20110023_Other Agency Comments_20081124

OT Op Tjy
0 ?2m United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Washington, DC 20240
9
M4RCH 3
ER 07/206
Gregory J Thorpe, PhD
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr Thorpe
TAKE PRIDE"
"A""'
90431
PEP/NRM
The Department of the Interior (Department) has received the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the NC-12 Replacement of
Herbert C Bonner Bridge (No. 11) over Oregon Inlet, Dare County, North Carolina
The FEIS identifies two replacement bridge corridors, the Pamlico Sound Bridge
Corridor and the Parallel Bridge Corridor Within each corridor are various alternatives
The Preferred Alternative (the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge) is among the
Parallel Corridor alternatives
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 Preferred
Alternative) 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 Specific comments related to the Endangered Species Act of 1973
will be provided by the Service under separate cover
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge encompasses 5,834 acres of barrier island beach,
dune, scrub, marsh, and open water habitat which support a diverse assemblage of
Federal trust fish and wildlife resources These include federally listed sea turtles and
over 300 species of migratory birds Given its location on a barrier island in the central
portion of the Atlantic Flyway, the Refuge is of particular importance as a migratory
stop-over and wintering site for numerous species of shorebirds, wading birds,
waterfowl, passennes, and raptors The Refuge is also prized for the wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities it provides to over one hundred thousand visitors per year
The Refuge is extremely important on a local, regional, national, and international basis
for both migratory birds as habitat and for humans who value knowing the birds have
high quality feeding and breeding habitat
-Z m
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
Section 4(f) Evaluation
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U S C
303), states that the U S Department of Transportation may not approve the use of land
from a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge,
or any significant historic site unless a determination is made that there is no feasible
and prudent alternative to the use of land from the property, and the action includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use 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)
Though all alternatives have some form of 4(f) impact, the Preferred 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
There appears to remain a distinct possibility that the Preferred 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
2
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 NCDOTIf
and FHWA's conclusions regarding the effects of the Preferred Alternative 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 " attributm
of the Refuge would not be substantially impaired, and thus would not be a constructor
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
Noise Noise resulting from vehicles traversing the elevated bridges would replace
wind and surf as the prevailing sounds experienced by visitors and wildlife Vehicles
travelling on elevated structures such as bridges produce more tire-to-pavement none`
than they do on an at-grade roadway Also, exhaust noise will travel farther into the
Refuge from an elevated point of origin Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge was
established in 1938 under an Executive Order to further the purposes of the MigratolF
Bird Conservation Act, and to serve " as a breeding ground for migratory birds and
other wildlife " Increased noise levels may negatively impact bird breeding adjaced
to the new bridge structure -
Visual Character- The large, concrete bridges would replace dunes and water as tic
predominant visual features of the Refuge We suggest that the. FEIS plainly state tkd
the Preferred Alternative would introduce a large elevated man-made structure (brad-)
through the previously open vista on the Refuge landscape, causing negative impa&to
the visual characteristics of the Refuge
Access- The Refuge offers a Visitor's Center that provides access to hiking trails aid
indoor and outdoor viewing areas The Preferred Alternative would elevate NC-12 afltD
a series of bridges Once completed, these bridges would traverse all but 2 1 milesaf
the Refuge 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 would not provide any vehicular access to the
Visitor's Center or the impoundments, which are two of the mayor destinations for
Refuge visitors Also overlooked in the FEIS is the quality of the visitor experience fat
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 world
continue to visit the Refuge whether or not paved access were provided, it is unclear
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 enga-W
(bird watching, nature photography, fishing) would be occurring adjacent to or under
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
Ecology, 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 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 mayor effect road-kill has on species population
demographics 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
Refuge Compatibility and Policy
NCDOT states in the FEIS that the project will be contained within the existing 100-foot-
wide right-of-way 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
However, we want to take this opportunity to re-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 We expressed this in a September 11, 2007, letter from
DOI Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Verhey to Governor
Easley, 'While the intent is to construct these new bndges within the exiting road's right-
of-way, we believe the [preferred] alternative would require continued maintenance
outside of the existing road's right-of-way through the Refuge until each subsequent
phase of bridge construction along NC-12 is completed "
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
4
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
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
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
The Terminal Groin
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
An assumption inserted into the FEIS analysis involves the dependency of the Terminal
Groin for the success of the Preferred Alternative 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 the 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 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
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments The Department wishes to
further coordinate with the NCDOT and FHWA at the earliest possible time in order to
reach a solution to our issues and concerns Coordination can be initiated by contacting
Mike Bryant, Refuge Manager, Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, at [phone],
extension 222, or Pete Benjamin, Project Leader, Raleigh Ecological Services Field
Office, at [phone], extension 11
Sincerely,
4 ,) a a
Willie R Taylor 'V
Director, Office of Environmental
Policy and Compliance
Fw DOI Comment Letter for Bonner Bridge - ER 07/206
To all
The Bonner Bridge letter was signed today The pdf dial not copy the
signature date onto the letter Would you please date stamp the letter "
October 28, 2008 " We apologize for the inconvenience Thank you
(See attached file ER 07-206 DOI comments on Bonner Bridge pdf)
Ethel
Ethel Smith
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance [OEPC]
Office of the Secretary [Room MS-2462-MIB]
U S Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240-0001
Phone [phone] / FAX [phone]
ethel smithPios dog gov
"Get the optimum results with minimal confusion
making the environment worse --- T D Jakes
ER 07-206 DOI comments on Bonner Bridge.pdf
Be effective without
Content-Type: application/pdf
Content-Encoding: base64
2 of 2 11/24/2008 3 24 PM
Fw DOI Comment Letter for Bonner Bridge - ER 07/206
Subject: Fw DOI Comment Letter for Bonner Bridge - ER 07/206
From: GaryJordan@fws gov
Date Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15 11 53 -0500
To: travis wilson@ncwildlife org, militscher chris@epamail epa gov,
wtlliam j biddlecome@usace army mil, cathy brittingham@ncmail net, david wamwnght@ncmail net,
bean wrenn@ncmail net
For whatever it's worth, here is the official DOI letter for the Bonner
Bridge FEIS I think you know that this does not reflect either my draft
or my boss's draft that went up our chain of command
Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone [phone] ext 32
Fax [phone]
aaiy 3ordan@fws gov
---- Forwarded by Gary Jordan/R4/FWS/DOI on 11/24/2008 03 04 PM -----
Pete
Benjamin/R4/FWS/D
OI
11/13/2008 08 22
AM
Gary Jordan/R4/FWS/DOI@FWS
To
cc
Subject
Fw DOI Comment Letter for Bonner
Bridge - ER 07/206
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Field Office
U S Fish and Wildlife Service
[phone] x 11
----- Forwarded by Pete Benjamin/R4/FWS/DOI on 11/13/2008 08 22 AM -----
Ethel
Smith/PEP/OS/DOI@
DOI
10/28/2008 04 01
PM
1 of 2
To
Clarence Coleman@fhwa dot gov,
Margaret Hopkins@fws gov, Pete
Ben3amin/R4/FWS/DOI@FWS
cc
Jeff Weller/R4/FWS/DOI@FWS, Anita
Barnett/Atlanta/NPS@NPS, Vi3ai
Rai/PEP/OS/DOI@DOI, Willie
Taylor/PEP/OS/DOI@DOI, Mary Josie
Blanchard/PEP/OS/DOI@DOI, Gregory
Hogue/PEP/OS/DOI@DOI, Gwen
Wilder/PEP/OS/DOI@DOI
Sub]ect
DOI Comment Letter for Bonner
Bridge - ER 07/206
11/24/2008 3 24 PM