R-4070 (2)

?)ys..? SU7=°? .
N • 1
°DEVI 82000
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. D.AvID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 14, 2000
Mr. John Hennessy
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
SUBJECT: Federal Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Final Nationwide
Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for NC 12, Interim Improvements
for Protection between Buxton and Avon, Dare County, Federal Project
No. NHF-12(7), State Project No. 8. 1052401, TIP Project No. R-4070A
(formerly R-31 16C)
Attached for your information is a copy of the approved FONSI and Final
Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for the subject proposed highway
improvement. This report records the determination that implementing the proposed
action will not have a significant effect upon the quality of the human environment.
Sincerely,
J 1' A. Hunkins, P.E.
Assistant State Highway Administrator
.IAH/cs
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
STATE KGHwAY ADMINISTRATOR
1536 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1536
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX. [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH, NC
NC 12
Interim Improvements for Protection
Between Buxton and Avon
Dare County
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-12(7)
State Project Number 8.1052401
T.I.P. No. R-4070A (formerly R-3116C)
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT I VIPACT
AND
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
ro
ate J ie A.
Hu nsV.u
r4
ant State Highway Administrator, NCDOT
ID-rr^ 60 '-I"L e
Date( Nicho as L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
.•`o??H CARO ,,y''•
'EE.SSIp''
SE AL t
18496 •
E. 5
A„
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. TYPE OF ACTION 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION I
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS 5
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 7
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS 7
A. Circulation of Environmental Assessment 7
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment 8
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing 41
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 41
VII. FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND
APPROVAL 42
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 56
TABLES
TABLE 1 - Transect Description and Dune Dimensions 2
TABLE 2 - Population and Traffic Flow Projections 30
TABLE 3 - Description of Alternatives, Construction Footprints,
and Impact Acreage 48
TABLE 4 - Summary of Potential Impacts to Cape Hatteras
National Seashore 51
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - Transects from Vulnerability Study and Proposed Dune Dimensions
APPENDIX A: Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX B: Comments Received at the Public Hearing
APPENDIX C: Public Hearing Notices and Handouts
2
NC 12
Interim Improvements for Protection
Between Buxton and Avon
Dare County
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-12(7)
State Project Number 8.1052401
T.I.P. No. R-4070A (formerly R-3116C)
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Division of Highways - North Carolina Department of. Transportation
in Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the
human or natural environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment,
which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The
Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the proposed project. The FHWA takes
full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to relocate a
portion of NC 12 between Buxton and Avon and construct a dune on the seaward side of the
relocated roadway. This alternative is presented as Alternative 6 in the Environmental
Assessment that was approved July 28, 2000. This alternate has been revised slightly in an
effort to minimize impacts to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
The total length of the proposed roadway relocation is approximately 2.1 miles (3.4
kilometers). However, NCDOT is coordinating with the National Park Service in an effort to
minimize impacts to the Seashore while providing a relocated roadway with dunes that meets
the intended purpose and need of the project. The southern segment, which begins just north
of the community of Buxton ends at the existing relocated section and comprises 0.55 mile
(0.9 kilometer) of the total proposed length of roadway construction. The middle segment, a
section that has already been relocated, is 0.28 mile (0.5 kilometer) of the total length. The
northern segment begins at the northern portion of the existing relocation and currently
extends to the Buxton/Canadian Hole parking lot, a length of 1.25 miles (2.0 kilometers). As
stated previously, this northern portion of roadway relocation may be reduced slightly in
order to minimize impacts to the Seashore.
The distance between the existing road and the proposed relocated road ranges from 0
feet to 200 feet (0 to 61 meters). The distance between the ocean and the proposed relocation
ranges from 300 feet to 500 feet (91 to 152 meters). The proposed right-of-way width is 100
feet (30.5 meters). The design speed of the alternative is 55 miles (88.5 kilometers) per hour.
The typical section of the proposed relocated roadway is a two-lane road with 11-foot
(3.4-meter) lanes plus 5-foot (1.5-meter) paved shoulders, for a total pavement width of 32
feet (9.8 meters). This typical section is consistent with other portions of NC 12 on Hatteras
Island. The typical section also includes a 4-foot (1.2-meter) grass shoulder and a ditch
where the topography lends itself to construction of a ditch.
The highway will be relocated near the existing grade of the island at an elevation of
approximately 7 feet (2.1 meters) above mean sea level (msl).
