20110023_Meeting Minutes_20090326

North Carolina Department of Transportation
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Informational Meeting
March 26, 2009
NC 12 Replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge
(Bridge No. 11) over Oregon Inlet
Federal-Aid Project No. BRS-2358(15)
WBS No. 32635
TIP Project No. B-2500
Dare County
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Informational Meeting
March 26, 2009
NC 12 Replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge
(Bridge No. 11) over Oregon Inlet
AGENDA
1. Introduction and Purpose of this Meeting.
11. Project History and Current Status,
A. LEDPA Concurrence
B. 2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement
C. CP-2A/4A Concurrence
III. Summary of Comments on the 2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Section 4(f) Evaluation
IV. Certification of NC 12 Right-of-Way
V. Terminal Groin
VI. Section 106 Coordination
VII. Next Steps
Adjourn
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Informational Meeting
March 26, 2009
NC 12 Replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge
(Bridge No. 11) over Oregon Inlet
Federal-Aid Project No. BRS-2358(15)
WBS No. 32635 (TIP Project No. B-2500)
1. Introduction
The NCDOT proposes to replace the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge across Oregon Inlet in
Dare County. Bonner Bridge, built across Oregon Inlet in 1962, is approaching the end
of its reasonable service life. Bonner Bridge is part of NC 12 and provides the only
highway connection between Hatteras Island and Bodie Island. The replacement
structure would serve the same function. Two replacement bridge corridors have been
considered: the Pamlico Sound Bridge Condor and the Parallel Bridge Corridor with
NC 12 Maintenance. This project is identified in the 2009 to 2015 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP Project No. B-2500.
The purpose of this meeting is to update the merger team on work completed since
issuing the Final Environmental Impact Statement in September 2008 and to discuss the
possibility of revisiting the selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (Concurrence Point 3). Today's meeting is for informational purposes only.
II. Project History and Current Status
A summary of the merger team meetings and NEPA documents previously issued was
included in the packet of information distributed in advance of the May 23, 2007 merger
team meeting. The following is a summary of the major project milestones since that
meeting.
A. LEDPA Concurrence
Merger meetings were held on May 23, June 20, and August 15, 2007 for the purpose of
reaching concurrence on the Least Enviromnentally Damaging Preferred Alternative
(LEDPA). At that time, NCDOT and FHWA recommended the Parallel Bridge with
Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative as the project's LEDPA. Between the
May and August 2007 meetings, NCDOT and FH WA staff met individually with several
merger team members to discuss the concerns with the recommended alternative. A
summary of these concerns, as well as NCDOT's proposed responses to these concerns,
was presented to the merger team in advance of the August 15 meeting. However, the
merger team was unable to concur on a LEDPA at the August 15 meeting, so the decision
was elevated per the Merger 01 process.
In August 2007, the Merger 01 Dispute Resolution Board concurred with Parallel Bridge
with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative as the project's LEDPA, recognizing
the challenges associated with permitting the later phases of the alternative. The Board
also concurred that the Pamlico Sound Alternative, based upon current cost estimates,
was not a practicable alternative.
B. 2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was approved on September 17, 2008
and listed the Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge as the
Preferred Alternative. The FEIS included responses to all comments received on the 2005
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the 2007 Supplement to the
SDEIS. The FEIS was circulated to the public as well as to all federal, state, and local .
agencies who had received copies of the SDEIS and SSDEIS.
Following the release of the FEIS, NCDOT received comments from ten federal, state,
and local government agencies as well as three non-governmental organizations. NCDOT
also received fifteen comments from the public prior to the end of the comment period on
October 27, 2008. A copy of the comments received from both governmental agencies as
Well as the NGOs is included in Appendix A of this packet.
C. CP 2A/4A Concurrence
A merger team meeting was held on November 13, 2008 to discuss both Bridging
Decisions and Alignment Review (CP 2A) and Avoidance and Minimization (CV 4A) for
Phase I (Oregon Inlet bridge) of the Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative. The merger team was able to concur with the
recommendations included in the merger packet, with the addition of the following
recommendations:
• Merger team members will be provided, prior to Concurrence Point 413, with any
major changes in wetland/SAV impacts based on updated designs.
The design-build contractor should minimize damage to wetlands/SAV/Oregon
Inlet from jetting spoils.
Table 2 [of the November 13 merger packet] currently shows temporary impacts
from haul roads in SAV areas on Bodie Island. NCDOT will not allow haul roads
within SAV.
The merger team also agreed that combined Concurrence Point 2A/4A merger meetings
should be held prior to the completion of the final design for each subsequent phase of
the Preferred Alternative.
The concurrence form was signed at the meeting and included abstentions from the
USFWS, the USFWS- Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, the NMFS, and the
NCWRC.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post orh Carolina 1000
Washington, North Carolina 2p7889 [000
IN REPLY REFER TO October 30, 2008
Regulatory Division
Subject: Action ID. 199303077
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Please reference your September 17, 2008, correspondence requesting our review and
comments concerning the Federal Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4 (f)
Evaluation for the NC 12 Replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, TIP No. 2500, Dare
County, North Carolina. In response to your request we have the following comments:
Page 4-92, Section 4.7.3.2, Parallel Bridtre 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.
2. 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 and any storm-
related NC maintenance to existing Highway 12 fall within the terms of the easement permit.
However on page 4-8, it 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
NCDOT should act accordingly 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 pre-
construction condition." As we discussed in our December 14, 2005 comment letter for the
2
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 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.
8. 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 quantity 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. 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.
9. 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 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."
3
We appreciate the opportunity to comment with you prior to the Record of Decision (ROD)
for this project. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please do not hesitate to
contact me at the Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 26.
Sincerely,
William J. Biddlecome
Regulatory Project Manager

Copies Furnished:
Renee Gledhill-Earley
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
Mr. Doug Huggett
j' Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
And Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 28557-3421
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

