
the Phased Approach alternatives contributed to the development of the current
preferred alternative addressed in this EA.
As indicated in Commitment 16 of this EA (revised from a similar commitment
[Commitment 15] in the FEIS), NCDOT is committed to building future phases based
on available funding with resolution of the three "hot spots" as soon as possible,
based on the results of the coastal monitoring program proposed as part of the
NC 12 Transportation Management Plan. Rather than the NC 12 Transportation
Management Plan Alternative being a carte blanche approach, as each project phase
is planned, additional NEPA analyses would be conducted in association with
USFWS and other stakeholders to take into consideration the changed setting and
circumstances found in the project area at that time.
17. Comment: "Retaining the terminal groin is an essential part of the Parallel Bridge, and the
impacts to the Refuge of retaining the groin must be considered in the compatibility analysis.
If the groin is instead determined to be necessary to protect the new Parallel Bridge and it is
retained, it will have numerous adverse environmental consequences that are not compatible
with the purposes of the Refuge. These consequences must be considered in the
compatibility analysis."
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-45 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Response: The terminal groin was determined compatible with the purposes of the
Refuge when it was constructed. Consideration for the permit was "the protection of
wildlife habitat by stabilizing the north end ofPea Island and partially restoring land
lost to avulsive action. " The terms of the permit require bi-monthly monitoring of the
effectiveness of the groin to stabilizing the northern shoreline.
We also noted that the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act requires
USFWS to identify and describe significant problems that may adversely affect the
populations and habitats offish, wildlife, and plants with the planning unit and
actions necessary to correct or mitigate such problem in each comprehensive
conservation plan. We have reviewed the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan has part of our analysis for this project. It does
not note any significant problems associated with the terminal groin that may
adversely affect the populations and habitats offish, wildlife and plants within the
Refuge. Instead it documents that USFWS and NCDOT have been able to establish
new habitat suitable for wintering piping plover. This habitat was included in the
USFWS designation of critical habitat for the planning unit in December 2008.
FHWA and NCDOT have been coordinating with USFWS on requirements necessary
to comply with a compatibility determination if the groin is to be retained.
18. Comment:
II_ "The Department of Transportation Act of 1966 section 4(f) analysis is inadequate.
A) NCDOT erroneously concludes that the Phased Approach will not "use" Refuge
lands because it will operate within the existing NC 12 easement.
B) NCDOT's erroneous determination that the Phased Approach will not "use" the
Refuge impermissibly skews the evaluation of the factors in the "least overall harm"
analysis.
C) Section 4(f) Evaluation of the Phased Approach's impacts does not provide the
decisionmaker with sufficient information to engage in a meaningful "least overall
harm" analysis required by Section 4(f)."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT prepared a Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation
based in part on points raised by the commenter. It was distributed for review in
October 2009. Comments on the Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation and
responses are presented in Appendix F. They include updated comments from this
commenter.
19. Comment: "Indeed, NCDOT posits that it will be able to accomplish "all construction
activities, such as material/equipment deliveries, excavations, temporary shoring, pile
driving, and erection of bridge girders" within the existing right-of-way. FEIS at 2-123.
NCDOT fails to explain how it is feasible to construct and maintain an elevated bridge within
the existing right-of-way, construct a service road, while maintaining the current NC 12 and
cause no further encroachments into the Refuge. While it lists a host of activities that will
allegedly occur contemporaneously within the refuge, the Section 4(f) Evaluation falls short
of explaining how all construction equipment and activities, including pile driving and
shoring, and construction of a temporary road are going to co-exist."
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-46 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Response: The commenter's opinion is noted. However, the work would be
performed within the existing 100-foot-wide easement as described in the FEIS.
FHWA and NCDOT have experience overseeing construction activities within tight
confines similar to the situation at hand. Figure 2-24 of the FEIS illustrates the
positioning of bridges in the Refuge and a temporary access road used to maintain
traffic, all within the existing easement. The requirement for contractors to submit a
staging plan for remaining in the easement is addressed on page 2-123 of the FEIS.
As indicated in responses to USFWS comments, based on coordination with the
Refuge, it is now proposed that the southern terminus of the first phase of the NC 12
Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred) (replacement of Bonner
Bridge) be built within a minor modification of the existing NC 12 easement in the
Refuge. The Refuge, NCDOT, and FHWA have had meetings with regard to what
would constitute a minor modification to the existing easement. To date, there have
been no final agreements on either the easement terms or conditions.
FHWA and NCDOT recognize that future decisions must be made in association with
the Refuge and other environmental regulatory agencies. This is the underlying
rationale for the coastal monitoring program and continued agency coordination
through the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process described in Section 2.3 of this EA.
If the outcome of that decision-making is that maintenance activities, Phase I, and/or
future project phases must remain in the existing easement, then FHWA and NCDOT
are prepared to do so as indicated in the FEIS, including implementation of the
Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative.
FHWA and NCDOT note that NC 12 maintenance activities to date have neither been
found to have a significant impact under NEPA nor found to be incompatible with the
purposes of the Refuge.