The new alignment of the road will involve four utilities: an overhead power line, a
cable television line, a water line, and a telephone line. The utilities that are required to be
relocated as a result of this project, primarily overhead power lines, are anticipated to fit
within the proposed 100-foot (30.5-meter) right of way.
Figure 1 shows the locations of the transects (as evaluated in the Vulnerability
Analysis) and proposed dune dimensions through the project study area. The reduction of
dune length and size at the ends of the project represent a change from the dunes described in
the Environmental Assessment. The dune will be constructed about 25 feet (7.6 meters)
seaward of the highway. Side slopes will be 3H:1 V (3 horizontal to 1 vertical) on the
highway side and 5H:1 V on the ocean side.
Table 1 below describes the size and length of the proposed dunes from the southern
portion of the project northward.
TABLE 1. TRANSECT DESCRIPTION AND DUNE DIMENSIONS
Transect Length Dune Approximate
feet (meters) Height Crest Width Impact Width
feet meters feet meters feet (meters)
Southern terminus to 450 (137) 8(2.4) 14(4.3) 80 (24.4)
LL
LL to KK 500 (152.4) 8(2.4) 8(2.4) 80 (24.4)
transitions to transitions to transitions to
15(4.6) 15(4.6) 150(45.7)
KK to north of AA 6340 ( 1932.4 15(4.6) 15(4.6) 150 45.7
AA to NIB 625 (191) 15(4.6) 15(4.6) 150(45.7)
transitions to transitions to transitions to
82.4 82.4 8024.4
NIB to 1000 feet 1000 (305) 8(2.4) 14(4.3) 80 (24.4)
(305 meters) north
ofN1B
The dune will be stabilized by planting beach grasses, such as American beach grass and
bitter panicum. The dune will be of sufficient size to keep ocean flooding and overwash off
of the highway during low to moderate stone events but will not stop sound-side flooding.
While the source of sand will be left to the discretion of the contractor, one possible
sand source to construct the dune is from the Hollowell site, a commercial sand source
located north of the project area near the community of Avon. If sand from the Hollowell site
is used, this material has been found to be suitable for use for such construction. All sands
used will be of the appropriate sand composition for use on the beach. Material for dune
construction will not contain more than 10% silt or clay and will be suitable for dune
construction. If an alternate source of sand is used for dune construction, the contractor is
responsible for coordinating with the National Park Service to ensure that the sand is suitable
(appropriate composition and contaminant-free) for dune construction.
This project will require approximately 9 months to construct (6 months to relocate
the highway and 6 months to construct the dunes, with 3 months of overlap between the two).
Work will be scheduled so that any dune building work after March 31 will take place at the
northern or southern ends of the project and outside suitable sea turtle nesting habitat, where
existing dunes provide a natural barrier between the beach and the work area.
Maintenance of the relocated road is expected to be minor for low to moderate storm
events but will depend on storm frequency and severity. Maintenance may consist of adding
sand to and re-grading the dune immediately adjacent to the road. Where a primary and
secondary dune exists, the primary dune (the dune closest to the ocean) will be allowed to
erode naturally. The secondary dune will be maintained, as needed, to provide protection for
NC 12. Appropriate coordination and compliance with federal, state, and local laws will
occur for any future maintenance activities in the project area.
Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are not anticipated. A Special
Use Permit will be required from the National Park Service, and a Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA) permit will be required from the NC Division of Coastal Management.
Alternative 6 (Road relocation with a dune), as modified, has been selected as the
recommended alternative. Comments from resource agencies, the public, and special interest
groups were considered during the project development and alternative selection process.
The following alternatives that were presented in the Environmental Assessment were
determined to have potential adverse environmental consequences and/or public controversy
such that an Environmental Impact Statement may have been required if those alternatives
were pursued further:
• Alternative 2 (Beach nourishment)
• Alternative 7 (Road relocation with subsurface sandbags and dune)
• Alternative 9 (Road relocation with sheetpiling and dune)
• Alternative 9 (Road relocation with surface sandbags and sand covering)
Of particular note are the impacts to ecological resources associated with the offshore
borrow site, the placement of "hardened" structures on North Carolina's coastline, the
potential to impact federally protected species, and the compatibility of the alternatives with
National Park Service policy and resource/land management strategies. As such, the
NEPA/404 Merger Team does not endorse these alternatives for implementation when other
alternatives exist that meet the project's purpose and need and impact the surrounding
environment to a lesser degree.