4
Mr. Chris Militscher
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
C/O FH WA, Raleigh Area Office
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Mr. Travis Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
1 142 1-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Mr. Brian Wrenn
Water Quality Section
North Carolina Division of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Ronald J. Mikaluk, Chief
-Wetlands Section-Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Clarence Coleman, PE
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1418
5
,eppt ar ?
y
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
263 1P Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505
[phone]; FAX [phone]
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/
October 27, 2008 F/SER4:RS/pw
Beth Smyre
NC Department of Transportation
Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Smyre:
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the Final Environmental Impact
Statement that describes plans for replacing the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge (No. 11) over Oregon
Inlet, Dare County, North Carolina (FEIS) (Federal-Aid No. BRS-2358 (15), Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Project Definition: 32635, TIP Project No. B-2500, CESAW Action
ID 199303077). Availability of the FEIS was announced in the Federal Register September 26,
2008 (September 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 188). As the nation's federal trustee for the
conservation and management of marine, estuarine, and anadromous fishery resources, the
following comments and recommendations are provided pursuant to authorities of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Introduction
The Herbert C. Bonner Bridge across Oregon Inlet in Dare County was constructed in 1962 and
is approaching the end of its reasonable service life. The bridge is part of NC 12 and provides a
highway connection between Hatteras Island and Bodie Island. Two general replacement bridge
corridors are considered in the FEIS: The Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor and the Parallel Bridge
Corridor. Within each of these corridors are specific alternatives:
Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor
- Curved Terminus at Rodanthe
Intersection Terminus at Rodanthe
Parallel Bridge Corridor
- Nourishment Alternative
Road North/Bridge South Alternative
All Bridge Alternative
Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative
Phased Approach/Rodanthe Nourishment Alternative
S< , 'c
9y
z3
A
?4yy?.??ii.4ot,N
On April 17, 2007, NMFS provided comments on the Supplement to the Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (SSDEIS) which contained these alternatives. At that time,
NMFS supported the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor as representing the class of alternatives
that would have the least impact on NOAA trust resources over the project's design life. Via the
Merger 01 process, on August 27, 2007, NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration
identified the Parallel Bridge Corridor: Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative as the
least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). NMFS and other agencies did
not concur with this selection. Our previous comment letters and material submitted in
conjunction with the Merger 01 process details the essentialTiish 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.
General Comments
The North Carolina barrier island system is recognized as an important resource providing
valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. The 12.5-mile-long section ofNC'12 that bisects the Pea
Island National Wildlife Refuge fragments the habitat and disrupts natural coastal processes.
The Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative would ultimately end up as a bridge in the
ocean along the majority of the 12.5-long segment of NC 12 that passes through the refuge.
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.
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.
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. 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.
Specific Comments
Page xxxiv, 7. Design Coordination
NMFS should be added to the agencies participating in the project design and mitigation
strategies.
Page xxxiv, 9. Disposal of Dredged Material
Any dredged material disposal site should be designed as a multi-purpose site in consultation
with NMFS.
- 2 -
Page xxxviii, 26. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Survey
Any survey of SAV in the vicinity of Oregon Inlet should follow protocols endorsed by NMFS.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Page 3-98,3.7.6:4: 13enthic 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.
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.
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.
Page 4-134, 4.7.10.3, Compensatory Mitigation, Submcr eg d 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.
Summary
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. We acknowledge that alternative 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. We continue to believe
that the Pamlico Sound Bridge Alternative best supports the purpose and need for this project
- 3 -
with the least impact to important estuarine and marine resources in the project area. If NCDOT
moves forward with the currently selected plan, we recommend early initiation of a long-term
study to characterize changes in habitats along Hatteras and Bache 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.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Related questions or comments
should be directed to the attention of Mr. Ronald Sechler at our Beaufort Field Office, 101 Pivers
Island Road, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516-9722; he may be reached at [phone] or by
e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
/ for
Miles M. Croom
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division
cc: (via electronic mail)
FHWA, [e-mail]
CESAW, William.J.Biddlecbrrie@s"awO2.usace.army.mil
USFWS, Howard [e-mail]
NCDCM, [e-mail]
EPA, [e-mail]
SAFMC, [e-mail]
NOAA PPI, [e-mail]
F, [e-mail]
F/SER, [e-mail]
F/SER47, [e-mail]
-4-
P SENT OF fNf, ,
W" United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Washington, DC 20240
e'
M'1ACN ? '0?
ER 07/206
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
RE= 4
INAMERICA
9043.1
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, passerines, 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.
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
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 on the
Refuge in terms of noise, visual character, access, and ecology; all section 4(0
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.
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 noise
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 Migratory
Bird Conservation Act, and to serve "... as a breeding ground for migratory birds and
other wildlife ...." Increased noise levels may negatively impact bird breeding adjacent
to the new bridge structure.
Visual Character: 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 Alternative would introduce a large elevated man-made structure{bridge)
through the previously open vista on the Refuge landscape; causing negative impacts to
the visual characteristics of the Refuge.
Access: The Refuge offers a Visitor's Center that provides access to hiking trails and
indoor and outdoor viewing areas. The Preferred Alternative would elevate NC-12 onto
a series of bridges. Once completed, these bridges would traverse all but 2.1 miles of
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 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.
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 tem, 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. 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 bridges 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
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, 5
Willie R. Taylor
Director, Office of Environmental
Policy and Compliance
JN,,ED ar"
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
i ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
D
"
? 61FORSYTH STREET
craD? ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
October 24, 2008
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
RECEIVED
Division of Hiqhways
OCT 3 0 2008
P;a?s rtst: -lion
Project Deveiopmant and
Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation for NC 12
Replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge (Bridge No. 11) over Oregon Inlet, Dare
County, North Carolina; TIP Project No. B-2500; FHW-E40339-NC; CEQ No.:
20080373
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA) has reviewed the
subject document, and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FH WA) are proposing to replace the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge across
Oregon Inlet in Dare County. Bonner Bridge was built across Oregon Inlet in 1962 and
j is approaching the end of its reasonable service life. The bridge is part of NC 12 and
provides the only highway connection between Hatteras Island and Bodie Island. The
project also includes NC 12 between Oregon Inlet and the community of Rodanthe, an
area that is at risk because of shoreline erosion.
FHWA and NCDOT issued a Supplement to the 2005 Supplemental DEIS in
February of 2007. A Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) was
issued in September of 2005. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was
issued in November, 1993. A preliminary Final EIS (FEIS) was prepared in 1996 but
was not formally released. However, the preliminary FEIS was distributed to numerous
Federal and state agencies in May 2001 for informal review and comment.
The proposed project has been in the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process since
July 31, 2002, and EPA has been involved with this project as a participating team
member. In August of 2007, the Concurrence Point 3, selection of the Least
Environmental Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), was elevated to the Merger
01 NEPA/Section 404 Review Board that consisted of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), FHWA and NCDOT. The Merger 01 Review Board selected the Parallel
Bridge Corridor/Phased Approach Rodanthe Bridge (PBC/PA-RB) Alternative as the
LEDPA. EPA prepared and submitted a Merger 01 elevation issue brief on August 22,
2007, for the Review Board's consideration.
Internet Address (URL) • http:/Jw ,epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil eased Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
EPA continues to have substantial environmental concerns regarding the preferred
(selected) PBC/PA-RB Alternative. EPA's specific comments on the FEIS are included
in an attachment to this letter (See Attachment). EPA's environmental concerns are
based on a number of project impacts and issues including: the project's adverse impacts
to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., the long-term effects to water quality from the
stormwater runoff from the bridges, the long-term impacts to the Pea Island National
Wildlife Refuge including the impact to migratory birds and the potential impacts to
threatened and endangered species, the visual impacts to the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, the prolonged impacts to natural resources from phased construction, and the
risk of constructing additional bridges and roadway (between "hotspots") along the NC
12 corridor that will be subject to worsening ocean wave and scour conditions.
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. 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.
EPA acknowledges the efforts by FHWA and NCDOT to incorporate
bicycle/pedestrian lanes into the design of the new bridge and along NC 12. EPA plans
to continue to work with FHWA, NCDOT and other Merger team agencies on this
proposed project. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Christopher
A. Militscher of my staff, at [phone], or Ms. Kathy Matthews of EPA's Wetlands
Section at [phone].
Sin
ly,
Heinz J. Mueller
Chief, NEPA Program Office
Attachment
cc: J. Sullivan, FHWA-NC
P. Benjamin, USFWS-Raleigh
K. Jolly, USACE-Wilmington District
ATTACHMENT
B-2500, NC 12 Replacement of Bonner Bridge
Dare and Hyde Counties
FEIS - Detailed EPA Comments
In general, it appears NCDOT has provided much more additional information and
analysis in the FEIS, including a scour analysis, discussion of the shoreline and potential
impacts of Sea Level Rise (SLR), information on potential water quality impacts from
untreated storm water, potential storm water treatment methods, and wetland impacts.
However, most of our comments and environmental concerns from previous letters are
still potentially unresolved.
On Page xxi, the FEIS states that a bridge within the replacement bridge corridor (i.e.,
PBC/PA 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. On Page
xxi, the FEIS states that the Phased Approach alternatives (including the preferred
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. On page
xxkv 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 W. These monitoring studies may greatly change
the plans and timing for Phases III and IV.
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 supports the Outerbanks Bicycle initiatives and strongly recommends
the 4-foot outside shoulders along NC 12 between Bonner Bridge and Hatteras Village.
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.
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 II decisions are made (i.e., A bridge at Rodanthe).
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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
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 [20`h century rate + 2 millimeters per year] considers `virtually certain' to
occur (overwash, erosion, and inlet formation)." However, the likelihood of "Scenario 3
[20`h century rate + 7 millimeters per year]" 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.
On Page 3-64 of the FEIS it is unclear whether the terminal groin would need to
remain after Phase H bridges are constructed. The potential for removing the terminal
groin after Phase H should be fully investigated in a future NEPA document.
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. 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.
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
alte atives have a slightlylarger amount of impervious surface than the preferred
alternative (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 CleanWater 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.
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.
Page 4-134 and 4-135 of the FEIS discuss on-site or other opportunities inclose
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.
MGM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbcck, Adntinmw..r
Nlich:vol P. li:alrv; Gn'.'nr
Lisl xlh C. F'an ,Sccmtaq-
Jcifat'J. C,.,, Deputy Sccrctaq
Octohcr 27, 2008
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregor), Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck ?4,61
Office of Arduves and history
Division of fiist... Rcsnu,m
avid Bn.d,, Dircuor
SUBJECT: Final Environmental Impact Statement & Section 4(0 Evaluation for the NC 12
Replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, B-2500, Dare County, ER 90-8304
We have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Section 4(o Evaluation for the
proposed undertaking and offer the follovving comments.
The FEIS correctly identifies the historic properties within the undertaking's Area of Potential Effccts (APE)
as the (former) Oregon Inlet Coast Guard Station and Chictmacomico Life Saving Station, both of which are
listed in the National Register of Historic Places as having national significance, plus the Pea Island National
Wildlife Refuge and Rodanthe Historic District, which have been determined eligible for listing in the National
Register. The FEIS also addresses the absence of archaeological resources within the APL and commits to
idenhf ifig and assessing any unanticipated archaeological discoveries encountered west of Bodie Island during
construction.
The determinations of effects, on the historic properties, for the two bridge corridors an(] the various
alternatives within each corridor arc also properly noted in the sections dealing with historic properties,
including the determination that the Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge
(Preferred) will adversely affect all of the historic properties.
Given the adverse effect determinations, the Federal Highway Adimnisrration (FHWA), North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDO'l) and State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) have entered into
consultation under Section 106 of the National Preservation Act. Due to the high level of controversy
regarding the recommended alternative and its potential to have substantial impacts on important historic
properties, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is participating in the consultation to
develop a Memorandum of ,'Agreement (hfOA) to mitigate the adverse effects of the undertaking on the
historic properties. To that end the consulting and concurring parties met in Manteo on July 10; 2008 and
joined in conference calls on October 10 and 20, 2008 to discuss the parties' concerns and explore mitigative
measures. We understand FHWA's goal is to conclude the consultation and have a fully executed MOA to
include in the December 15, 2008, Record of Decision.
Incation: I(191(.MjJ ,ncs Sacci, Italdgh NC 27601 Mailing Add...m 4617 Mail S ,, ic. Ccmn:, lUfiaith NC 2 7 699-46 1 7 '1'dcphone/Fax. (919; $)'-65'11/ao--6599
B-2500, Dare County
October 27, 2008
Page 2
(laving carefully reviewed the Final Section 4(o fivaluation, we do not concur with FHWA's fording that the
proposed undertaking will not constructively use historic properties. The document notes that the preferred
Alternative will have a "Sizeable visual intrusion into the landscape of the Refuge and views in Rodanthe will be
affected." It also notes that one mile of bridge in Rodanthe would bisect the community and make access more
circuitous. (Table S-1, page xii).
In the case of Pea Island Wildlife Refuge, the consiruction of a ten-mile long bridge, elevated thirty feet above
ground level and topped with a nearly five-foot railing (and perhaps with an additional six-foot high, chain-link
fence as suggested by the Refuge during the Section 106 consultation), will introduce a substantial visual
intrusion that is antithetical to the historic landscape. Determined eligible for listing in the National Register
under Criterion A in the areas of conservation and social history, the Refuge is an outstanding example of the
national wildlife refuges created in the early 20'h and associated with efforts of the Civil Conservation Corps to
protect and revitalize natural resources. Retauting 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 Bankuig 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 tothe National-
Register-listed Chicamacomico Life Saving Station, will be completely dominated by the bridge proposed as
part of the Preferred Alternative. 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 I'inal Section 4(1) Evaluation suggests that modem 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 illustrate 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.
In addition to bisecting the historic district and making access more circuitous, the bridge will block the
motorist's view of the historic district, especially the life saving station, which depends in large part on tourists'
seeing the building from a distance add stopping to visit. While signagc to the site will be part of the MOA for
the adverse effect of the undertaking on the historic lifesaving station, the value of someone's seeing the iconic
building from the road and being able to easily pull over to visit the site cannot be over-estimated. With the
new bridge, the building will not be visible from either the north or south approach. Further, if a driver
traveling north misses the signed turn, he will have to travel another mile north before being able to make a U-
turn so as to gravel back another mule to turn left onto the frontage road. Or, traveling south and missing the
sign for the station, a driver will have to travel further south, turn around and travel north again to access the
frontage road. Having reached the frontage road, the traveler will have to drive along the one-way road with the
bridge looming on the west - hardly the setting or feeling that one associates with a lifesaving station that
historically had a 360° view of its surroundings. Given the serious access problems and visual impact, caused
by the proposed bridge, we believe that the Preferred Alternative substantially impairs the functions, features
and attributes of the Rodanthe Historic District and Chicamaconiico Life Saving Station and, thereby,
constitutes a constructive use of the historic properties.
13-2500, Dare Counry
October 27, 2008
Page 3
We would finally' note that we understand from discussions with the Merger Team and as outlined in Section
2.15 - Preferred Alternative, that there will be an opportunity to explore possible adjustments in the alignment
and specific plans for phases II-1V 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.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisor' Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, envirorunental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Jeffrey Crow, SHPO
Clarence Coleman, FHWA
Mary Pope Fun, NCDOT
Carol Legard, ACFIP
Ken Wenberg, CHA
Rick Kanaski, USFNXrS
Doug Stover, NPS
David Griffin, NC Aquarium
Bill Biddlecome, USACF.
Terry Wheeler, Dare County
State Clearinghouse
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Y
October 15, 2008
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs 1
Through: Brian Wrenn, Transportation Permitting Unit, NC DWQ
From: David Wainwright, Transportation Permitting Unit, NC DWC?d
Subject: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement related to the proposed
replacement of the Bonner Bridge and upgrades to NC 12, Dare County, Federal Aid
Project No. BRS-2358(15), State Project No. 8.1051205 TIP B-2500.
State Clearinghouse Project No. 09-0078
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated September 11, 2008. The Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as
presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ
offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team
member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team. .
2. 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 contents to the best extent practicable.
3. 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 them sink it.. The dragging of barges is very destructive to the bottom and
subsequently to aquatic life.
4. 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.
Not uolina
Transportation Permitting Unit r%VWurall!,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] Internet. htto://h2o.encstate.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycledl10% Post Consumer Paper

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.
General Comments:
NC DOT 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact David Wainwright at [phone].
cc: Bill Biddlecome, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic)
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic)
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service (electronic)
Cathy Brittingham, Division of Coastal Management
Garcy Ward, DWQ Washington Regional Office
File Copy
r
eee??
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
October 14, 2008
Melba McGee
Environmental. Coordinator
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
RE: SCH NO. 09-0078. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposal to replace the Herbert
C. Bonner Bridge (Bridge No. 11) over Oregon Inlet, NC 12, Dare County, T.I.P. No. B-2500.
Dear Ms. McGee:
The N.C. Division of Coastal Management (DCM) appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the above referenced project. The N.C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) should be commended for doing an excellent job in the
preparation of the FEIS.
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. 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.
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.
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.
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastaImanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer- 500/6 Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
Such a decision. can only be made following a complete multi-agency review of the final permit
application. DCM will work closely with NCDOT, the Design-Build contractor, and the relevant
state and federal agencies, to ensure that the final project design is consistent with the N.C.
Coastal Management Program, including the N.C. Administrative Code [i.e. N.C. Coastal
Resources Commission (CRC) rules].
The following are especially pertinent sections of the CRC rules that will need to be carefully
considered during the development of a final project design.
• Permanent Erosion Control Structures in an Ocean Shoreline. Although the Statutes of
North Carolina (G.S. 113A-115.1) require that "no person shall construct a permanent
erosion control structure in an ocean shoreline", they also provide an exception, as set out in
the North Carolina Administrative Code [15A NCAC 07H.0308 (a)(1)(H)] Specific Use
Standards for Ocean Hazard Areas, Ocean Shoreline Erosion Control Activities. This rule
states as follows:
"15A NCAC 07H.0308 (a)(1)(H). Erosion control structures that would otherwise be
. prohibited by these standards may be permitted on finding that:
(i) the erosion control structure is necessary to protect a bridge which provides the only
existing road access on a barrier island, that is vital to public safety, and is imminently
threatened by erosion as defined in provision (a)(2)(B) of this subchapter;
(ii) the erosion response measures of relocation, beach nourishment or temporary
stabilization are not adequate to protect public health and safety; and
(iii)the proposed erosion control structure will have no adverse impacts on adjacent
properties in private ownership or on public use of the beach."
i
• Erosion Setbacks for Oceanfront Construction [NCAC 15A 07H.0306(a)(4)]. These
rules include erosion setbacks for oceanfront construction that are based on average long-
term erosion rates that reflect changes in the North Carolina shoreline over nearly half a
century.
Dune Protection [15A NCAC 07H .0306 (b)]. "In order to avoid weakening the protective
nature of ocean beaches and primary and frontal dunes, no development shall be permitted
that involves the removal or relocation of primary or frontal dune sand or vegetation thereon
which would adversely affect the integrity of the dune. Other dunes within the ocean hazard
area shall not be disturbed unless the development of the property is otherwise impracticable,
and any disturbance of any other dunes shall be allowed only to the extent allowed by Rule
.0308(b) of this Section." 15A 07H .0308(b) provides conditions that must be met when
activities to establish dunes are allowed.
• Access Channels (ex. for bridge related construction) [15A NCAC 07H .0208(b)(1)].
"Navigation channels, canals, and boat basins shall be aligned or located to avoid primary
nursery areas, highly productive shellfish beds, beds of submerged aquatic vegetation, or
significant areas of regularly or irregularly flooded coastal wetlands."
Page 2 of 4, 10/14/08
• Public Trust Usage of Lands and Waters [15A NCAC 07H.0208(a)(2)(H)].
"Development shall not impede navigation or create undue interference with access to, or use
of, public trust areas or estuarine waters."
Avoidance and Minimization of CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern [15A NCAC.
07H.0208(a)(2)(B)]. "Before receiving approval for location of a use or development within
these AECs, the permit-letting authority shall find that no suitable alternative site or location
outside of the AEC exists for the use or development and, further, that the applicant has
selected a combination of sites and design that will have a minimum adverse impact upon the
productivity and biologic integrity of coastal marshland, shellfish beds, beds of submerged
aquatic vegetation, spawning and nursery areas, important nesting and wintering sites for
waterfowl and wildlife, and important natural erosion barriers (cypress fringes, marshes, clay
soils)."
• Compensatory Mitigation [15A NCAC 07H.0208(a)(3)]. "When the proposed
development i§,in conflict with the general or specific use standards set forth in this Rule, the
CRC may appid4the developlnentif the applicant can demonstrate that the activity
associated with the proposed project will have public benefits as identified in the findings
and goals of the Coastal Area Management Act, that the public benefits clearly outweigh the
long range adverse effects of the project, that there is no reasonable and prudent alternate site
available for the project, and that all reasonable means and measures to mitigate adverse
impacts of the project have been incorporated into the project design and will be
implemented at the applicant's expense. These measures taken to mitigate or minimize
adverse impacts-may include actions that will:
(A) minimize or avoid adverse impacts by limiting the magnitude or degree of
the action;
(B) restore the affected environment; or
(C) compensate for the adverse impacts by replacing or providing substitute
resources."
Disposal of Excavated, Dredge and Fill Material [15A NCAC 07H.0312] on Ocean
Beaches. Sediment used for beach fill in North Carolina must be compatible with the native
beach material where it is placed. Beach fill projects include beach nourishment, dredged
material disposal, habitat restoration, storm protection, and erosion control. The CRC rules
define a methodology for determining sediment compatibility.
Disposal of Material Dredged from Navigation Channels within the Active Nearshore,
Beach or Inlet Shoal Systems [15A NCAC 07M.1102(a)]. "Clean, beach quality material
dredged from navigation channels within the active nearshore, beach, or inlet shoal systems
must not be removed permanently from the active nearshore, beach or inlet shoal system
unless no practicable alternative exists. Preferably, this dredged material will be disposed of
on the ocean beach or shallow active nearshore area where environmentally acceptable and
compatible with other uses of the beach."
Page 3 of 4, 10/14/08
As stated in previous DCM letters about this project, the transportation link that the Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge provides between Hatteras Island and Bodie Island is a critical component in the
safety of the residents and visitors of Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island, and the economic
vitality of the Outer Banks. 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. DCM looks forward to working with the NEPA/404 Project Team to
move this project forward in an expeditious, yet fiscally, socially and environmentally
responsible manner.
Please contact me at [phone] or via e-mail at Doug.Hug€[e-mail] if you have any
questions or concerns, or require additional information.
Sincerely,