20. Comment: "NCDOT's Section 4(f) Evaluation also neglects to address the projected dune
building and maintenance activities through 2030 that are integral to the Phased Approach
(FEIS at 4-71, 4-72), much less explain how future dune building and maintenance also will
stay within the easement and cause no further encroachment onto the Refuge. For example,
the FEIS makes reference to smaller dunes of indeterminate size and unquantified impact
which will purportedly be built within the easement on the Refuge, but the Section 4(f)
Evaluation omits dune maintenance and building from the discussions of Refuge use and
Refuge impacts. Absent credible information to the contrary, it is infeasible that NCDOT will
be able to accomplish all of the activities it proposes - new dune construction and
maintenance, a temporary road, and constructing a bridge over forty-feet wide - entirely
within the its existing easement. Hence, it is foreseeable that the Phased Approach will result
in actual use of additional Refuge land."
Response: The commenter's opinion is noted. Future maintenance work can be
performed within the existing easement. Table 4-14 and Table 4-15 on pages 4-71
and 4-72 of the FEIS document maintenance activities likely to occur within the
existing easement with a phased alternative. How this would be done is presented on
pages 4-70 and 4-71. The tables and text (page 4-73) note that NCDOT intends to
place a high priority on implementing Phase II, which would include the three "hot
spots " where much of the NC 12 maintenance occurs today. The impact of
maintenance activities prior to the completion of all phases is discussed in Section
4.7.8 of the FEIS. A typical section showing the position of the bridge and temporary
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-47 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
construction road associated with the Phased Approach alternatives within the
existing easement are presented in Figure 2-24 of the FEIS. I fa temporary dune also
is found in the easement at the time of construction, the bridge foundations could be
driven through the dune. See the response to the previous comment related to
coordination with the Refuge related to the merits of the Phase I bridge terminus
leaving the existing easement.
21. Comment: "Assuming NCDOT feasibly could implement the Phased Approach within the
bounds of the existing easement, the definition of "use" under 23 C.F.R. § 774.17 is broader
than actual use. "Use" is not limited to physical takings and land acquisition, as is suggested
by the Section 4(f) Evaluation's repeated reference to the Phased Alternative staying within
the easement and thereby avoiding "use" of the Refuge. Rather, "use" for purposes of Section
4(f) encompasses certain temporary and constructive uses of protected land. See 23 C.F.R. §
774.17. Temporary occupancies are categorically excluded from "use" only if they satisfy all
of conditions set forth in the regulation. 23 C.F.R. § 774.13 (d). NCDOT fails to address
whether and what kinds of temporary occupancies associated with construction and
maintenance under the Phased Approach, particularly those occupancies which may result in
permanent adverse impacts on the Refuge, could potentially constitute a temporary
occupancy adverse to the statute's preservation purpose and hence a "use" under Section 4(f)
analysis. Even if NCDOT could carry out the Phased Approach within the existing easement
and avoid any actual temporary uses, the Phased Approach's proximity impacts at a
minimum will result in a "constructive use" of the Refuge.... The Section 4(f) Evaluation
includes a constructive use section. However, that analysis appears to be an afterthought with
a foregone conclusion."
Response: In consideration of this comment and others, NCDOT and FHWA
published a Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation on October 9, 2009. The Revised
Final Section 40 Evaluation concluded that the Parallel Bridge Corridor with
Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative would constructively use the Refuge.
The Phased Approach, as described in the FEIS, included no temporary use of
Refuge land.
22. Comment: "More fundamentally, within the constructive use analysis provided, NCDOT
consistently reads the constructive use threshold more narrowly than the regulation provides
in determining that the various proximity impacts do not amount to 4(f) "uses." The
appropriate guidepost for constructive use throughout the regulation is "substantial
impairment" of the property. ... Total loss of the resource is not required; rather, meaningful
reduction of the significance of the resource is sufficient for a proximity impact to amount to
a constructive use."
Response: The Section 40 regulations do not permit a finding of constructive use
absent a "substantial impairment" of the protected features, activities, or attributes
of the Section 40 property. 23 CFR 774.15(a). The regulations do not describe a
"meaningful reduction of the significance of the resource " as a constructive use.
NCDOT and FHWA published a Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation on October 9,
2009. The Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation concluded that the Parallel Bridge
Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative would constructively
use the Refuge.
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-48 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
23. Comment: "In addition, the Section 4(f)'s Evaluation's examination of specific proximity
impacts as constructive uses fails to adequately assess ecological impacts and access
restrictions of the Phased Approach in the Refuge."
Response: The original Final Section 40 Evaluation in the FEIS addresses
ecological impacts in Sections 5.5.14 and on pages 5-51 to 5-52. Access restrictions
are addressed in Section 5.5.13 and on page 5-51. The material presented in both
cases summarizes and cross references more extensive analyses in Chapter 4,
"Environmental Consequences. " This information combined with consideration by
FHWA and NCDOT of comments on the FEIS' Section 40 Evaluation are reflected
in the Revised Final Section 40 Evaluation published on October 9, 2009.