The following remaining alternatives that were evaluated in the Environmental
Assessment impact the environment to a lesser degree:
Alternative 1 (No build)
Alternative 5 (Relocate roadway)
Alternative 6 (Relocate roadway with dune)
Of these three alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 5 do not meet the purpose and need of the
project, as defined by the NEPA/404 Merger Team. The results of the Vulnerability Analysis
indicate the "no-build" alternative may result in a catastrophic failure of the roadway well
within the 7- to 10-year analysis period under the chosen hypothetical storm scenario.
Likewise, relocating the roadway and not constructing a protective dune feature
(Alternative 5) could also result in undermining and substantial loss of the roadway at several
locations along the study area (see Transects GG and HH in the Vulnerability Analysis and
Addendum which are available from NCDOT upon request). Of additional importance is the
fact that as erosion occurs throughout the project area, there will likely be large quantities of
sand on the roadway following a moderate storm event (Transects AA and JK). In addition,
the active beach will be increasingly closer to the roadway, and the roadway will be more
vulnerable to even larger deposits of sand during subsequent storm events. As such, the
Alternative 5 does not meet the purpose and need of the project.
Alternative 6 (Road relocation with a dune), as modified, does meet the purpose and
need of the project and will result in the least overall impact to the environment. The
NEPA/404 Merger Project Team endorses this alternative as the recommended alternative.
4
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
The following are special project commitments that are proposed in an effort to eliminate
or reduce the anticipated adverse impacts associated with the proposed project:
1) Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are not anticipated. A Special Use
Permit will be required from the National Park Service, and a CAMA permit will be
required from the NC Division of Coastal Management.
2) NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the National Park Service to develop a roadway
alignment at the northern end of the project that meets the purpose and need of the
project, is safe for the traveling public, and minimizes impacts to the Seashore property
and its resources.
3) A public parking lot is located along NC 12 at the northern end of the study area.
Temporary use of the parking lot may be necessary during construction for
staging/parking of equipment. However, access to the lot for the public will be
maintained throughout construction. If use of the parking lot as a staging area is
considered, NCDOT will coordinate with the National Park Service.
4) Access to the informal vehicular paths between NC 12 and the Pamlico Sound will be
impacted by this alternative. NCDOT will coordinate with the National Park Service
regarding the reconnection of these paths to NC 12.
5) Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office indicates that there is the
potential to impact the remains of shipwrecks on the beach in the project area if beach
sands are disturbed during dune construction. Accordingly, a cultural resources survey
will be conducted of the beach immediately prior to construction of dunes that are
constructed as primary dunes through the project area. Upon request, the Underwater
Archaeology Unit of the Department of Cultural Resources will perform this survey.
Equipment operators will be informed of the possibility for encountering the remains of
shipwrecks. If such remains are encountered, work will be moved to another area and the
Underwater Archaeology Unit of the State Historic Preservation Office will be contacted
immediately so an assessment of the wreckage can be made and the proper course of
action determined.
6) Roadway relocation could be accomplished during any season of the year without
adversely affecting sea turtles as the proposed roadway relocation will not occur in habitat
that is considered suitable for sea turtle nesting. However, no nighttime road construction
will be performed during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1 through November 15).
Work will be planned so that any dune construction that is needed in suitable sea turtle
nesting habitat will occur during the winter months. Dune construction may occur during
the sea turtle nesting season in areas that are not considered suitable for nesting sea turtles
- areas where existing dunes provide a natural barrier between the beach and the work
area. With these provisions, in addition to keeping the elevation of the relocated roadway
at approximately the same as the existing roadway, it has been determined that the
construction of Alternative 6, as modified, is not likely to adversely affect sea turtles or
piping plovers.
7) No permanent lighting is planned in conjunction with the recommended alternative.
However, lighting may be required for safety reasons during construction (variable
message signing, flashing construction hazard signing). If this type of lighting is needed
during sea turtle nesting season, NCDOT will coordinate with the USFWS and WRC to
develop measures such that nesting sea turtles will not be adversely impacted by such use.
8) NCDOT will coordinate with the WRC to explore possible ways to enhance shorebird
habitat. As feasible, NCDOT will incorporate measures into the project.
9) Sediment and erosion control measures will not be placed in wetland areas. No sediment
is permitted to enter the wetland areas adjacent to the project. These wetland areas will
be delineated on the construction plans to advise the contractor of this environmental
commitment.