Doug Huggett
CC: Jim Gregson, DCM
Ted Tyndall, DCM.
Frank Jennings, DCM
attachment
Page 4 of 4, 10114/08
e??
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
. Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H.Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cathy Brittingham DCM Transportation Project Coordinator
FROM: Charlan Owen ICP, NE DCM District Planner
SUBJECT: Review of the inal Environmental Impact. Statement (FEIS) and Section 4(f)
Evaluation for the NC 12 replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge submitted
by the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT), which addresses seven (7)
alternatives within two (2). corridors and identifies a preferred alternative for
construction of a bridge, demolition and removal of the Bonner Bridge, and
improvements to NC 12 through the Pea Island National Refuge between the
community of Rodanthe and Oregon Inlet, in Dare County.
Reference: Federal-Aid No. BRS-2358(15); State Project No. 8.1051205; TIP Project No. B-
2500
Date: October 13, 2008
Consistency Determination: The preferred alternative 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.
Overview: The proposed project is the construction of a bridge to replace the Herbert C. Bonner
Bridge, demolition and removal of Bonner Bridge, and improvements to NC 12 between the
community of Rodanthe and Oregon Inlet. The bridge, built in 1962, is part of NC 12 and
provides the only highway connection between Hatteras Island and Bodie Island.
Seven (7) alternatives within two (2) corridors (the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor and the
Parallel Bridge Corridor with NC 12 maintenance) have been described and a preferred
alternative is identified.
The Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor contains a proposed Pamlico Sound bridge that would
be approximately 17.5 miles in length with a minimum navigation opening of 20o feet
horizontally and 75 feet vertically. The total project length would be 18 miles including the
bridge and the approach roads at the northern and southern ends. The southern terminus of
the project would be within the community of Rodanthe. The following two (2) alternatives have
been identified for the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor, specific to the terminus at Rodanthe:
Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor with curved Rodanthe Terminus - the bridge would end
in a curve that would connect the bridge directly to NC 12.
1367 U.S. 17 South, Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer -50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources MEMORANDUM
Division of Coastal Management
Page 2
2. Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor with intersection Rodanthe Terminus - the bridge would
end with a signalized intersection at NC 12.
A project in the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor would cost approximately $1.3 to $1.8 billion
(including construction cost, right-of-way cost, operation and maintenance costs until 2060, and
other highway-related costs in 2006 dollars) by 2060, with replacement bridge costs ranging
between $929.1 million and $1.4 billion of the total cost.
The Parallel Bridge Corridor contains a proposed Oregon Inlet bridge that would be up to 3.2
miles in length, located parallel to and just west of the existing bridge. The bridge would provide
two (2) 12 foot travel lanes and two (2) 8 foot shoulders. The bridge would include a series of
navigational spans across Oregon Inlet, the largest of which would provided 5,000 feet of
horizontal clearance and 75 feet of vertical clearance. The NC 12 maintenance component
would keep NC 12 open from the community of Rodanthe to the Oregon Inlet bridge's southern
terminus, a distance of approximately 1.2.5 miles. The following five (5) alternatives have been
identified for the Parallel Bridge Corridor, specific to NC 12 maintenance:
3. Parallel Bridge Corridor with Nourishment - NC 12 would remain in its current location
and beach nourishment combined with dune enhancement would be used to maintain an
adequate beach and dune system. Regular nourishment would occur along 6.3 miles of
beach in four (4) locations, likely repeated at four (4) year intervals.
4. Parallel Bridge Corridor with Road North/Bridge South - NC 12 would be placed on a
bridge west of Hatteras Island beginning at_ a _new. intersection., in Rodanthe. and
continuing to a point approximately 2 miles north of the Refuge's southern boundary
where the project would meet NC 12. NC 12 would remain unchanged for 2.6 miles.
Beginning at a point approximately 1.3 miles south of the Refuge's ponds, NC 12 would
be relocated to a point 230 feet west of the forecast 2060 high erosion shoreline. The
relocation would continue 7A miles north until the relocated NC 12 would meet the
Oregon Inlet bridge. Three (3) 10 foot high by 1,100 foot long dunes would be built
adjacent to the relocated road when needed as the shoreline eroded, approximately at
year 2030.
5. Parallel Bridge Corridor with All Bridge - the same bridge in Rodanthe would be used as
in the alternative above, however in the central and northern part of the refuge, NC 12
would be constructed on a bridge to the west of the existing road. Two (2) road
segments would be included in this location, one near Oregon Inlet and one just north of
the Refuge's ponds, where access from INC 12 to the refuge would be provided. Access
to the Refuge would also be available in a 1.9 mile section of NC 12 that would be left
unchanged between the Rodanthe area bridge and the beginning of the next bridge
section south of the ponds. The bridges associated with this alternative would span the
five (5) potential storm-related island breach locations.
6. Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge - assumes an Oregon
Inlet bridge, as well as elevated portions of NC 12 through both the Refuge and northern
Rodanthe within the existing NC 12 easement, to be built in four (4) phases, the first
1367 U.S. 17 South, Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 3
being the bridge across Oregon Inlet. Additional phases would be built as necessitated
by coastal conditions. With the Rodanthe Bridge termini, the bridge in the existing NC
12 easement would begin in Rodanthe just north of Sudie'Payne Road and extend north
to Oregon Inlet except for the 2.1 mile length of NC 12 in the. southern half of the Refuge
that would not be threatened by erosion prior to 2060. Access to properties adjacent to
the bridge at Rodanthe would be provided by a one-lane, one-way frontage road on
each side of the NC 12 bridge.
7. Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Nourishment - similar to the
alternative above, except that the southern end of the NC 12 bridge would begin .3 mile
south of the Refuge/Rodanthe border. Beach nourishment would be used to protect NC
12 in Rodanthe.
A project in the Parallel Bridge Corridor would be estimated in 2006 dollars by 2060 at $671.8 to
$970.4 million for Alternative 3., $602.2 to $740.2 million for Alternative 4., $1.1 to $1.4 billion
for Alternative 5., and $1.1 to $1.5 billion for Alternative 6. and Alternative 7, with replacement
bridge costs ranging from $2.6 and $3.4 million of the total cost.
Bonner Bridge would be demolished at an estimated cost of about $4 million in 2006 dollars.
Both corridor options would support the use of bicycles along NC 12 and the roadway, would be
designed with shoulders to support bicycle and pedestrian use.
In 2004, the Dare.County, Commissioners indicated concerns about the implementation of a
Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor Alternative, preferring a replacement bridge that ends near the
south terminus of the Bonner Bridge and connects to existing NC 12. The also requested the
consideration of long span bridges.
During its 2005 Session, the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation (House Bill
747) related to replacement of the Bonner Bridge.. The bill calls for expediting and accelerating
the efficient, cost-effective completion of the project; indicates a preference for a bridge
replacement in proximity to Bonner Bridge; and requests the NCDOT to periodically report
project status to the General Assembly,
Alternative 6. Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge is the
preferred alternative. This alternative is considered to be financially viable in that it can be
built in phases, spreading the cost out over a timeframe adequate for it to be funded with
anticipated future tax revenues. It also will remain in the existing NC 12 easement within the
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge and therefore would not use lands from the Refuge.
On August 27, 2007 representatives of NCDOT,.FHWH, the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE), and the North Caroline Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) identified this alternative as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) for this project as part of the interagency National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)/Section 404 Merger Process. This decision was based on: the ability of the
alternatives considered to meet the project's purpose and need; environmental consequences;
1367 U.S. 17 South, Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.necoastalmanagement.net
An Equal OpponuniIy \ Affirmative Aclion Employer - 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 4
opportunities available to mitigate impacts; cost; public and agency comment on the findings of
the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) and the 2007 Supplement to
the SDEIS; and other findings presented in the FEIS. This project is included as TIP Project No.
B-2500 in the NCDOT's 2009 to 2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
covering the period from Federal Fiscal Year (IFFY) 2009 (October 2008) through FFY 2015
(September 2015). .
All waters in the project area are classified as SA waters and as High-Quality Waters (HQW).
The most stringent application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is expected where
highway projects affect receiving HOWs.
The NC 12 right-of-way within the project area is located with Floodzones ranging from
Floodzone AE (EL 8) to VE (EL 11).
Anticipated impacts: Impacts identified in the FEIS specific to the Parallel Bridge Corridor with
Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge include, but are not limited to, those identified below:
Approximately .2 acre Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV).47 acre of wetlands, 13.13 acres
of Uplands, 2.44 acres of aquatic bottom are anticipated to be impacted under the preferred
alternative. Temporary impacts to 12.5 acres of wetlands, including 3.1 acres of Coastal
Wetlands, are also anticipated. Approximately 6.3 acres of seashore on Bodie Island, at the
bridge's northern terminus, would also be impacted.
11
Natural shoreline movement would_be allowed.except where the. terminal groin at Oregon Inlet -
would be retained. Since the preferred alternative is to be constructed in phases, the formation
of a breach in Hatteras Island at the southern end of the Refuge is possible. A breach in this
location would temporarily cut off access to Hatteras Island, resulting in reduced accessibility
and economic losses.
Proposed activities within the Parallel Bridge Corridor "may affect-likely to adversely affect"
species including the piping plover, leatherback sea turtle, green sea turtle, and loggerhead sea
turtle. Piping plover nesting would likely be disturbed during construction and demolition, with
potential nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat lost. Disturbance to turtle nesting on the beach
is also anticipated. An incidental take statement for these species and the piping plover critical
habitat has been issued by the USFWS. Habitats for sea amaranth and Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV) are considered ephemeral and will be identified prior to construction activities.
Conservation measures to protect shortnose sturgeon habitat would also be taken.
Recreational fishing opportunities may be reduced. There would be no fishing catwalks on the
replacement bridge due to increased heights, though an alternative fishing access is possible.
A potential fishing pier to be located at Oregon Inlet is discussed in the FEIS. Also, charter
fishing boats operating out of the Seashore's Oregon Inlet Marina and Fishing Center would no
longer be able to use the channel known as "the crack" to access the ocean, which will increase
travel times for boaters.
1367 U.S. 17 South, Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Aclion Employer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 5
Proposed bridging would also reduce access to the Refuge, bypassing the Refuge Visitor
Center, the Salt Flats Wildlife Trail, the North,Pond Trail, the Refuge headquarters, and the boat
ramp. Access to the refuge would be focused on two (2) locations - at the existing parking area
at the north end of Hatteras Island and at an access south of the ponds. The preferred
alternative would ultimately eliminate access to Refuge hiking trails and reduce beach access in
the Refuge.
Proposed bridging would also result in visual impacts within the refuge and within the
community of Rodanthe. An elevated linear man-made feature approximately 30 feet high and
7.5 to 10 miles long would intrude into the visual landscape of the refuge. An elevated roadway
(and potential fishing pier) would also have a visual impact on views from the former Oregon
Inlet US Coast Guard Station. Bridging would extend approximately 1.1 mile into the
Rodanthe community, and into the Rodanthe Historic District. Views from the historic
Chicamacomico Life Saving Station will be adversely impacted and direct access to the site
across NC 12 would be eliminated. In addition to effecting views, the elevated roadway would
also bisect the community into distinct Sound and Ocean neighborhoods. The roadway design
would consist of one-lane, one-way frontage roads on either side of the elevated bridge
accessed by three (3) crossover points. Relocation of three (3) residential structures and (1)
business structure, and partial impact to two (2) business structures within Rodanthe would
result from the preferred alternative.
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.
r
See ATTACHMENT for policies currently relevant to this request.
cc: John Thayer, AICP, Manager, Planning and Access Programs
1367 U.S. 17 South, Elizabeth City, North Cairolina 27909
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
-r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Marine Fisheries Dr. Louis B. Daniel III, Director
William G. Ross Jr., secretary
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
THROUGH: Anne Deaton, Chief Habitat Section c1J`
FROM: Sara E. Winslow, Northern District Manager
SUBJECT: Project N. 09-0078 - FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation - NC 12 Replacement of Herbert
C. Bonner Bridge
DATE: October 13, 2008
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has reviewed the FEIS document and submits
the following comments pursuant to General Statute 113-131.
On August 27, 2007, representatives of NCDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, the
USACE and NCDENR identified the Parallel Bridge Corridor with Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge
Alternative as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practical Alternative (LEDPA) for this project as
part of the interagency NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process. The LEDPA was adopted as the project's
Preferred Alternative. The Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative (Preferred) proposes
replacing the Bonner Bridge with a bridge parallel to and west of the existing bridge, as well as
maintaining NC12 from the community of Rodanthe to Oregon Inlet by building additional bridges as
needed within the existing NC12 easement.
The Parallel Bridge Corridor would use approximately 6.3 acres of the National Seashore on
Bodie Island and within the Refuge on Hatteras Island. The total area of disturbance within the
existing easement in the Refuge would be 3.7 acres permanent and 48.5 acres temporary for the
Phased Approach (Preferred) Alternative.
3441 Arendell Street, P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.ncdmf.net
An Equel Oppoqunly I Affineetive Agion Ennployor-50%RecydJ d110% post Consumer Paper
No rtb Carob na
ra w,rally