24. Comment: "In addition, the Section 4(f) Evaluation completely omits an analysis of
ecological impacts on the Refuge stemming from planned "short-term" dune construction and
maintenance within the easement during implementation of Phased Approach, which is
estimated to be completed by 2030. FEIS at 4-68 to 4-73. In fact, the Section 4(f) Evaluation
ignores the dune construction and maintenance planned with the Phased Approach, and
submits that the Phased Approach "would allow more natural coastal processes to occur by
eliminating artificial dune construction and beach nourishment." FEIS at 5-52. This
conclusion is not only inaccurate but underscores the inadequacy of the ecological impact
analysis presented in the Section 4(f) Evaluation. The Section 4(f) Evaluation fails to
consider whether and to what degree sand dune construction, maintenance, and the resulting
interference with natural coastal processes will impact the Refuge and result in a constructive,
if not an actual, use of Refuge lands that abut the easement."
Response: Construction and maintenance of the dunes began before the Refuge was
established and has continued ever since. These dunes are an integral part of the
historic landscape. The dunes are not a part of the project, but a part ofNC 12
maintenance occurring today and needed in some form until all phases of the project
can be built. The impact of maintenance activities prior to the completion of all
phases of the project is discussed in Section 4.7.8 of the FEIS. FHWA and NCDOT
disagree that the continuation of maintenance activities until all phases of the project
are complete would result in substantial impairment of the activities, features, or
attributes that qualify the Refuge as a Section 40 resource. NC 12 has coexisted
with the Refuge for decades and maintenance ofNC 12 and maintenance of the dunes
has been conducted throughout that period of time.
25. Comment: "The Section 4(f) Evaluation similarly fails to adequately assess as a potential
constructive use of the Refuge the impacts from significantly restricting access. The Section
4(f) analysis concedes, for example, that the Phased Approach would "limit access to the
Refuge to two locations" (FEIS at 5-51) and would cause loss of access "to the Refuge
Visitor Center, headquarters, and North Pond Trail with the Preferred Alternative [Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge]." FEIS at 5-30. A restriction in access which substantially
diminishes the utility of a significant publicly owned land is a constructive use. However,
NCDOT dismissed this proximity impact because the restriction in access "would not
eliminate the Refuge's ability to function." FEIS at 5-51. NCDOT misstates the applicable
standard and fails to adequately assess the potential constructive use caused by the Phased
Approach, which will cut off most access to the Refuge."
Response: Access restrictions are addressed in Section 5.5.13 and on page 5-51 of
the original Final Section 40 Evaluation. NCDOT and FHWA published a Revised
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-49 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Final Section 40 Evaluation on October 9, 2009. The Revised Final Section 40
Evaluation concluded that the Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative would constructively use the Refuge.
26. Comment: "Finally, the Section 4(f) Evaluation fails to acknowledge or assess the use of the
Refuge that will result from retaining the terminal groin, which does not lie within the
existing NC 12 easement. The retention of the terminal groin is an essential part of the Phased
Approach that will require NCDOT to secure a new permit to retain it in its existing location
on the Refuge, as discussed in section VI, infra. Although the Section 4(f) Evaluation
mentions the terminal groin as it relates to the Coast Guard Station, concluding that the
Pamlico Sound alternatives will adversely affect the Coast Guard Station by reason of
removal of the terminal groin (FEIS at 5-20), the Evaluation does not analyze the extent of
use and environmental impacts on the Refuge posed by permitting and retaining the terminal
groin.
Response: Retaining the terminal groin would not require a Section 40 approval
for the use of the Refuge. The terminal groin is an existing feature constructed in
cooperation between USDOI, USACE, and NCDOT. It was found compatible with
the purposes of the Refuge when constructed, and its existence has never been
determined incompatible.
NCDOT and FHWA have considered the effects of retaining the terminal groin on the
Refuge. The FEIS presumes the continued presence of the terminal groin in its
shoreline forecast modeling (FEIS Section 3.6 3) and its assessment of cultural,
coastal, and natural resource impacts (FEIS Sections 4.4, 4.6, and 4.7, respectively).
However, the extent of those effects, in comparison with removal of the groin, would
not be significant based on previously published environmental analysis and
documentation required by NEPA, the Endangered Species Act and the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the substantial change to the
shoreline that would result from removing the groin, as discussed in the FEIS
beginning on page 3-65. Additional environmental analysis of the terminal groin
needed to meet USFWS permit requirements by NCDOT and USFWS is ongoing.
27. Comment:
III. "The FEIS does not adequately assess the environmental impacts from the Phased
Approach.
A) To comply with NEPA, the FEIS must thoroughly and objectively analyze the
environmental consequences of the alternatives.
B) The Phased Approach environmental impacts analysis is inadequate.
C) The FEIS fails to identify a preferred alternative and instead writes a blank check
without adequate review of all the foreseeable environmental impacts.
D) The FEIS fails to evaluate the ecological needs of the Refuge and the manner in
which the Phased Approach interferes with the beneficial processes of this dynamic
shoreline.
1. Shoreline erosion, inlet formation, and ocean overwash.
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-50 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
2. Endangered and threatened species.
3. Wetlands."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT do not agree with the general comment that the FEIS
does not adequately address the environmental impacts of the Phased Approach. The
FEIS provides extensive analysis of each category of environmental impact and fully
complies with NEPA requirements. The responses to the specific comments below
provide further detail in addressing this general comment.