10) While the source of sand will be left to the discretion of the contractor, one possible sand
source to construct the dune is from the Hollowell site, a commercial sand source located
north of the project area near the community of Avon. If sand from the Hollowell site is
used, this material has been found to be suitable for use for such construction. All sands
used will be of the appropriate sand composition for use on the beach. Material for dune
construction will not contain more than 10% silt or clay and will be suitable for dune
construction. If an alternate source of sand is used for dune construction, the contractor is
responsible for coordinating with the National Park Service to ensure that the sand is
suitable (appropriate composition and contaminant-free) for dune construction.
11) Maintenance of the relocated road is expected to be minor for low to moderate storm
events but will depend on storm frequency and severity. Maintenance may consist of
adding sand to and re-grading the dune immediately adjacent road. Where a primary and
secondary dune exists, the primary dune (the dune closest to the ocean) will be allowed to
erode naturally. The secondary dune will be maintained, as needed, to provide protection
for NC 12. Appropriate coordination and compliance with federal, state, and local laws
will occur for any future maintenance activities in the project area.
12) Should maintenance of dunes within the project area be required during sea turtle nesting
season, Section 7 consultation will be required with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). NCDOT will coordinate with the USFWS on a case-by-case basis for those
maintenance activities.
13) NCDOT will collaborate with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission to develop
possible strategies to enhance the beach/sand community in the project area for colonial
nesting waterbirds. As feasible, NCDOT will incorporate such recommendations into the
project.
6
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
After review of the analysis of alternatives in the EA, the comments from agencies
and the public on the EA, and the comments of the public at the Public Hearing, it has been
determined that Alternative 6, as modified, is the least environmentally damaging, most
practicable alternative. With this alternative, there will be no impacts to ocean and surf zone
fisheries and no impacts to wetlands. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
determined that this alternative is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed
endangered or threatened species. The dune feature of this alternative will cover some
existing dune grass habitat, but this loss will be partially offset by replanting with new dune
grass upon completion of construction. Ocean overwash, a natural process on barrier islands,
will be interrupted for the life of the project by the construction and maintenance of the dune;
however, the maintenance of a dune system along this portion of the barrier island has
occurred since the highway was constructed.
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the NC Division of Highways -
NCDOT and the FHWA on July 28, 2000. The approved Environmental Assessment was
circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies for review and comments. An
asterisk (*) indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of the
correspondence received are included in Appendix A (pages A-1 through A-44) of this
document.
Environmental Protection Agency
US. Department of Commerce - National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration - National Marine Fisheries Service*
U.S. Department of the Army-Wilmington District Corps of Engineers*
U.S. Department of the Army-Washington Regulatory Field Office*
U.S. Department of the Interior - National Park Service and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service*
U. S. Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Administration
N.C. Department of Administration-State Clearinghouse*
N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety - Division of Emergency
Management
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources*
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management*
Division of Marine Fisheries*
Division of Water Quality*
N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission*
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources-State Historic Preservation Office*
Dare County
Hyde County
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
US Department of the Interior (DOI) - National Park Service (NPS) and US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
COMMENT 1: We concur with the summary of potential impacts to Cape Hatteras
National Seashore... The National Park Service (NPS) is required by deed from the
State of North Carolina to allow a public road on its property. Therefore, there is no
prudent or feasible interim alternative except to use parkland for this purpose.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 2: The State is working towards a long-term transportation solution that
is expected to relocate the highway on a bridge in Pamlico Sound off of parkland .... At
that time, the State should no longer need to maintain a public road across this section
of parkland.
RESPONSE: Planning for a long-term solution between Avon and Buxton is
underway. However, the complete range of alternatives has yet to be identified by the
NEPA/404 Merger Team, nor has an alternative been selected. Therefore, it is
premature to assume that a public road will no longer be maintained in this section of
parkland.
COMMENT 3: We do not object to a combination of Alternatives 1, 5, and 6 for the
proposed project and would concur that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to
the project if project objectives are to be met.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 4: We would encourage the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to develop mitigating measures to protect, to the extent
possible, parkland.
RESPONSE: The recommended Alternative (6) has been reevaluated to see if
impacts could be minimized further. As a result of this effort, it has been determined
that portions of the protective dune component of the project could be shortened and
reduced in size. The currently recommended dimensions for the project dune can be
found in Section II, Description of Proposed Action of this FONSI. Accordingly, the
impacted area has been reduced by 13.5 acres (5.5 hectares), a 22% overall reduction
in impacted acreage of parkland.