The Phased Approach (Preferred) would have the least amount of permanent Section
404 impacts (3.1 ac) and Coastal Wetlands (0.3 ac). The preferred alternative would
temporarily impact 12.5 ac of 404 Wetlands and 3.1 ac of Coastal Wetlands.
The Parallel Bridge Corridor would likely require dredging just north of Hatteras Island
for approximately 2,000 ft to build the new Oregon Inlet Bridge. No dredging is anticipated in
areas where SAV is present. On the Bodie Island side of Oregon Inlet construction of a
temporary haul road (-2,400 ft) is likely and would temporarily impact 6.5 ac of biotic
communities. .
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.
This agency continues to recommend that some 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.
..- " - - 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.
10/16/2008 09:31 9195289839 PAGE 03
L0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator ??
Habitat Conservation Program ?-----
DATE: October 16, 2008
SUBJECT: North. Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Finial Environmental _
.......... .
In ioacf Statement (17W) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for the proposed
replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge; in Dare County, North Carolina. TTP
No. B-2500 SCH Project No. 09-0078.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
FEIS and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(e)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to replace the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge across Oregon Inlet in
conjunction with addressing problematic areas located on NC 12 from the southern terminus of
the existing bridge to the community of Rodanthe. The FEIS identifies the preferred alternative
as the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative. The preferred alternative proposes
maintaining NC 12 within the existing easement by constructing bridges as needed in multiple
phases, as well as replacing the bridge over Oregon Inlet parallel to the existing structure.
The phased approach alternative has been promoted as an alternative that will allow barrier
island processes to take place by elevating the roadway and permitting the shoreline to progress
inland while "passing" underneath the bridge structure. We remain concerned with the
uncertainty of the impacts associated with an elevated roadway located waterward of the dune
line. These concerns are outlined in earlier comments dated March. 16, 2007. More specifically
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
10/16/2008 09:31 9195289839 PAGE 04
Bonner Bridge Page 2 10/16/2008
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.
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 flow 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.
The document adequately address potential impacts and conservation measures for the
construction of the preferred alternative, however several question remain from our March 1.6,
2007 comments on the phased approach alternatives, as well as the FEIS. We anticipate
continued participation in the 404/NEPA Merger process for this project. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment. If we can be of any further assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
Brian Wrenn, DWQ, Raleigh
Bill,Biddlecome, USACE, Raleigh
Chris Militscher, EPA
Cathy Brittingham, DCM
;, THE ALBEMARLE COMMISSION
LEAD REGIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR REGION R
Member Chairman, Benjamin Hobbs
Governments
Execntive Director, Bert Banks
Camden
Chowan
Currituck
October 16, 2008
Dare
Gates Reference: Project 09'•E-4220-0078 (Bonner Bridge in Dare County
Highway 12)
Hyde ,
Pasquotank
Perquimans Dear Ms. McMillan:
. Tyrrell
Washington
The Albemarle RPO greatly appreciates the opportunity to review the environmental
Columbia
C assessment for the Bonner Bridge located in Dare County that spans Oregon Inlet and
reswell
Edenton
bridges together Bodie and Hatteras Islands.
Elizabeth City
Hertforde The Albemarle RPO recommends the short bridge alternative for the new Highway 12
Kill Devil Hills bridge. This option is more financially feasible considering the budget shortfalls we are
Kitty Hawk facing throughout the state and nationally

Manteo .
Nags Head _
Plymouth Most importantly, the Albemarle RPO requests the expedited construction of a new
Roper
Southern Shores Highway
12 bridge due to the critical nature of this project. The Herbert C. Bonner
Winfall Bridge, built in 1963, has outlived its useful life, and is given a sufficiency rating of a 2
out of 100 by NCDOT (www.ncdot.org/projects/bonnerbridgerepairsn. This 45-year old
bridge is the lifeline for Hatteras Island to the Dare County mainland, and the soil erosion