28. Comment: "The FEIS fails to analyze the reasonably foreseeable impacts to the Refuge from
temporary or "emergency" measures taken to protect a phased bridge under construction or
an area that is not slated for construction until decades after the threat."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT disagree with this comment. The characteristics and
impacts associated with storm-related maintenance prior to the implementation of
each phase of the project are addressed in Sections 4.68.6 and 4.7.8 of the FEIS. As
discussed in Section 2.10.2.5 of the FEIS under "Phasing Timing and Minimizing
Impacts ofNC 12 Maintenance, " one intent of the monitoring program is to time
future phases so as to minimize future storm-related NC 12 maintenance.
29. Comment: "Finally, the final outcome of the Phased Approach is a bridge in the Atlantic
Ocean. The placement of a bridge of this length and size on a dynamic shoreline raises many
concerns.... The FEIS fails to take a "hard look" at the adverse impacts from placing a
transportation corridor within such a dynamic system. The Phased Approach instead avoids a
hard look by proposing a monitoring program and by stating without evaluating that the
future phases of the Phased Approach may incorporate any portion of any of the Parallel
Bridge alternatives."
Response: NCDOT and FHWA disagree with the commenter's position. FEIS
Section 4.68 includes substantial detail on off-shore coastal processes with the
Phased Approach alternatives. FEIS Section 4.7.6 discusses the potential impacts of
the Phased Approach alternatives on wildlife and fish habitat. In addition, the
bridges would be designed taking into account hurricanes.
A "hard look" was taken using appropriate data and analyses. The monitoring
program is an essential component of prudent long-term project implementation. In
addition, the impacts presented for the Parallel Bridge Corridor alternatives in the
FEIS and this EA consider the environmental consequences of the full project and
reflect the reasonably foreseeable range of impacts for the various phases of the NC
12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred).
30. Comment: "The FEIS does not adequately analyze the effects of shoreline erosion, inlet
creation, and ocean overwash on the proposed project area. Rather, the FEIS neglects the
beneficial impacts to the environment, as well as the ways in which these processes make the
Phased Approach an inappropriate solution."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT disagree with this comment. FEIS Section 4.7.7
discusses the expected positive benefits of allowing natural barrier island change,
including shoreline erosion, inlet creation, and ocean overwash. Section 4.6
discusses in detail the affect of the Phased Approach alternatives on off-shore coastal
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-51 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
processes. Section 4.6 discusses the affect of the detailed study alternatives in
general on coastal conditions.
31. Comment: "The authors have also penned a more detailed report entitled "NC Coasts in
Crisis: A Case Study," which is scheduled for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey.
One of the authors, Dr. Stan Riggs, has written a third paper entitled, "Eye of a Human
Hurricane: Pea Island, Oregon Inlet, and Bodie Island, Northern Outer Banks, NC," which is
scheduled to be published as part of a book by the Geological Society of America. Both
papers offer greater technical and scientific detail on the inappropriateness of the Phased
Approach in light of dynamic barrier island geography, climate change, and the predicted
associated sea level rise. These two papers are scheduled for publication in 2009, and we ask
that you refrain from issuing any Record of Decision until you have had a chance to receive
and review them."
Response: NCDOT has reviewed the report "North Carolina's Coasts in Crisis: A
Vision for the Future, " which was AttachmentA to the Southern Environmental Law
Center's comment letter and the recently published "Eye of a Human Hurricane: Pea
Island, Oregon Inlet, and Bodie Island, Northern Outer Banks, NC" report. One of
the authors of both items, Dr. Stanley Riggs, was a member of the expert panel that
NCDOT convened during completion of the 2005 SDEIS in order to analyze the
potential for a storm to open an island breach in the project area (see FEIS pages 3-
61 and 4-56). Dr. Riggs was also a member of a Peer Exchange workshop that
FHWA sponsored during completion of the FEIS in order to seek to incorporate
recent scientific research on global climate change effects and accelerated sea-level
rise into the previous shoreline analysis for the project (see FEIS pages 3-59 and 4-
54). The section of the report "North Carolina's Coasts in Crisis: A Vision for the
Future" on page 11 titled "Why are North Carolina's Coasts in Crisis?" discusses
gradual changes from sea level rise and rapid change caused by storms (hurricanes
and nor'easters). "Eye of a Human Hurricane: Pea Island, Oregon Inlet, and Bodie
Island, Northern Outer Banks, NC" discusses the importance of considering sea level
rise as a part of future planning for the Outer Banks. NCDOT acknowledges that
these issues are important factors to consider for the proposed project and has
adequately taken them into account through the expert panels discussed above, as
well as through detailed coastal engineering analyses that were completed during the
preparation of the 2005 SDEIS, the 2007 SSDEIS, and the FEIS. FEIS Section 3.6,
which discusses coastal conditions in terms of the "Affected Environment" (i.e., FEIS
Chapter 3 issues), includes a discussion of the evolution of the coast in the project
area and how the coastal system works (e.g., inlet migration, shoreline erosion, etc.)
similar to what is discussed in the report referenced by the commenter. In addition,
FEIS Section 4.6, which discusses coastal conditions-related "Environmental
Consequences " (i. e., FEIS Chapter 4 issues), documents the results of the coastal
engineering analyses, including discussions of sea level rise and potential island
breaching.