COMMENT 5: The Department of the Interior has no objection to Section 4(f)
approval of this project by the Department of Transportation.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 6: The EA is thorough and well-presented and discusses the major
concerns and environmental impacts that the NPS must consider. The document
presents a range of alternatives identified by the NEPA/404 Merger Team, and
NCDOT has made a good conscientious effort to solicit public comments in
compliance with NEPA.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 7: ...the NPS will support an alternative that has low or minimal
impact on park property, resources, and values, while still providing a level of
protection for the public road.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 8: This alternative [No Build] is acceptable to the NPS. Although it
may not fully meet the project's purpose and need statement, the success of this
alternative is based in part upon the severity of storms, tolerance of the public to
withstand temporary road closures and washouts, and the capability of NCDOT to
respond to post-storm sand removal from the road. This alternative has the least
impact, least cost, and requires no permits.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 9: This alternative [Beach Nourishment] is not acceptable to the
NPS... Artificial nourishment of a natural beach is contrary to the park's legislation
and NPS policy. This alternative has the greatest environmental impact offshore and
onshore of all the alternatives in the EA ... Furthermore, other identified alternatives
meet the purpose and need statement, but with far less impact.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 10: This alternative [Road Relocation] is acceptable to the NPS. This
could be a very low environmental impact alternative that provides an additional level
of protection over the no-build Alternative 1. Relocating the road further west from
the ocean would create a wider "beach" to break the wave energy.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 11: However, we question whether the entire proposed 2.1 miles of
roadway need to be relocated, given the dune system in place at the northern end of
the project area. Reducing the relocation length would reduce the amount of
disturbance to park property even more.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. While elimination of roadway curves in the project
area is considered to be very desirable for travel safety, NCDOT recognizes the
importance of minimizing impacts to the Seashore. NCDOT will continue to
coordinate with the NPS to develop a roadway alignment at the northern end of the
project that meets the purpose and need, is safe, and minimizes impacts to the
Seashore property.
COMMENT 12: This alternative [Road relocation with a dune] is acceptable to the
NPS if it is reduced in scope. The concern with this alternative is associated with the
massive nature of the proposed dune line. If fully implemented over the proposed 2.1
miles, it would cover and disturb over 52 acres of parkland. We suggest running the
vulnerability models again to determine whether the entire length of roadway needs to
be relocated and/or whether the 15-foot dune line needs to extend the entire distance.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Please see response to DOI comments # 4 and #11,
above.
COMMENT 13: This alternative [Road relocation with subsurface sandbags and a
dune] is not acceptable to the NPS. It has similar impacts as described under
Alternative 6 in the EA, but has additional impacts resulting from the removal of the
sandbags at a later time. A permit(s) from the NC Coastal Resources Management
Division for placing the sandbags would also be required by the NPS.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 14: This alternative [Road relocation with sheet piling and a dune] is
not acceptable to the NPS. It has similar impacts as described under Alternative 6 in
the EA, but has additional impacts resulting from the removal of the sheet piling at a
later time. We also have concern over the safety of visitors whose vehicles might
swerve off of the roadway into exposed sheet piling. And, as with Alternative 7, a
permit(s) from the NC Coastal Resources Management Division to construct the
hardened structure (sheet piling) in the coastal zone would also be required by the
NPS.
REPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 15: This alternative [Road relocation with surface sandbags and a sand
covering] is also not acceptable to the NPS. It has similar impacts as described under
Alternative 7 in the EA, but has additional impacts resulting from the removal of the
sandbags also at a later time. The unnatural, manmade character of sandbags is
contrary to the NPS mandate to preserve natural features and to allow natural
processes to continue. In addition, a permit(s) from the NC Coastal Resources
Management Division to place the sandbags would also be required by the NPS.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 16: We encourage the NEPA/404 Merger Team to seriously consider a
combination of Alternative Numbers 1, 5, and 6. This combination may be
considered a modified version of road relocation with dunes. The modification would
be to relocate only that portion of the existing roadway that is most seriously
threatened by loss over the next 7-10 years, and then build the minimum size and
10
length of dune line necessary to fulfill the purpose and need statement, given the
existing primary dunes and the distance of the road from the ocean. This modification
will assure that both the park resources and NC 12 are protected to the maximum
extent possible, without undue impacts of one to the other.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Please see responses to DOI comments #4 and #11,
above.