" that has occurred over time, has. resulted _in.the loss.of support for_the.original pilings,.and.
1 additional ones have been added to support the structure. 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.
If any further delays occur that will prohibit the bridge's projected construction completion
date of November 2010, please notify my office immediately. Thank you for the
opportunity to review these documents, and if I can be of any assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 252-426-5753 ext. 230, or at
[e-mail].
Best regards, q11"
f??o°B
`r °jS6
Morgan C. Jethro
Regional Planner, Region R
Albemarle RPO Coordinator
512 South Church Street • Post Office Box 646 • Hertford, NC 27944 • Office: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • Website: albemarlecommission.org
Senior Nutrition Program [phone] • Fax: [phone]
The Albemarle Commission does not disc, iminme on the basis ojage, sex, religion, race, color, disability, or rational origin.
North Carolina
Coastal Federation
UodangTogedler fora Heald yCoust"
Greg Thorpe
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh; NC 27699-1548
Dear Greg,
MrLEIVED
Division of Highways
XT 2 8, 2008,
Precorrstruction
October 24, 20%edDevelaDrwntartd
Environmentai Anatysis,&ar,*
I submit these comments on the final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the
replacement of the Bonner Bridge on behalf of the NC Coastal Federation, a private,
nonprofit organization with 9;000 members.
In December 2005, NCCF submitted a letter to DOT recommending an alternative route
that would.build abridge down the west side of-Pea Island; using top-down construction
methods (such as that used on the Highway ] 7 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. Our letter urged that
a renewed effort be made to bring together local officials and the public agencies to
examine this option and determine if it would be feasible.
Our suggestion was submitted as part of the formal public input process for developing
the Final Environmental Impact Statement.. 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 200s, and that our approach calls for top-down construction of each. .
platform.
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
Northeast Regional Office NCCF Headquarters and Central Regional Office Southeast Regional Office
PO Box 475. 128 Grenville Street 3609 Highway 24 (Ocean) • Newport, NC 28570. 252-393-8185 - www.nccoast.org 131 Racine Drive Suite 101
Manteo, NC 27954 .? Wilmington, NC 28403
252-473-1607 ! 910-790-3275
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 sandand ocean water.
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 onthe: beach, sustaining the full impact.of the surf.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional information or details.
Sincerely,
??l e
Jan DeBlieu
Cape Hatteras Coastkeeper
i
i
SOUTHERN
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile 919-929-9421
selcnc®selcnc.org
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
200 WEST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 330 Charlottesville, VA
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516-2559 Chapel Hill, NC
Atlanta, GA
Asheville. NC
October 27, 2008 Sewanee, TN
VIA ELEC'TRONIC MAIL, FACUMILE Ar\rD FIRST CL AS.S M,411
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Norih.Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Fax [phone]
Re: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation
NCDOT TIP Project Number B-2500, Bonner Bridge, Dare County, NC
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The following comments on the above-referenced Final Environmental Impact
Statement and Section 4(0 Evaluation ("FEIS") are submitted on behalf of the Southern
. .
Environmental Law Center; National Wildlife Reftige Association, Environmental
Defense Fund, Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, Audubon North Carolina,
North Carolina Wildlife Federation, and Pamlico Tar River Foundation. 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 anv of the
alternatives that utilize the Parallel Bridge corridor, including the preferred alterative, the
Phased Approach, are viable alternatives. Our comments are focused on our numerous
concerns about the adequacy of review of the environmental impacts associated with the
Phased Approach and related compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and the
National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").
As discussed in more detail below, the FEIS is inadequate and the project cannot
00 forward as planned for the following reasons:
The Phased Approach fails to comply with the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act. That Act requires NCDOT and
FIIWA to demonstrate that bridge replacement is compatible with
the purposes of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. Yet, the
Phased Approach cannot comply with that requirement. the
Pamlico Sound Bridge alternative is the only compatible
alternative.
100% recyOW paper
The FEIS's Department of Transportation Act of 1966 section 4(f) analysis
is inadequate. First, NCDOT erroneously concludes that the Phased
Approach will not "use" Refuge lands because it will operate within the
existing NC Highway 12 easement. As a result, 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. In addition, the 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).
The FEIS violates NEPA by failing to adequately assess the environmental
impacts from the Phased Approach. To comply with NEPA, the FEIS must
thoroughly and objectively analyze the environmental consequences of the
alternatives, but the FEIS's analysis of the environmental impacts of the
Phased Approach fails to do so. The FEIS also fails to identify a preferred
alternative and instead selects a preferred alternative without adequate
review of all its foreseeable environmental impacts. The FEIS also 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.
4. The Phased Approach fails to address public access to the Refuge.
5. The Phased Approach may not be able to be funded or comply with state or
federal legal requirements.
6. 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 and 4(f) determination are
required. The FEIS fails to do so. Moreover, it is unlikely that retention of
the terminal groin could be found to be compatible.
OVERVIEW:
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge ("Pea Island Refuge") is at the core of the
debate about the Bonner Bridge replacement. Established in 1938 by Executive Order,
Pea Island Refuge is a "refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife." Exec. Order No. 7862, 3 Fed. Reg. 734 (Apr. 12, 1938). Pea Island Refuge is
separated from North Carolina's mainland by marshes and Pamlico Sound and lies on the
north end of Hatteras Island. Hatteras Island and Oregon Inlet are part of a dynamic
barrier island system and the Pea Island Refuge relies on this dynamic process for
ecological viability. Pea Island Refuge is subject to ocean overwash, high shoreline
erosion rates, inlet formation, and other impacts associated with large storm events, sea
level rise, and general barrier island dynamics. While many of these natural processes are
incompatible with transportation corridors, they are beneficial to the abundant wildlife and
are instrumental in creating nesting habitat, feeding grounds, and other natural habitats.
Hundreds of thousands of migratory birds, including the greater snow goose and other
migratory waterfowl, migrating shorebirds, raptors, wading birds, and migratory
songbirds, use Pea Island Refuge. And Pea Island Refuge manages approximately 1,000
acres of waterfowl impoundments for the benefit of migratory birds. Also, Pea Island
Refuge has 13 miles of ocean beach that provide nesting habitat for loggerhead sea turtles,
green sea turtles, piping plover, and several species of shorebird. These tremendous
natural resources draw tourists, anglers, birders, and other outdoor enthusiasts. Many
members of our organizations regularly recreate and enjoy the natural resources of Pea
Island Refuge.
As the FEIS acknowledges, a long-term solution to the problems posed by locating
transportation corridors within this volatile system is necessary to meet the purpose and
need of the Bonner Bridge replacement project. The purpose and need as stated in the
FEIS is: (1) Provide a new means of access from Bodie Island to Hatteras Island for its
residents, businesses, services, and tourists prior to the end of the current Bonner Bridge's
service life; (2) Provide a replacement crossing that takes into account natural channel
migration expected through the year 2050 and provides flexibility to let the channel move;
and (3) Provide a replacement crossing that will not be endangered by shoreline
movement through the year 2050. FEIS at 1-6. While the purpose and need has been
narrowed from the goals established by the Outer Banks Task Force, the FEIS purpose
and need does reflect the dynamic nature of Oregon Inlet and the project area shoreline.'
The Phased Approach, however, 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. Furthermore, the Phased
Approach is not compatible with the purpose of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge,
pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, nor is it a viable
alternative pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. As
discussed in greater detail below, the Pamlico Sound Bridge is the only alternative that
will work and can be authorized pursuant to applicable federal laws.
NC 12 and its associated maintenance are steadily degrading the Refuge, and the
Phased Approach does not protect against this degradation. As discussed more fully
below, the Phased Approach is not a viable, or lawful, alternative. The Phased Approach
would keep NC 12 under construction for the life of the project as short bridges are
Through the Outer Banks Task Force, state and federal agencies determined that the long-term
goals for this area were (1) to preserve the natural barrier island system; (2) minimize impacts to
Hatteras and Ocracoke islands; and (3) maintain access top and on the islands so that the
transportation system is safe, efficient, and has minimal impact on the environment. SDEIS at 2-
15.
perpetually built through the Refuge north of Rodanthe. Furthermore, 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. Also, 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
inletibreach locations and timing. 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.
Even if the Phased Approach could be completed in a manner compatible with the
dynamic shoreline, the final project is a long bridge on the beach and in the Atlantic
Ocean. 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. 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.
- -As explained in more detail-below, thePhased Approach rests on faulty legal -
assumptions, inadequate economic analysis and flawed predictions about engineering
around future coastal conditions within the project area.
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.
Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
("NWRSIA") in 1997. According to the legislative history, the purpose behind NWRSIA
is "to establish clearly the conservation mission of the System, provide clear
Congressional guidance to the Secretary for management of the System, provide a
mechanism for unit-specific refuge planning, and give refuge managers clear direction and
procedures for making determinations regarding wildlife conservation and public uses of
the System and individual refuges." H. Rep. No. 105-106 (May 21, 1997). In enacting
NWRSAA, Congress stated:
[Ilt is the policy of the United States that - (A) each refuge shall be managed to
fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the specific purposes for which that
refuge was established; ... (C) compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses
4
are the priority general public uses of the System and shall receive priority
consideration in refuge planning and management.
16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(3). Further, "[T]he Secretary shall - (A) provide for the
conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the System; (B) ensure
that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are
maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans." 16
U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(4) (emphasis added).
"[T]he Secretary shall not initiate or permit a new use of a refuge or expand,
renew, or extend an existing use of a refuge, unless the Secretary has determined that the
use is a compatible use and that the use is not inconsistent with public safety." 16 U.S.C..
§ 668dd(d)(3)(A)(i). "`Compatible use' means a wildlife-dependent recreational use or
any other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the Director, will not
materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the System or the
purposes of the refuge." 16 U.S.C. § 668ee. "Sound professional judgment" requires "a
finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with principles of sound fish and
wildlife management and administration, available science and resources, and adherence
to the requirements of this Act and other applicable laws." 16 U.S.C. § 668ee.
In addition to "sound professional judgment," the other major element of a
compatibility decision is assessing whether the proposed use will "materially interfere
with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the
..
refuge." 16 U.S.C. § 668ee. According to the Fish & Wildlife Service's 2000 Final
Compatibility Policy (65 Fed. Reg. 62484), which was announced concurrently with the
implementing regulations:
Inherent in fulfilling the System mission is not degrading the
ecological integrity of the refuge. Compatibility, therefore, is a threshold
issue, and the proponent(s) of any use or combination of uses must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Refuge Manager that the proposed
use(s) pass this threshold test. The burden of proof is on the proponent to
show that they pass; not on the Refuge Manager to show that they surpass.
Some uses, like a proposed construction project on or across a refuge that
affects the flow of water through a refuge, may exceed the threshold
immediately, while other uses, such as boat fishing in a small lake with a
colonial nesting bird rookery may be of little concern if it involves few
boats, but of increasing concern with growing numbers of boats.
Likewise, when considered separately, a use may not exceed the
compatibility threshold, but when considered cumulatively in conjunction
with other existing or planned uses, a use may exceed the compatibility
threshold ....
The Refuge Manager must consider not only the direct impacts of a use
but also the indirect impacts associated with the use and the cumulative
impacts of the use when conducted in conjunction with other existing or
planned uses of the refuge, and uses of adjacent lands or waters that may
exacerbate the effects of a refuge use.
65 Fed. Reg. 62484, 62490 (Oct. 18, 2000) (emphasis added). 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 Bonncr 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.
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.
The FE1S rests on the erroneous assumption that any activity can take place within
the existing right-of-way and not trigger a compatibility determination. FEIS at xi. The
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, however, directly contradicts this
interpretation. As discussed above, the 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.
The following excerpt from agency compatibility regulations addresses
maintenance activities within an existing easement:
(c) Existing right-of-ways. We will not make a compatibility determination
and will deny any request for maintenance of an existing right-of-way
which will affect a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, unless:
the design adopts appropriate measures to avoid resource impacts and
includes provisions to ensure no net loss of habitat quantity and quality;
restored or replacement areas identified in the design are afforded
permanent protection as part of the national wildlife refuge or wetland
management district affected by the maintenance; and all restoration work is
completed by the applicant prior to any title transfer or recording of the
easement, if applicable. Maintenance of an existing right-of-way includes
minor expansion or minor realignment to meet safety standards.
50 CFR 26.41 (emphasis added).
The maintenance of a transportation corridor within the Refuge physically
jeopardizes the purposes of the Refuge. It adversely affects habitat and the ability of the
Refuge to function as a natural system. The activities anticipated to occur with the Phased
Approach are more significant and damaging than routine maintenance and this approach
will not meet the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act's mandate that "the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health" of the Refuge be maintained.
The Phased Approach cannot be found to be compatible.
In our comment letter on the SDEIS dated December 9, 2005, we reviewed in
detail the legislative history and current cases interpreting the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act (Refuge Act). The Refuge Act continues to be pertinent to the
discussion of additional alternatives, but for the sake of brevity that discussion is hereby
incorporated by reference.
The Phased Approach and any indirect or cumulative impacts associated with it
are subject to a compatibility determination pursuant to the Refuge Act. The Refuge Act
prevents any new use or expanded, renewed, or extended use of a refuge to be permitted,
"unless the Secretary has determined that the use is a compatible use and that the use is
not inconsistent with public safety." 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(d)(3)(A)(i). To be compatible,
uses must preserve a refuge and promote the refuge system's mission. Accordingly, any
use of the Refuge must be one that does not degrade the Refuge's ecological integrity nor
interfere with its mission to provide a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and
other wildlife.
All indirect and cumulative impacts that arise from a refuge use must also be
considered and determined to be "compatible." The Refuge Compatibility Policy clearly
states: "The Refuge Manager must consider not only the direct impacts of a use but also
the indirect impacts associated with the use and the cumulative impacts of the use when
conducted in conjunction with other existing or planned uses of the refuge, and uses of
adjacent lands or waters that may exacerbate the effects of a refuge use." 65 Fed. Reg.
62484, 62490 (Oct. 18, 2000). Because the Phased Approach, and the associated direct
and indirect impacts, is a use of the Refuge that "materially interfere[s] with" and
"detract[s] from the fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the
refuge," it cannot be found to be compatible. 16 U.S.C. § 668ee.
The Phased Approach directly impacts the Refuge. The Phased Approach will
maintain a transportation corridor that bisects the Refuge for fifty years (the life of the
project). During the life of the project the perpetual construction and associated noise and
direct environmental impacts will degrade the Refuge resources, degrade wildlife habitat,
and materially interfere with the purpose of the Refuge. The Phased Approach also will
have significant indirect impacts. Because of the unpredictable nature of barrier island
dynamics-including inlet/breach formation, shoreline erosion rates and locations, and
sound side erosion-the Phased Approach will likely require "temporary" or "emergency"
actions that will permanently and adversely affect the Refuge. As has been the case for
maintaining NC 12 in the past, these temporary measures include sand bags, beach
nourishment, dune rebuilding, dune sprigging, fencing, and road relocation. As the FEIS
admits, NCDOT has never conducted these emergency or maintenance measures within
the existing right-of-way. In a letter to Governor Easley, the Department of Interior
states:
While the intent is to construct these new bridges within the existing road's
right-of-way, we believe this 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. Current information also indicates that all 4 phases would
require at least 13 years of actual construction during a 28-year timeframe.
Based on the information that the Service currently has, it is unlikely that
we could find this alternative to be compatible with the purposes for
which the refuge was established, as required under the Refuge
Improvement Act.
Letter to Governor Easley, dated September 11, 2007 (emphasis added) (a copy is
attached). Yet the FEIS fails to evaluate the impact on the Refuge from these measures.
Furthermore, all of these measures interfere with the natural barrier island
dynamics that are necessary to sustain naturally the Refuge and the associated wildlife.
These measures have severe affects on wildlife and habitat and are reasonably foreseeable
indirect impacts. associated with the Phased Approach.. 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.
The FEIS incorrectly states that a compatibility determination is only necessary for
"alternatives that use Refuge lands outside the existing easement." FEIS at xi. First, as
discussed above, the Refuge Act specifically mandates that a compatibility determination
consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on refuge land and any adjacent land
or waters that affect the Refuge use. The Phased Approach will have direct and indirect
adverse impacts on the Refuge and it is therefore subject to a compatibility determination.
Furthermore, the NC 12 easement is not a carte blanche proclamation that allows NCDOT
to pursue any action without respect for the Refuge Act. The Refuge Act itself recognizes
that easements and right-of-ways may coexist on national wildlife refuges. Work within
easements, however, may be limited by the Refuge Manager and may be subject to a
8
compatibility determination. 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 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.
The FEIS is also inadequate because the information is not sufficient to prove that
any of the Parallel Bridge alternatives, including the Phased Approach, could be
compatible. North Carolina Department of Transportation and Federal Highway
Administration have the burden to prove that a use is compatible. "Compatibility,
therefore, is a threshold issue, and the proponent(s) of any use or combination of uses
must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Refuge Manager that the proposed use(s) pass
this threshold test. The burden of proof is on the proponent to show that they pass; not on
the Refuge Manager to show that they surpass." 65 Fed. Reg. 62484, 62490 (Oct. 18,
2000). Nothing in the FEIS proves that any Parallel Bridge alternative, including the
Phased Approach, could possibly be found to be compatible and the NCDOT and FHWA
have not met their burden of proof. 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.
Finally, as discussed in section VI, infra, 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. According to the permit under which it
was built, if the terminal groin is no longer required to protect the existing Bonner Bridge,
it must be removed within two years. As discussed in section VI, though, 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.
C. Only the Pamlico Sound Bridge alternative complies with the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.
The continued use of NC 12 thru the Refuge is a use that is subject to a
compatibility determination. As discussed above, NCDOT and FHWA must demonstrate
that a bridge replacement alternative is compatible with the Refuge's purpose or it cannot
be permitted. The proposed construction of a bridge within the existing right-of-way is
not a sufficient legal bar to a compatibility determination, despite the FEIS's unsupported
statements to the contrary. None of the Parallel Bridge alternatives comply with the
National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act because the associated operation and
maintenance of NC 12 and the subsequent construction of the Phased Approach interferes
impermissibly with the Refuge's purpose. As explained in more detail below, the only
compatible alternative is the Pamlico Sound Bridge.
The key to compatibility is the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
and the purpose of the Refuge. The NWRIA establishes wildlife conservation as the
primary National Wildlife Refuge mission. "Inherent in fulfilling the System mission is
not degrading the ecological integrity of the refuge." Final Compatibility Policy Pursuant
to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 65 Fed. Reg. 62484,
62489 (Oct. 18, 2000). Recognizing that the ecological integrity of any national park or
refuge in the project area is closely tied to the geological dynamic system, the National
Park Services policy now requires that the Cape Hatteras National Seashore be managed
to "support the natural processes of barrier island dynamics." The Refuge was established
by executive order in 1938 as the Pea Island Migratory Waterfowl Refuge and its purpose
is to be "a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife." 3 Fed.
Reg. 734 (Apr. 12, 1938). As discussed above, the Refuge supports a vast array of
migratory birds, mammals, and threatened and endangered species. The Refuge provides
important feeding and nesting grounds for the federally-listed piping plover and is a
nesting area for loggerhead and green sea turtles.2
Building any of the Parallel Bridge alternatives will directly, substantially, and
adversely affect the continued utilization of the Refuge as a breeding ground for migratory
birds and other wildlife and damage the ecological integrity of the refuge. In order to
maintain NC 12 through the northern portion of Hatteras Island, which is a dynamic
system with dramatic shoreline erosion and potential for new inlet formation, the needs of
the wildlife refuge would be subsumed by the need to keep the road within the casement,
fill in breaches, and develop an artificial dune system. Currently, the constant beach
erosion and severe weather events result in continual maintenance to repair and protect the
integrity of NC 12. Even if these activities could be confined to the existing right-of-
way-and the FEIS provides no information about how that will be possible-continuing
such invasive uses of Refuge land has significant adverse impacts on the Refuge. For
example, the maintenance activities currently degrade the quality of habitat available for
wildlife by preventing overwash, contributing to a degraded beach profile, and eliminating
natural vegetation succession. In sum, the repair and maintenance of NC 12 degrades the
ecological integrity of the refuge and harms the habitat of migratory birds and wildlife.
These impacts will occur regardless of whether the maintenance occurs in or out of the
existing right-of-way.
As the FEIS acknowledges, "Oregon Inlet, Bodie Island, and Hatteras Island are
part of a migrating barrier system characteristic of the southeast Atlantic Coast," which
'` Additional comments on the endangered species impacts are included in later sections of this
comment letter.
10
are characterized by variable and high erosion rates. FEIS at 3-51. The FEIS predicts that
the shoreline will erode well into refuge land over the next 50 years. Although it is
important to note that the FEIS relies on average annual shoreline erosion rates to predict
future shoreline conditions, the average rate does not take into consideration the high
annual variability of erosion and accretion. In other words, within a year a stretch of
shoreline could erode 10 feet and accrete 5 feet and would only have an annual shoreline
erosion of 5 feet. All Parallel Bridge corridor alternatives will require continual NC 12
maintenance and the FEIS does not adequately evaluate the impacts on the Refuge from
conducting these activities within the right-of-way. Furthennore, NCDOT cannot provide
adequate assurances that any future activities will indeed take place within the right-of-
way. The FEIS does not commit to any particular Parallel Bridge corridor and explicitly
states that the Parallel Bridge corridor alternatives can be mixed and matched and that
each phase will be re-evaluated prior to construction. This amounts to a blank check and
the FEIS fails to evaluate the alternatives adequately. Ultimately, none of these repair,
maintenance, or construction methods can occur within the Refuge in a manner that is
compatible with the Refuge purpose.
Beyond shoreline erosion, the proposed project area is susceptible to large storm
events, which dramatically shape the Refuge. "North Carolina coast is subject to two
types of severe windstorms: extra-tropical northeasters and hurricanes. Northeasters,
with accompanying high tides and waves, can rapidly erode the shoulders of Oregon Inlet.
Northeasters are fairly common in this area, with between 30 and 35 hitting the coast each
year. Hurricanes may be responsible.for.major events, such as_inlet openings and closings
and gorge shifts ..." FEIS at 3-55. For the purposes of the compatibility determination,
these severe weather events perform important ecological functions and are beneficial to
the Refuge. Transportation corridors, however, require protection from severe weather
events. In protecting NC 12, the natural processes are stunted and the Refuge cannot
fulfill its purpose.
The Pamlico Sound bridge corridor allows the Refuge to manage its lands in such
a way as to promote habitat creation and protection for the wildlife in the refuge. None of
the Parallel Bridge alternatives allows sufficient flexibility for the Fish and Wildlife
Service to manage the Refuge and therefore cannot be compatible.
if. The Department of Transportation Act of 1966 section 4(t) analysis is
inadequate.
Section 4(Q of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 prevents a federal
project from using publicly owned land unless "(1) there is no prudent and feasible
alternative to using that land; and (2) the program or project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic
site resulting from the use." 49 U.S.C. §.303(c).
When there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, the regulation .
implementing Section 4(t) states that "the Administration may approve only the
alternative that ... [c]auses the least overall harm," using a balancing of seven factors. 23
11
C.F.R. § 774.3 (c)(1) (emphasis added). The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation contained
within the FEIS ("Section 4(f) Evaluation") determined that all project alternatives
considered included some use of Section 4(f) property and that no feasible prudent
avoidance alternative exists and proceeded to the least overall harm analysis. After
purporting to engage in a balancing of the relevant factors, the Section 4(t) Evaluation
determined that the Pamlico Sound alternatives would cause fewer impacts to most
environmental resources, but that the Phased Approach would cause the "least overall
harm." FEIS at 5-44.
The 4(f) Evaluation prepared is insufficient for a number of reasons. First, it
erroneously concludes that the Phased Approach will not "use" Refuge lands simply
because it will operate within the existing NC 12 easement. Moreover, this erroneous
conclusion skews the least overall harm analysis in favor of the Phased Approach, even
though the Pamlico Bridge alternative is the sole alternative that bypasses the Refuge. In
addition, the analysis of the Phased Approach's impacts on the Refuge is inadequate and
does not provide.the decision-maker with sufficient information to meaningfully engage in
the least overall harm analysis required by Section 4(f).
A. NCDOT erroneously concludes that the Phased Approach will not
"use" Refuge lands because it will operate within the existing NC 12
easement.
NCDOT asserts.that the Phased Approach "stays completely within.the existing ........ ... ...
easement within the Refuge and, therefore, does not constitute a use of the Refuge under
Section 4(1)." FEIS at 5-29. NCDOT also asserts that the construction and maintenance of
the Phased Approach will occur completely within the existing right-of-way on the
Refuge. "The Phased Approach / Rodanthe Bridge Alternative (Preferred) would not
require the use of any property from the Refuge because it would be constructed and
maintained entirely within NCDOT's existing easement." FEIS at 5-18. 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.
NCDOT's Section 4(0 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(0 Evaluation omits dune maintenance and building from the discussions
12
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.
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(l) 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(0 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;
A constructive use occurs when the transportation project does not
incorporate land from a Section 4(0 property, but the project's proximity
impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that
qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(0 are substantially
impaired. Substantial impairment occurs only when the protected activities,
features, or attributes of the resource are substantially diminished.
23 C.F.R. § 774.15 (a).
The Section 4(f) Evaluation includes a constructive use section. However, that
analysis appears to be an afterthought with a foregone conclusion. Having already
concluded that the Preferred Alternative would not "use" Refuge land under the "Use of
Section 4(f) Properties" analysis, and having determined the Phased Approach would
cause the Least Harm (FEIS at 5-45), the NCDOT then turned to whether the Phased
Approach would result in a constructive use of Section 4(f) property. The implementing
regulations are clear that any constrictive uses should be evaluated in accordance with 23
C.F.R. § 774.03, which encompasses the avoidance alternative / least harm analysis. See
23 C.F.R. § 774.15 (b). Instead, NCDOT divorced the constructive use determination
from the broader "use" determination, reaching the conclusion first that its preferred
option would not "use" Refuge land and would cause the least overall harm. Not
surprisingly, NCDOT determined that the Preferred Alternative would cause "no
substantial impairment," and hence no constructive use of Section 4(t) properties. In so
13
doing, NCDOT failed to give adequate consideration to the constructive uses of the
Refuge caused by the Phased Approach.
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
impainnent" of the property. As a literal reading of the phrase "substantial impairment"
suggests, "Substantial impairment occurs when the activities, features or attributes of the
4(f) property are substantially diminished ... which means that the value of the resource
in terms of its Section 4(f) significance will be meaningfully reduced or lost." Section 4(0
Policy Paper, Office of Planning, Environment and Realty Project Development and
Environmental Review, US Department of Transportation - Federal Highway
Administration (March 1, 2005) (emphasis added and internal citation omitted). For
instance, in discussing potential proximity impacts of the Phased Approach, NCDOT
determined that the vibration, visual, access and ecological impacts bridge within the
Refuge under the Preferred Alternative will not prevent the Refuge from "continuing to
function as a refuge." FEIS at 5-53. Similarly, in evaluating the impacts on Rodanthe's
Historic District, NCDOT explained that the alteration of access would not detract from
its eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. FEIS at 5-57.
Proximity impacts need not completely eradicate the functioning of a Refuge or render a
historical property ineligible for the listing in order to rise to the level of a constructive
use. Total loss of the resource is not required; rather, meaningful reduction of the
-significance of the resource is-sufficicnb for a proximity impact to amount to a -
i
constructive use.
In addition, the Section 4(0'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. Ecological intrusion amounts to a
constructive use the impact "substantially diminishes the value of wildlife habitat in a
wildlife and waterfowl refuge adjacent to the project, substantially interferes with the
access to a wildlife and waterfowl refuge when such access is necessary for established
wildlife migration or critical life cycle processes, or substantially reduces the wildlife use
of a wildlife and waterfowl refuge." 23 C.F.R. § 774.15 (e)(5). The Section 4(0
Evaluation generally fails to address the long-term ecological proximity impacts from
permanently altering the landscape within the Refuge with the introduction of an elevated
bridge and hardened piles, which will affect sand and water migration, erosion, and
eventually habitat in the ocean hazard zone and offshore currents. Although the Section
4(f) Evaluation acknowledges, for example, the USFWS's request for additional studies
on nighttime lighting effects on sea turtles, the effect on the piping plover as a result of an
eventual offshore bridge, and an analysis for impact to habitat as a result of "scour,
maintenance, placement of revetment or stabilizing structures and repair of bridge piles,"
it fails to assess these potential ecological impacts or anticipate the constructive use of the
Refuge likely to result from these types of proximity impacts.
14
In addition, the Section 4(0 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(0
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.
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." 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.
Thus, NCDOT's determination that the Phased Approach will not "use" Refuge
lands simply because it purportedly will operate within the existing NC 12 easement is
based upon an incomplete analysis of actual or constructive uses of the Refuge and
misapplication of the relevant standards. NCDOT neglects to explain how it is even
feasible to accomplish implementation of a project of this magnitude within the confines
of a 100-foot easement, and it essentially overlooks the significant proximity impacts to
the adjacent Refuge and the resulting substantial impairment to the Refuge.
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 Vl, infra. Although the Section
4(l) 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.
15
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.
The Least Harm Analysis and balancing of factors3 presented in the Section 4(t)
Evaluation analysis relies upon the assumption that the Phased Approach will not result in
a use of the Refuge. In evaluating the first two factors, the ability to mitigate adverse
impacts and the relative severity of remaining harm, the Section 4(f) Evaluation explicitly
relies upon the assumption that the Phased Approach will not use Refuge lands.
According to the Section 4(f) Evaluation, "[s]ince the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor
alternatives and Phased Approach/ Rodanthe Bridge Alternative (Preferred) are the only
alternatives that avoid permanently incorporating land from the Refuge, the FHWA and
NCDOT consider them to be substantially equal as the best options in terns of use of
Refuge lands under the requirements of Section 4(f)." FEIS at 5-30. In the conclusion of
the discussion of the first two factors, the Section 4(f) Evaluation again reiterates its
reliance on the assumption that the Phased Approach will not use Refuge lands, stating:
"The Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bride Alternative (Preferred) would be confined to the
existing easement, reducing its potential impact by not using Refuge lands, providing for
fishing access, minimizing protected species impacts, minimizing direct impacts to
habitat, and allowing for shoreline erosion." FEIS at 5-35.
In considering the third factor, the relative significance of each Section 4(f)
property, the Section 4(f) Evaluation similarly relies upon the assumption that the Phased
Approach will not use the Refuge. The Evaluation acknowledges that the Refuge is "the
most significant resource in the project area." (FEIS at 5-44) and then notes that only the
Phased Approach and Pamlico Sound alternatives "completely avoid a use of the Refuge."
FEIS at 5-38. While the overall least harm analysis eventually concludes that as between
these alternatives, the Pamlico Sound alternatives "would cause fewer impacts to most
environmental resources, including the Refuge which it avoids completely," (FEIS at 5-
44), the entire least harm analysis is colored by the incorrect assumption that the Phased
Approach will not "use" the Refuge and is somehow on relative near or equal footing in
with the only options that truly avoid the Refuge, the Pamlico Sound alternatives.
The least overall harm determination requires a balance of the following factors:
(i) The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any
measures that result in benefits to the property);
(ii) The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected
activities, attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection;
(iii) The relative significance of each Section 4(0 property;
(iv) The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property;
(v) The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project;
(vi) After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not
protected by Section 4(0; and
(vii) Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives.
23 C.F.R. § 774.13 (c)(1).
16
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).
The least overall harm analysis suffers from the same deficiencies in the
evaluation of ecological impacts already noted in use analysis. In the absence of
information to accurately gauge the severity of the harm caused by the Phased Approach
and the ability to mitigate those impacts, NCDOT cannot meaningfully evaluate the
Phased Approach alongside the other alternatives.
The Section 4(f) Evaluation fails to adequately assess the long-term ecological
impacts which will result from permanently altering the landscape within the Refuge with
the introduction of an elevated bridge and supporting structures. The Section 4(t)
Evaluation does not provide a complete analysis of impacts on wildlife habitat caused by
erosion, scour, sand migration, and maintenance and repair of the bridge. Furthermore,
the Section 4(f) Evaluation and the least overall harm analysis omits any discussion of the
potential environmental impacts from dune construction and maintenance planned over
the course of the next two decades as part of the implementation of the Phased Approach.
Having omitted this information, the least overall harm analysis reaches the untenable
conclusion that the Phased Approach is among alternatives that allows for natural
shoreline movement which also "would contribute to naturalizing this area of the Outer
Banks, and benefiting wildlife in the Refuge." This conclusion highlights the hazard of
undertaking an analysis with incomplete information. In addition there is. no certainty in ..
the Phased Approach with regard to the implementation of Phases II, III, and IV,
including when and whether these phases will be implemented. The Section 4(I)
Evaluation fails to address the impact of incomplete implementation of the Phased
Approach on the Refuge and the potential impact of ongoing sand dune maintenance,
potentially into perpetuity.
For all of these reasons, the Section 4(t) Evaluation submitted within the FEIS is
inadequate and the conclusion reached therein is unfounded.
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.
Under federal law, environmental impact statements serve two key purposes. The
first is to require federal agencies thoroughly and objectively to investigate, evaluate and
disclose environmental consequences associated with any major federal action in
sufficient detail to assist the agencies in determining whether and how to proceed with a
proposed action. See Nar7 Audubon Soc'y v. Dep'r of the Navy, 422 F.3d 174, 184 (4th
Cir. 2005). The second is to provide the public with a full and accurate disclosure of the
likely environmental impacts of a proposed action. In order to fulfill these purposes, the
FEIS must describe the purpose and need for the proposed action, analyze the direct and
17
secondary environmental and economic impacts of a range of alternative means to
fulfilling that purpose, and, if mitigation is proposed, analyze the effectiveness of the
proposed mitigation. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1 (2005).
B. The Phased Approach environmental impacts analysis is inadequate.
Pursuant to NEPA, an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") is required to
satisfy a number of statutory and regulatory requirements. It must consider all reasonably
foreseeable significant adverse impacts of the proposed action and all reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action. See 40 C.F.R. § 15022.22; 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(iii),
(E); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1. It must consider the cumulative, indirect and secondary impacts
of the proposed action, including reasonably foreseeable expansions in the scope of the
proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16. All cooperating agencies have a mandatory duty
to consider the environmental impacts of other "past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. These regulations ensure that indirect, connected,
cumulative and similar actions are properly considered in an EIS.
The Phased Approach will have significant adverse impacts on the Refuge that the
FEIS fails to evaluate adequately. All Parallel Bridge alternatives, including the Phased
Approach, will be affected by shoreline erosion, inlet formation, and ocean overwash.
The shoreline erosion and inlet formation evaluation is particularly pertinent in evaluating
the Phased Approach. Because these events are episodic by nature, it is impossible to
predict precisely when and where.an inlet might form or erosion imminently threaten NC
12.- Although it is impossible to-predict dates and times, past-experience. and current -
modeling predict that NC 12 is subject to perpetual threats. The schedule for the "phased"
bridges may or may not coincide with the natural movement of Hatteras Island or with
predicted inlet formations. A bridge might be under construction when an inlet forms
underneath it or an inlet may form prior to construction even beginning.
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. These
temporary or emergency measures including, for example, sand bags, road relocation,
beach nourishment, dune building (and rebuilding), all have permanent and adverse
ecological impacts that severely affect biota, geology, and overall ecology of the Refuge.
The FEIS without support states that these activities will take place within the existing
right-of-way, but fails to recognize that these actions will still have an impact on the
Refuge. The FEIS fails to provide adequate analysis of these environmental impacts of
these activities.
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. How will the bridge withstand the natural forces, including increased
impacts from wind, in a manner that provides a safe and reliable transportation corridor?
How will the presence of a bridge parallel to the shore impact long shore sediment
transport, erosion rates, and inlet formation? The FEIS acknowledges that the bridge and
18
pile placement could have detrimental effects "including changes to water }low[,]
sediment grain size[,] and topography.: FEIS at 4-107. The bridge and piles may increase
shoreline erosion and create hot spots in addition to the five currently identified. The
bridge and piles will affect waves and longshore sediment transport. All of these effects
will prevent Hatteras Island from functioning as a natural barrier island system and will
adversely impact wildlife and wildlife habitat on the Refuge. The FEIS relies on a single
study of a pier and analogizes to the ocean-side bridge that is parallel to the shore. This
analysis lacks substance and is inadequate. Furthermore, the FEIS erroneously asserts
without analysis that the final Phased Approach corridor "would allow long-term natural
shoreline movement." FEIS at xxv. Contradicting itself, the FEIS then states that a
bridge in the ocean "would adversely impact the shoreline .... the outcome of coastal
processes along the beach and wildlife, including protected species that use beach
habitat." FEIS at xxviii. 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.
C. The FEIS fails to identify a preferred alternative and instead writes a
blank check without adequate review of all the foreseeable
environmental impacts.
The FEIS°s proposed "mix and match" approach cannot be supported by the NEPA analysis. The "mix and match" approach assumes that any and every combination
of impacts has been adequately analyzed. Unfortunately, this approach fails to recognize
that each alternative-bridges, nourishment, and dune building-will have different
environmental impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) depending on the magnitude of
the alternative (e.g. the total miles and location of nourishment), the sequence of chosen
alternatives, the timing relative to shoreline changing events, and the scope and location of
the initiating event (e.g. location and size of a breach or punctuated shoreline erosion).
The FEIS inadequately evaluate the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts and
cannot support a "mix and match" approach. The FEIS cannot avoid the analysis by
simply stating that these actions will be conducted within the existing right-of-way.
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.
The FEIS inadequately analyzes the environmental impacts related to shoreline
erosion and new inlet formation; endangered and threatened species; and impacts to
wetlands. NCDOT mistakenly assumes in its analysis that natural shoreline movement is
the equivalent of natural barrier island movement. Rather than allow the barrier island to
move in a natural manner that promotes ecological sustainability of the system, wildlife
habitat, and natural coastal processes, the Phased Approach will eliminate natural barrier
island processes for both the short and long-term. The Phased Approach will not preserve
the natural barrier island system or minimize impacts to Hatteras Island or maintain access
19
in a manner that has minimal impacts on the environment. FEIS at 4-167. Because it fails
to analyze these beneficial processes of the environment within the project area, the
Phased Approach analysis is inadequate.
1. Shoreline erosion, inlet formation, and ocean overwash
The proposed project is located in an extremely dynamic coastal area, which
includes an active tidal inlet (Oregon Inlet) and a coast subject to significant shoreline
erosion and ocean overwash. Within the project area, NC 12 is subject to perpetual threats
from the shoreline erosion and ocean overwash and because of the dynamic nature of the
system is subject to regular maintenance. 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.
We have attached a paper entitled, "North Carolina's Coasts in Crisis: A Vision
for the Future," by S.R. Riggs, et al., which addresses the processes of barrier island
formation, shoreline erosion, inlet creation, ocean overwash, climate change, and sea level
rise, their beneficial effects on the environment, and their detrimental effects on
infrastructure constructed on dynamic barrier islands. The paper is also available at:
http://www. coastal. geology. ecu.edu/NOOOHAZ/down loads/Coasts%20in%20Crisis%20
Booklet.pdf).
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.
a. Shoreline erosion
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. Although the effect of Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Gustave on Gulf of Mexico barrier islands is still being evaluated, there is no
doubt that major weather events shape the barrier islands. Historically, major storm
events have a dramatic effect on the project area-creating inlets, increasing erosion. By
failing to account for the impact from severe weather events, the FEIS arbitrarily
20
discounts the impacts of severe weather. Federal regulations require, however, that
environmental impact statements analyze reasonably foreseeable catastrophic events,
"even if their probability of occurrence is low." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22 (2005).
b. Inlet formation
Inlets are very high energy and difficult to predict. As the FEIS accurately
summarizes, experts have identified five potential inlet locations along Pea Island. The
FEIS ignores, however, the beneficial impacts to the environment of natural inlet creation,
migration, and closure. For example, during severe weather events, inlets act as release
valves, allowing storm surge that has entered the sound to exit. Inlets also help to protect
shallow sand shoals.
C. Ocean overwash
Ocean overwash is a natural and essential part of barrier island dynamics.
Overwash moves sand to the sound side of barrier islands. Over long time scales, these
processes enable barrier islands to respond to sea level rise by moving the island
landward. On shorter, multi-year time scales, overwash processes deposit sand and cause
landform changes, both of which are needed to maintain a healthy ecosystem for coastal _
plant and animal species. Because ocean overwash is detrimental to the transportation
corridor, engineering practices such as artificial dune building, sand bags, and road
scraping are used to prevent or respond to ocean overwash. This deprives barrier islands
of the necessary resilience to respond to sea level rise and prevents habitat creation. The
FEIS does not analyze the environmental benefits from removing the transportation
corridor and allowing ocean overwash.
2. Endangered and threatened species
The HIS states that a parallel bridge corridor is likely to adversely affect the
endangered leatherback sea turtle and piping plover and the threatened green sea turtle and
loggerhead sea turtle. FEIS at 4-120, 4-122 to 123, 4-124, 4-125.
To address the impacts on these species, NCDOT has agreed to take reasonable
and prudent measures as authorized in the Biological and Conference Opinions (USFWS
2008). While the FEIS states that a parallel bridge corridor is likely to adversely affect
these 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. Furthermore, as discussed elsewhere, the
Phased Approach impermissibly interferes with the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to
manage the Refuge for the benefit of these species. These measures are designed to offset
immediate impacts and are wholly inadequate to address the substantive impacts from the
Phased Approach. It is of particular concern that the FEIS proposes any mix and match of
21
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 over time, helps to create new moist sand
intertidal feeding areas on the sound side. Without overwash, erosion continues to
threaten sound side wetlands. Limited overwash leads to loss of piping plover sound side
feeding habitat and nesting habitat and prevents natural maintenance of existing habitat by
increasing vegetative succession. Furthermore, the Phased Approach may result in a
steeper beach profile, reducing the available intertidal area.
3. Wetlands
The various bridge alternatives assessed in the FE1S all impact wetlands and will
require authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Pamlico Sound
alternative impacts on wetlands and the aquatic environment are 4.18 to 4.84 acres of
wetlands (depending on the terminus) including only.0l acres of CAMA wetlands. FEIS
at 4-94. Of the alternatives assessed, the Parallel bridge/road north/bridge south
alternative impacts by far the largest amount of wetlands: 78.2 acres of wetlands
including 11.8 acres of CAMA wetlands. FEIS at 4-96. The parallel bridge/all bridge
alternative impacts the second largest amount of wetlands: 12.3 acres of wetlands
including 2.2 acres of CAMA wetlands. Id. The parallel bridge/nourishment alternative
would impact an extensive but unquantified amount of wetlands and waters. While the
FEIS states that this alternative would impact 4.3 acres of wetlands including .3 acres of
- CAMA wetlands, this estimate does not include extensive filling of near-shore waters
associated with the required nourishment. Id. The FEIS states that 6.3 miles of beach will
be nourished every four years. FEIS at 2-69.
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.
These impacts must be assessed and considered in the 404 permit review as a part
of the Phased Approach per 33 C.F.R. § 325.1 (d)(2):
22
All activities which the applicant plans to undertake which are reasonably
related to the same project and for which a DA permit would be required
should be included in the same permit application. District engineers
should reject, as incomplete, any permit application which fails to comply
with this requirement. For example, a permit application for a marina will
include dredging required for access as well as any fill associate with
construction of the marina. 33 C.F.R. § 325.1 (d)(2).
The FEIS summarily dismisses these impacts and fails to evaluate the total
wetland impacts from the Phased Approach.
Section 404(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1344(a), authorizes the Secretary of the
Army, acting through the USACOE, to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill
materials into wetlands or other waters. Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §
1344(b)(1), directs the Environmental Protection Agency to issue guidelines ("404(b)(1)
Guidelines") defining the circumstances in which dredged or fill material may be
discharged into wetlands or other waters. The USACOE must deny applications for
section 404 permits if the discharge that would be authorized by the permit would not
comply with EPA's 404(b)(1) Guidelines. 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a). The 404(b)(1)
Guidelines prohibit issuance of a permit where:
(i) There.is a practicable alternative to the proposed, discharge that. _
would have less adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as
such alternative does not have other significant adverse
environmental consequences; or
(ii) The proposed discharge will result in significant degradation of the
aquatic ecosystem ... ; or
(iii) The proposed discharge does not include all appropriate and
practicable measures to minimize potential harm to the aquatic
ecosystem; or
(iv) There does not exist sufficient information to make a reasonable
judgment as to whether the proposed discharge will comply with
these Guidelines.
40 C.F_R. §230.12(a)(3). An alternative to discharge to a wetland "is practicable if it is
available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing
technology, and logistics in light of overall project purpose." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2).
Where a discharge is proposed for a wetland or other special aquatic site, all practicable
alternatives to the proposed discharge which do not involve a discharge to the wetland
"are presumed to have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, unless clearly
demonstrated otherwise." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(3). "[T]he applicant and the [Corps] are
obligated to determine the feasibility of the least environmentally damaging alternatives
23
that serve the basic project purpose. If such an alternative exists ... the CWA compels
that the alternative be considered and selected unless proven impracticable." Utahns for
Better Transp. v. US. Dept. ofTransp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1188-1189 (10th Cir. 2002).
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 HIS that may be fully permitted under Section 404.
IV. The Phased Approach fails to address public access to the Refuge.
The FEIS identifies continued access to the Refuge as an area of concern. We
support continued public access to the Refuge, as long as access is compatible with
Refuge's mission. Access is not contingent upon maintenance of NC 12 and many public
lands provide for public access in ways that are compatible with the nature of the public
lands and associated resources. We strongly recommend that access be accommodated
within a reasonable refuge management plan.
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.
V._ The Phased Approach may not be able to be funded or comply with state or - - ?'
federal legal requirements.
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 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.
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
24
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.
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.
The current permit for the terminal groin is explicit that it is only valid for the
protection of the "existing Herbert C. Bonner bridge" and the permit terminates once the
groin is no longer used for that purpose. In anticipation of replacing Bonner Bridge,
NCDOT has two options: (1) comply with paragraph (17) of the permit, which requires
the removal of the terminal groin and restore the land to its original condition (2) or apply
for a new permit to maintain the terminal groin in its existing location. In order to comply
with federal law, a full NEPA analysis and a compatibility determination are required for
either option. The FEIS states the terminal groin is an essential part of the Phased
Approach and the Parallel Bridge but fails completely to assess the environmental impacts
of retaining the groin.
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.
The FEIS states that the terminal groin will be required to be retained as part of the
Phased Approach. FEIS at 2-147. Because the terminal groin is an essential component
of the Phased Approach, the FEIS must analyze the impacts from either retention or
removal of the terminal groin. 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." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.4(a). Circumstances in which
actions should be considered and evaluated together include:
• the situation in which one action "automatically trigger[s]" another action,
the situation in which one action "cannot or will not proceed unless" another
action is "taken previously or simultaneously,"
• the situation in which two actions "are interdependent parts of a large action,"
and
25
• the situation in which two actions have "cumulatively significant
impacts. A
40 C.F.R.§ 1508.25(a).
Breaking such actions "`into small component parts" to avoid reviewing them
together "is to engage in illegal `segmentation.- New River Valley Greens v. USD.O.T.,
No. 97-1978, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 22127, **8-9 (4th Cir. Sep. 10, 1998) (quoting 40
C.F.R. 1508.27(b)(7)). 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 casement in response
to storm events, if later phases are not funded and cannot be implemented, as appears to
be likely.
Each of the four bullet-pointed criteria above aptly describes the relationship of the
construction of the replacement bridge (Phase 1) to subsequent phases (the re-permitting
of the groin as well as either Phases II through 1V or, if the state fails to be able to fund
them, then beach nourishment and relocation of sections of NC 12 as necessary in
response to storm events and erosion). Accordingly, the failure to consider the effects of
-- - - -all the phases or projects together in one impact-statement amounts to improper
segmentation.
The retention or removal of the groin will "significantly affect" the Refuge and the
FEIS must address those effects. "Significantly" includes an evaluation of the context of
the impact and the intensity of the impact. The intensity of the impact includes an
analysis of such criteria as the unique geography of the site, the level of controversy
surrounding the impacts, the uncertainty of the risks associated with the impact, whether
the impact is related to other actions, and adverse affects on endangered or threatened
species and associated habitat. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27. The terminal groin significantly
impacts the Refuge in many ways, including stopping the southward migration of the
northern portion of Pea Island, producing sand accretion at the north end, and affecting
down drift erosion along the Refuge. Not only are there important issues relating to groin
induced erosion and whether the existing monitoring and mitigation requirements
adequately address sand quantity issues, but there also are important questions regarding
the quality and compatibility of sand that is placed on refuge beaches as part of a
replenishment project. These direct affects impact the quantity and quality of habitat
An action will have a "cumulatively significant impact" if, although its individual effect is
minor, its effect is "collectively significant" when considered together with "other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such
action." Western N.C. Alliance v. N.C. D.O.T., 312 F. Supp. 2d 765, 771 (E.D.N.C. 2003)
(emphasis in original).
26
available within the Refuge. Any action, either removing the terminal groin or issuing a
new permit, will require an analysis of the impacts to the quantity and quality of the
habitat for the migratory birds, sea turtles, and other wildlife for which the Refuge was
established.
Furthermore, the NCDOT must address the impacts from the connected project of
replacing Bonner Bridge. NEPA requires considering the continued impacts from the
terminal groin and any action that "cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are
taken previously or simultaneously ... [or] are interdependent parts of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25 (a)(1). Likewise,
an impact of the Phased Approach is the artificial dune that runs the length of Pea Island,
with its adverse environmental impacts, will continue to exist until the roadway is
replaced in phases by a bridge on pilings as discussed in the FEIS. The terminal groin is
an essential component in the replacement of Bonner Bridge and impacts from the
terminal groin are intertwined with impacts related to the Phased Approach or other
Parallel approach alternatives.
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,
FFIWA 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.
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.
As discussed in section II(A), supra, the Section 4(t) Evaluation does not address
the inevitable use of the Refuge that will result from retaining the terminal groin, which
does not lie within the existing NC 12 casement. The encroachment and adverse impacts
to the Refuge from the perpetual existence and maintenance of the terminal groin cannot
simply be ignored in the Section 4(f) analysis. Failure to address the use of the Refuge
resulting from retention of the terminal groin, which is integral to the Phased Approach,
further underscores the inadequacy of the Section 4(0 Evaluation and the indefensibility
of the conclusion reached therein, namely, that the Phased Approach is the least overall
harm 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.
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
27
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-terns 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 habitat. In addition, retention of the terminal groin will
interfere with natural inlet processes that create habitat conditions that are beneficial to
piping plovers.
We recognize the need to replace Bonner Bridge and support construction of a new
bridge that provides dependable transportation to Hatteras Island, is environmentally
sound, and is economically reasonable. We support the Pamlico Sound Bridge corridor
t alternative and believe that it satisfies these objectives..
ii
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
t?.
,?r?
Ju ie Youngm(??
tLt1C
Derb Carter
Southern Environmental Law Center
On behalf of.-
Desiree Sorenson-Groves
Vice-President for Government Affairs
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Sarah Hagedorn
Ocean Scientist
Environmental Defense Fund
28