In the "Adaption Alternatives" section of the "North Carolina's Coasts in Crisis: A
Vision for the Future" referenced by the commenter, it offers a vision of the future
different from building the proposed project, the report states If we withdrew from
some of the coastal highways and terminated the construction of barrier dune ridges,
the islands would begin their natural rebirth as inlet and overwash dynamics would
once more rebuild them. The eventual result would likely be a barrier island system
with eight Ocracoke-style destination villages. " This vision would not serve the
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-52 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
purpose and need of the project or the residents and visitors to Hatteras Island. This
vision is that of those who prepared the report and not that of Dare County or the
State ofNorth Carolina. The Parallel Bridge Corridor alternatives, with the
exception of those involving nourishment, would allow natural barrier island
processes to resume.
"Eye of a Human Hurricane: Pea Island, Oregon Inlet, and Bodie Island, Northern
Outer Banks, NC" concludes with "For the long-term health and, indeed, survival of
our dynamic coastal system, we must develop new approaches to coastal
management that blend the development, utilization, and maintenance of the
economic infrastructure with the natural dynamics of climate change, including sea-
level rise, increased storm frequency, shoreline recession, and habitat evolution and
migration. " NCDOT agrees with this statement and believes that the NC 12
Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred) provides an opportunity to
do just this within the context future Outer Banks management planning.
32. Comment: "The FEIS, by utilizing historic annual average erosion rates, may underestimate
the amount of erosion that will occur and the projected shoreline movement through 2060
may be substantially conservative. In addition, sea level rise is also predicted to increase
erosion rates. Finally, by utilizing an average erosion rate as a prediction tool for the
shoreline, the FEIS fails to analyze adequately the importance of large or severe storm events
in shaping the proposed project area."
Response: The "average rate" used by the project's coastal engineers (see listing
for FDH Engineering on page 6-8 of the FEIS) includes both times of past limited
erosion and severe erosion. Further, as indicated in FEIS Section 3.6.3.1, a "high
erosion" scenario was assumed, which assumes a future erosion rate higher than the
58 year period from 1946 to 2004. The potential affect of accelerated sea level rise
is addressed in Sections 3.6.3.3 and 4.6 of the FEIS. Finally, recognizing that the
shoreline could evolve differently than assessed, NCDOT has committed to the
shoreline monitoring program described in FEIS Section 2.10.2.5 and EA section
2.3.2.2 so that the unexpected can be taken into consideration in the implementation
of project phases. The need to consider the unexpected also is reflected in the
identification of the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative as the
Preferred Alternative in this EA.
33. Comment: "The FEIS ignores, however, the beneficial impacts to the environment of natural
inlet creation, migration, and closure. ... The FEIS does not analyze the environmental
benefits from removing the transportation corridor and allowing ocean overwash."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT disagree with this comment. FEIS Section 4.7.7
discusses the positive benefits of allowing natural barrier island change, including
inlet creation and ocean overwash.
34. Comment: "While the FEIS states that a parallel bridge corridor is likely to adversely affect
these species (endangered and threatened species), the Pamlico Sound Bridge alternative is
not likely to adversely affect any federally protected species. FEIS at 4-138. The reasonable
and prudent measures are not adequate to prevent impacts of a long-term construction
schedule, as is proposed in the Phased Approach, required long term nourishment, or any
combination thereof "
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-53 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
Response: FHWA and NCDOT disagree with this comment. The reasonable and
prudent measures for minimizing impacts to protected species under the Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative were agreed to with USFWS during Section 7
consultation.
35. Comment: "The Phased Approach impermissibly interferes with the Fish and Wildlife
Service's ability to manage the Refuge for the benefit of these species."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT disagree with this comment. The reasonable and
prudent measures for conserving species and critical habitat were agreed to with
USFWS during Section 7 consultation. Further, USFWS, in its April 30, 2009 letter
to FHWA, indicates that all management activities in the Pea Island National
Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan can be carried out with or
without the highway.
36. Comment: "It is of particular concern that the FEIS proposes any mix and match of short
bridge construction, beach renourishment, and dune building. Each of these will have
specific impacts on protected species, such as the piping plover and sea turtles, as well as
impacts to the natural biota. Moreover, overwash is part of ecologically important inlet
creation, migration and closure and overtime, helps to create new moist sand intertidal
feeding areas on the sound side."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT recognize the importance of overwash and the
impacts of the alternatives on protected species, but disagree with this comment. As
future phases of the project are finalized taking into consideration changed
conditions in the project area, Section 7 consultation with USFWS would be
reinitiated. The planning offuture phases would continue to recognize and address
these concerns.
37. Comment: "The Phased Approach would impact 3.1 acres of wetlands, including 0.3 acres
of CAMA coastal wetlands. FEIS at 4-96. This lower wetland impact appears to be based on
the assumption that sand movement will naturally fill wetlands prior to implementing
"phases" that include wetlands that currently exist. FEIS at 4-97. This assumption fails to
consider the impacts from construction of the phases and the timing of the phases.