COMMENT 17: It is possible that selection of other alternatives could require
initiation of the EIS process.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 18: The NPS appreciates the opportunity to participate as a member of
the NEPA/404 Merger Team, and commend NCDOT for its genuine effort to comply
with both the letter and the spirit of NEPA.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 19: The NPS will continue to work with the NCDOT in order to
provide transportation access across park property.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 20: The efforts of the NCDOT to move ahead with a long-range
transportation solution for this and other sections of NC 12 are also welcomed by the
NPS.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 21: The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has determined that
Alternatives 1 (no build), 5 (road relocation), and 6 (road relocation with phased
construction of a dune) are the only alternatives that are not likely to adversely affect
federally-listed species in the project area.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 22: On page 4 of the EA, however, Alternative 8 incorrectly states that
the sheet piling seawall option is not likely to adversely affect sea turtles. Table 1 C
on page 80 correctly states that this alternative is likely to adversely affect sea turtles
and piping plovers...
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The EA has been revised to reflect this
inconsistency.
COMMENT 23: No details are given in the descriptions of the alternatives as to
how these lengths [proposed dune and roadway lengths] were determined. Whether
the combined volume of the existing and proposed dunes would over-engineer the
project designs for Alternatives 2, 6, 7 and 8, for the design storm scenario is not
provided either.
RESPONSE: Generally, the study area includes the portion of roadway that is
considered vulnerable from a coastal engineering standpoint. Specific analyses were
performed in conjunction with the Vulnerability Report that suggests that the majority
of the roadway within the study area is vulnerable to overwash and/or possible
undermining if left in its current location and without further protection. The northern
end of the project appears to be less vulnerable at the present time, based on the storm
scenario evaluated.
An analysis of the northern end of the project by coastal engineers indicates that after
the Halloween class storm in year 2005, the dune at transect N 1 b (refer to NCSU
Vulnerability Study) will be substantially reduced, and sand will be deposited on the
existing NC12. In addition, the added long-term erosion by 2010 will place the active
shoreline within approximately 200 feet (70 meters) of the old road location. By 2010
the narrow beach and relatively small dune will expose the old road to frequent
overwash. On the other hand, these results also indicate that if the road is relocated as
proposed, it will not be subject to overwash in the 10-year period. Of course, these
results depend on the numerous assumptions made on both the storm time line and the
limitations of the SBEACH model as regards dune erosion and overwash.
The vulnerability analysis is also being used to help guide the decision as to how far
north NC 12 needs to be relocated in order to reduce its vulnerability for the next 10
years. The SBEACH analysis at transect N2a (also refer to Vulnerability Report)
indicates that at this location, the current dunes will provide sufficient protection to
the present location of NC 12. Unlike the results at N 1 b (1250 feet [381 meters] south
of N2a), the dunes remain intact during the 10-year time line. However, the dunes
between N 1 b and N2a are not uniform. There are numerous locations between these
two transects where the topographic data show areas of low elevations and narrow
dune widths similar to N 1 b. These locations are obvious candidates for dune
blowouts and overwash.
Because of the inherent uncertainty involved in designing any project for such a
dynamic coastal environment, projects are typically sized in a manner that
compensates for risk and uncertainty. Given the desired length of the relocated road
(from Buxton to Canadian Hole) it was considered reasonable during project planning
to extend dune protection over the length of the project to assure it meets the project
purpose and need in light of these risks and uncertainties. Once Alternative 6 was
selected as the recommended alternative, further refinements in project design were
sought to see if additional reductions in impacts were possible. As a result of this
effort, the protective dune has been shortened by 2500 feet (762 meters) and reduced
in height and width where possible. These efforts to minimize project impacts have
reduced the overall project footprint by 22%. Further minimization of impacts may
result from consideration of design refinements to the alignment at the northern end
of the project, as outlined above.
12
While elimination of roadway curves in the project area is considered to be very
desirable for travel safety, NCDOT recognizes the importance of minimizing impact
to the Seashore. Therefore, NCDOT is exploring alternative roadway alignments that
will still meet the project purpose and need, is safe for the traveling public (meets
design criteria), and minimizes impacts to the Seashore. NCDOT will coordinate
with the National Park Service to determine the optimal location for the roadway at
the northern end of the project.