Noah Kahn
Federal Lands Associate
Defenders of Wildlife
Maribeth Oakes
Director, Wildlife Refuge Program
The Wilderness Society
Chris Canfield
Executive DirectorNice President
Audubon North Carolina
Larry Thompson
Executive Director
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
David A. Emmerling, EdD,
Executive Director
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
29
A Nonprofit EnvmnincoW. law Finn
October 271i. 2008
Beth Smyre
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Planning Engineer
RE: NC 12/Bonner Bridge Replacement Comments
Via Email (bsmyreC.ncdot.gov)
Ms. Smyre:
Please accept WildLaw's comments on the proposed NC 12/13onner Bridge replacement
FEIS and 4(t) Evaluation.
WildLaw supports the proposed alternative (parallel bridge with phased
approach/Rodanthe Bridge). While WildLaw has opposed other expansive (and
expensive) Toad projects -in the past, mds£notably-the ill-fated North Shore Road in the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, we feel that the unique character of the North
Carolina Outer Banks , the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and the Pea Island National
Wildlife Refuge (PINW) 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 best approaches this appropriate level of
compromise and consideration of values.
While true that the Pamilico Sound all-bridge alternative would on the surface appear to
reduce impacts to PINW, 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 fill 7.9 acres (3.2 hectares),
the phased approach alternatives
(including the preferred alternative) would 5113.0 acres (1.2 hectares), and the
nourishment
alternative would fill 2.9 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 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.
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 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 DO] 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.
Once again, the FEIS, while not perfect, does strike a fair balance with the competing
interests and demands on this unique part of our state. We support the preferred
alternative and would appreciate being apprised of upcoming developments, issuance of
the ROD, etc. Thanks you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,