Construction impacts from the Phased Approach include constructing a service road that will
be in service for decades. Also, when and where wetlands are naturally filled may or may not
be within the same time frame as construction of the Phased Approach. Therefore, the FEIS
may underestimate the wetland impacts by assuming that the Phased Approach will occur in
coordination with the natural erosion and overwash cycle. Furthermore, if overwash occurs
before a planned construction phase, the NC DOT will push back any sand to recreate dunes
and to stabilize NC 12. This action prevents the natural filling of wetlands in the right of way,
making it more likely that the actual construction of the Phased Approach will require the fill
of jurisdictional wetlands. Again, these assumptions may underestimate the actual impact to
wetlands from the Phased Approach."
Response: The wetland impacts documented in the FEIS were assessed using
current wetlands. There is no assumption that those impacts would be less in future
phases, although that is possible. At the time future phases are implemented, the
actual conditions would be assessed and all environmental requirements complied
with. The temporary service road would be built during bridge construction to
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-54 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
maintain traffic and would be removed when bridge construction is complete. It will
not be in service for decades.
38. Comment: "Furthermore, the total temporary and permanent biotic impacts (which include
wetland impacts) from construction of either of the phased approaches are not insignificant
(48.5 acres temporary biotic impact, FEIS at 4-91). The Pamlico Sound Bridge is a
practicable alternative with the least impact on aquatic ecosystems and wetlands, and is the
only alternative assessed in the FEIS that may be fully permitted under Section 404."
Response: Section 404 addresses impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. During the
Project's NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process, USACE agreed with the LEDPA,
which indicates that a phased project in the Parallel Bridge Corridor is theoretically
permitable, though not necessarily guaranteed as indicated in the NEPA/Section 404
Merger Process LEDPA agreement. The LEDPA also indicates that the Pamlico
Sound Bridge Corridor is not practicable.
39. Comment:
IV. "The Phased Approach fails to address public access to the Refuge."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT disagree with this comment. The response to the
specific comment below provides further detail in addressing this general comment.
40. Comment: "The Phased Approach, however, will not provide compatible access and will
severely limit or eliminate fishing, surfing, birding, and other resource dependent activities.
Because the Phased Approach eliminates Refuge resources that create the need for adequate
access, it is not a viable alternative."
Response: Access changes in the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge with the
detailed study alternatives and their impact on recreational opportunities in the
Refuge are discussed in Section 4.5.3 of the FEIS. Access to recreational
opportunities within the Refuge is the responsibility of the Refuge and NPS, although
NC 12 has made a substantial contribution to the accessibility ofRefuge recreational
opportunities for many years. USFWS, as well as the commenter, have consistently
indicated a preference for the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor, which would
eliminate all NC 12 access to the Refuge.
41. Comment:
V. "The Phased Approach may not be able to be funded or comply with state or federal legal
requirements."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT disagree with this comment. Responses to the
specific comments below provide further detail in addressing this general comment.
42. Comment: "The FEIS fails to identify a preferred alternative. Instead, NCDOT proposes to
move forward with an initial phase-build a bridge substantially similar to the existing
Bonner Bridge-and then monitor, evaluate, and implement additional phases on an
indeterminate timeline. The initial phase standing alone cannot be legally permitted because it
violates federal and state laws including NEPA and the National Wildlife Refuge
Improvement Act. NCDOT and FHWA attempt to evade this legal hurdle by proposing
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-55 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
additional phases, but fail to provide adequate specificity to analyze the alternatives or
adequate legal assurances that any additional phases could be built. The FEIS explicitly states
that the construction of future phases is dependent on funding, results of a shoreline
monitoring program (currently undeveloped), and whether future phases can be permitted
pursuant to federal and state law. Thus, future phases could be dramatically different or may
not occur at all. Because this is a carte blanche approach, the NEPA analysis is inadequate
and the Phased Approach does not meet legal requirements."
Response: NCDOT and FHWA disagree with the commenter's position. The FEIS
studied a very long corridor in order to consider alternatives that would both cross
Oregon Inlet and bypass all of the "hot spots " on northern Hatteras Island with a
single 17.5 mile bridge. These long bridge alternatives were ultimately found not to
be feasible and prudent, as discussed in Appendix G of the Revised Final Section 40
Evaluation. The selection of the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative as
the preferred alternative, since replaced by the NC 12 Transportation Management
Plan Alternative, fully comply with NEPA and are expected to be determined in
compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.
Section 2.10.2.5 of the FEIS describes how NCDOT would implement an assumed
four phase program. As stated on page 2-127 of the FEIS: "Availability offunds
recognizes that future funding analyses indicate that funding availability would
continue to limit how much can be built at one time and the need for phasing. " The
monitoring program is an essential component of prudent long-term project
implementation. Further, the implementation of all project phases would be done
within the requirements ofNEPA and all other applicable environmental laws.