Stephen H. Novak
Senior Staff Attorney
WildLaw Southern Appalachian Office
46 Haywood St, Suite 323
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]-
Appendix B
Conceptual Designs for the Parallel Bridge Corridor with
Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative and the
Road North/Bridge South Alternative in Rodanthe
Appendix C
Map of Critical Habitat for the Wintering Population of
Piping Plover at Oregon Inlet
Duck
l.sland a? 1 Y
4k?
01
?2
0<9
o
O
?q
\O L
d
Pea Island
National Wildlije
Refuge
0
r? o
?J d
6
J
ry Q ?'
r
a?
r
Hatteras 12
Island
LEGEND
F--j Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
0 Ponds
New Roadway
- New Bridge '
0 1 2KM
RODANTHE
0 2 Miles
PARALLEL BRIDGE CORRIDOR WITH NC 12 RELOCATION Figure
ON ALL BRIDGE 5
345 ?' - 12 7?
o ' z.
Island °
WA4nd Bodie 'i
RoanLslDuck
Island +? t
Qd .
f r XI-1
Canal Zone
Hot Spot
..? f. - 7/'
r'
C'•
0
0
r?
LEGEND
Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor
Parallel Bridge Corridor
Known Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
0 Hot Spots
I? National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Navigation Chart -
Project Area Depths less than 6 feet (1.8m)
1 2KM
U 2 Mlles