43. Comment: "The FEIS and the merger process acknowledge the legal uncertainties
surrounding future phases. NCDOT's summary of the merger process which identified phase
I of the Phased Approach as the least environmentally damaging practical alternative state,
"[t]he agencies concur, based on information available today, they cannot conclusively say
that permits or approvals will or will not be granted for these additional phases." The FEIS
also admits the permitting difficulties for additional phases ("Phases II to IV present
substantial challenges to obtaining permit approvals."). By choosing the Phased Approach,
NCDOT and FHWA have locked in place a transportation corridor that will need significant
management for the life of the project and this management may not be permitted pursuant to
federal or state law. To evade this legal box, NCDOT simply states that additional phases
may or may not be built. This approach, however, ignores the natural environment of
Hatteras Island-once phase I is built, NCDOT must continue the expensive and uncertain
maintenance of NC 12. Whatever future measures are selected, NCDOT will be left with
only options that either cannot meet applicable legal requirements or those that systematically
destroy the Refuge."
Response: NCDOT and FHWA disagree with the commenter's position. NC 12 has
existed for many years and the maintenance activities necessary to keep the road
open for public travel have never been found to violate any federal or state law. The
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process LEDPA agreement does acknowledge substantial
challenges to obtaining permit approvals, but it is NCDOT and FHWA's intent to
meet those challenges. Further, USFWS in its April 30, 2009 letter to FHWA
indicates that all management activities in the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan can be carried out with or without the highway.
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-56 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
44. Comment:
VI. "Because the terminal groin is an essential component of the Phased Approach, the
effects from its removal or retention must be addressed in the FEIS and a compatibility
determination is required.
A) The FEIS is inadequate because the terminal groin is an essential part of the Phased
Approach and the effects from either retaining it or removing it must be analyzed.
B) The Section 4(f) Evaluation is incomplete because it fails to analyze the Refuge use
and impacts resulting from retention of the terminal groin under the Phased Approach
alternative.
C) FWS must complete a compatibility determination for either retaining or removing
the terminal groin and it is unlikely that retaining the terminal groin could be found to
be compatible."
Response: The terminal groin is an existing feature constructed in cooperation
between USDOI, USACE, and NCDOT. NCDOT and FHWA have considered the
effects of retaining the terminal groin on the Refuge. The FEIS presumes the
continued presence of the terminal groin in its shoreline forecast modeling (FEIS
Section 3.6 3) and its assessment of cultural, coastal, and natural resource impacts
(FEIS Sections 4.4, 4.6, and 4.7, respectively). Additional environmental analysis of
the terminal groin needed to meet USFWS permit requirements by NCDOT and
USFWS is ongoing. Retaining the terminal groin would not require a Section 40
approval for the use of the Refuge. USFWS will determine whether a new
compatibility determination is required to retain the terminal groin. The
construction of the groin was compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and its
existence has not been found incompatible.
45. Comment: "The CEQ Guidelines are clear: "proposals which are related to each other
closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be evaluated in a single impact
statement." ... Breaking such actions "`into small component parts" to avoid reviewing them
together "is to engage in illegal `segmentation. "'
A hallmark of segmentation is an initial proposed action involving "such a large and
irretrievable commitment of resources that it may virtually force a larger or related project to
go forward notwithstanding the environmental consequences." Id. Building the Parallel
Bridge is one such "irretrievable commitment of resources" that will inevitably force later
projects, even though their environmental effects are not analyzed in the FEIS. These later
projects include the re-permitting of the terminal groin, as well as beach nourishment and
relocation of NC 12 outside of the easement in response to storm events, if later phases are
not funded and cannot be implemented, as appears to be likely."
Response: FHWA and NCDOT do not propose to segment the Bonner Bridge
Replacement Project but rather build the improvements expected to be needed over
the fifty year period in phases. The impacts presented for the Parallel Bridge
Corridor alternatives consider the environmental consequences of the full project
and reflect the reasonably foreseeable range of impacts for the various phases of the
NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred). The past history of
funding available for highway and bridge improvements in NCDOT's Division I
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-57 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
indicates that future phases can be built as needed. The planned monitoring
program will allow for funding to be included in the State Transportation
Improvement Program when needed.
The NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred) includes
commitments to assess environmental impacts and to consider mitigation
opportunities associated with specific future environmental conditions prior to
making final decisions on the characteristics of future phases. If the final outcome of
that decision-making is that improvements must remain within the existing NC 12
easement, then FHWA and NCDOT are prepared to do so as indicated in the FEIS,
including implementation of the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative.
The FEIS presumes the re permitting of the terminal groin in its shoreline forecast
modeling (FEIS Section 3.6 3) and its assessment of cultural, coastal, and natural
resource impacts (FEIS Sections 4.4, 4.6, and 4.7, respectively).
46. Comment: "Indeed, we understand that the FHWA agrees that the terminal groin is an
essential part of the Phased Approach Parallel Bridge and will not let federal funding for any
part of the project until a new permit is issued to retain the groin. If this is true, however,
FHWA has apparently been persuaded by NCDOT to segment the NEPA analysis for the
groin retention. If so, FHWA should reconsider this position as it constitutes an
acknowledged and unlawful segmentation of the NEPA analysis."
Response: NCDOT and FHWA disagree with the commenter's position. The FEIS
presumes the re permitting of the terminal groin in its shoreline forecast modeling
(FEIS Section 3.6 3) and its assessment of cultural, coastal, and natural resource
impacts (FEIS Sections 4.4, 4.6, and 4.7, respectively). The notable change in the
shoreline that would result from removing the groin is discussed in the FEIS
beginning on page 3-65. NCDOT and FHWA are currently discussing possible
conditions required for anew groin permit with USFWS.