0
12
`p
0
Sandbag Area
Hot Spot

1?'?'hr,r? ? \
0
o
??
t
t
q

11
tt
tl

ls/cn7c.l
1

1 Rodanthe 'S'

. .
. 1 urves Hot Spot
.
........
•
.... .y Y

Emergency

Ferry Dock FRIODANTHE
REPLACEMENT BRIDGE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES Figure
1
Duck p
la'lu?id go
y
l
4 ?.
O = -Y
Pea lslund
atiunal It ildllle
O'
lteJu,?e ?
a
Dunes 10 feel
r (3.0 meters) high
0
Cr O
/ d
J
Q CV
J
o
'f
flatterns ?
Island
,
LEGEND
0 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge Dunes 20 feet
Dunes (6.1 meters) high
O Ponds
Beach Nourishment
New Bridge
2 N!d
RODANTHE
Figure
PARALLEL BRIDGE CORRIDOR WITH NOURISHMENT 3
W
F-
Q
Z
Of
W
F-
J
Q
W
CD
D
Of
co
W
2
F-
Z
Q
D
O
U
Q
O
CL
Q
D
w
Cn
Q
D
W
C_n
W
rlK
Bodic
1
Islam 0?
'.
r.
Coast Guard
Station and Oregon
Inlet Marina r-
fit'\?\
CNN
4 ?
Canal Zone
Hot Spot
r
1
,J•
r '
r
l'1,r l?irvtr! -_
1 \ u!:ur??ll 11 ilrlli/e -
°
Relrrlr `p
(1 1 Mile l?O
LEGEND
L Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
C Hot Spots Sandbag Area
Proposed Wintering Piping Plover Hot Spot
Critical Habitat
Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative BlaCkmar Gut O
Phase 1 Phase I'/
Phase II 1
PROPOSED WINTERING Figure
PIPING PLOVER CRITICAL HABITAT 4