47. Comment: "As discussed in more detail above, federal regulations related to wildlife refuges
have changed since the terminal groin was initially permitted. Congress passed the National
Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act (Act) in 1997. The Act prohibits permitting a "new use of
a refuge or expand[ing], renew[ing], or extend[ing] an existing use of a refuge," without a
compatibility determination. 16 U.S.C. § 668ee. Because permitting the terminal groin is a
part of the proposed use of the Refuge for a bridge built in phases to eventually replace most
of NC 12 through the Refuge, the compatibility determination must assess both the permitting
of the terminal groin and the phased bridge construction through the Refuge. In order for the
terminal groin to be retained, the compatibility determination must conclude that the long-
term impacts associated with the terminal groin and the connected replacement of the Bonner
Bridge "will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the
System or the purpose of the refuge.' 16 U.S.C. 668ee. The compatibility determination must
be issued before a new permit and must fully consider the impact on wildlife habitat,
including the recently designated piping plover critical habitat.
Retention of the terminal groin will also result in adverse modification of designated piping
plover critical habitat. The existing terminal groin occupies intertidal habitat that is important
to wintering piping plovers. Removal of the groin as required by the permit if no longer
necessary to protect the existing Bonner Bridge will make this habitat available. Retention of
the groin to protect a new Parallel Bridge will result in adverse modification of critical
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-58 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
habitat. In addition, retention of the terminal groin will interfere with natural inlet processes
that create habitat conditions that are bencficial to piping plovers."
Response: The requirement to determine compatibility of Refuge roads is located in
16 U.S.C. 668dd(d) (1) (B) which has been in effect since 1966 and was not amended
in 1997. The legislative history of the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement
Act amendments specifically notes that existing rights-of-ways on refuges are not to
be changed, restricted, or eliminated, and that the standards for determining what is
a compatible use had been established years before and were not intended to be
altered by the 1997 amendments. NCDOT has been consulting with USFWS about
compatibility and will submit an application for a compatibility determination at the
appropriate time if necessary. FHWA will not authorize the expenditure of federal
highway funds for the construction of any phase of the project that USFWS
determines is incompatible with the purposes of the Refuge.
As discussed in Section 3.6.3.5 of the FEIS, the short-term impact of removal of the
terminal groin would be migration of the inlet up to 2, 000 feet south, which would
eliminate the bulk of the recently designated piping plover habitat on Hatteras
Island. Much of this habitat is within the groin area and it formed following the
completion of the terminal groin. The groin does not occupy this habitat but rather
maintains it. Thus, it is the removal of the groin and not the retention of the terminal
groin that would result in an adverse modification of designated piping plover
habitat.
WildLaw
Comment: "WildLaw supports the proposed alternative (parallel bridge with phased
approach/Rodanthe Bridge). We feel that the unique character of the North Carolina Outer
Banks, the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
(P1NW) require a compromise approach that allows for all values, environmental, cultural,
recreation, economic, etc., to be enjoyed, weighed, and considered. We feel the preferred
alternative [Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge] best approaches this appropriate level of
compromise and consideration of values.
While true that the Pamlico Sound all-bridge alternative would on the surface appear to
reduce impacts to P1NW, such a wildly expensive alternative would have significant impacts
of its own. The likelihood of implementation at a scale this large diminishes, and the Bonner
Bridge certainly has existing safety issues that demand immediate attention.
The direct impacts to wetland resources appear to roughly equivalent to the preferred
alternative, and increased impacts to submerged biotic communities from the increased need
for dredging with the all-bridge alternative are troublesome and should not be
underestimated.
Further, the all-bridge alternative appears 6117.9 acres (3.2 hectares), the phased approach
alternatives (including the preferred alternative) would fill 3.0 acres (1.2 hectares), and the
nourishment alternative would 6112.9 acres (1.2 hectares). This significant additional fill to
jurisdictional wetlands in an area where wetland impacts are magnified is worrisome.
Although not ideal, the Parallel Bridge Corridor alternatives (including the Preferred
Alternative) also generally would allow long-term natural shoreline movement except for the
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-59 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500
retention of the terminal groin. Shoreward migration is an issue constantly facing residents
and projects planned for barrier islands such as the North Carolina Outer Banks."
Response: Position acknowledged.
Comment: "We would also urge FHWA and NCDOT to reach out to the Department of
Interior, specifically the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. It appears there
is some genuine and potentially valid concern at that agency about the compatibility of the
preferred alternative [Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge] with DOI policy and regulation as
well as legislative language dealing with PINW. WildLaw encourages an active outreach
effort to educate, inform, and demonstrate to the DOI the relative merits of each alternative,
as well as the reality that the all bridge alternative would be so prohibitively expensive that
pursuit of that approach would essentially doom this project to failure. Simply determining
that a "finding of compatibility" is not necessary (FEIS Summary p. xxx) is not a sufficient
analysis of the issue, and may provide a legal "hook" for anyone opposing the construction of
the preferred alternative."
Response: Comments noted. FHWA and NCDOT will continue to coordinate with
USDOI to make sure that all applicable compatibility requirements are met.
Bonner Bridge Replacement EA D-60 NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500