For purposes of analysis, the other alternatives under consideration had protective
features (beach nourishment, protective dunes, sandbags, and sheet pile) kept the
same length so that impacts, costs, and benefits would be directly comparable. For
the beach nourishment alternative, the longer the project footprint, the lower the
future nourishment requirement because end losses are reduced. The selected beach
fill length was based on an attempt to optimize protection and future maintenance
costs. From this analysis, it was determined that beach nourishment, sandbags, and
sheet piling were not the best alternatives for meeting the project purpose and need.
COMMENT 24: It may be possible that the design volumes for the additional dunes,
and thus their footprints and zones of impacts, may be reduced if the existing dunes
are incorporated into storm protection evaluations for the various alternatives.
RESPONSE: See above response. The vulnerability analysis conducted as a part of
this project utilized the existing dune field to determine how the existing and a
relocated road would fair over a 10-year period given a particular storm scenario.
Additional sand mass (dunes) were then added to the analysis. Construction of a dune
is needed throughout most of the project to protect the roadway at the level indicated
in the defined project purpose and need.
COMMENT 25: The cumulative impacts section is the most comprehensive to date
for any beach construction project in North Carolina but it does not include local and
private beach nourishment activities (e.g., Figure Eight Island, Onslow Beach) or
potential projects on Bogue Banks and Topsail Island.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. We will revise the cumulative impact analysis to
include those beaches and others as appropriate, if beach nourishment is considered in
the future. NCDOT was unable to obtain quantifiable information from the N. C.
Division of Coastal Management (DCM) or the National Park Service regarding the
extent of other types of protective measures in the state. This information is currently
being developed by DCM but is not yet available. For purposes of the cumulative
impact analysis, the project, as currently proposed, proposes to add a secondary dune
and partially reconstruct a dune feature that already exists and is maintained in the
project area. Its cumulative impact is, therefore, not anticipated to be significant.
COMMENT 26: Dune construction and maintenance activities for NC 12 and private
structures are not addressed and are relevant to dune building and no build
alternatives.
13
RESPONSE: See response to Comment #25 above.
COMMENT 27: Finally, no estimate of the cumulative impacts of sandbag
distribution throughout the state are considered.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. See response to Comment # 25, above.
COMMENT 28: As a participant in the NEPA/404 Merger Project Team, the Service
would at this time only concur with the selection of a preferred alternative that is not
likely to adversely affect Federally-listed species (i.e., Alternatives 1, 5 and 6).
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 29: Furthermore, the Service would recommend that an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) be completed for any of those four alternatives [2, 7, 8, and 9]
due to the significance of the impacts, which would not be consistent with an
associated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
U.S. Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
COMMENT 1: The EA does not adequately consider the adverse impacts of the
discharge of dredged material on these resources [species managed by the Mid-
Atlantic Fisheries Management Council]. In our EFH comments, several ongoing
studies are noted that will provide new information that should be considered before
the use of beach nourishment is determined to be a viable alternative for this project.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. If beach nourishment is considered in the future,
information from additional studies will be included.
COMMENT 2: The EA describes the physical characteristics and benthic and
pelagic species associated with the proposed offshore borrow site, but the importance
of overwintering habitat for migrating fish in the vicinity of the borrow site is not
adequately addressed.
RESPONSE: See response to comment above.
COMMENT 3: No data is provided to document that the material being dredged is
beach quality sand.
RESPONSE: Preliminary data from core borings indicates that there is sufficient
beach quality sand available in the area; however, because of costs, detailed analysis
of sand samples, including a compatibility analysis was withheld pending additional
planning and coordination for the project. Rather than publish an incomplete
analysis, the preliminary data was not included. If beach nourishment is considered in
14
the future as a part of the long-term solution, additional analysis of the sand data
would be performed and appropriate coordination would occur.
COMMENT 4: The EA implies that beach nourishment will have minimal impacts
on fisheries, but this conclusion is poorly supported.
RESPONSE: See response above to NMFS Comment #1.
COMMENT 5: The NMFS believes that a more environmentally responsible plan
for this project would be to eliminate Alternative 2 until current studies, applicable to
the nearshore areas of the project site, are completed and evaluated.
RESPONSE: See response above to NMFS Comment #1
COMMENT 6: To date the level of sampling is inadequate to determine that the area
meets the less than ten percent fines criteria to be considered for beach disposal.
RESPONSE: See response above to NMFS Comment #3.
COMMENT 7: To avoid potential impacts to fisheries at [the] offshore borrow site,
we recommend further exploration of the upland "Hollowell" mining site described in
the EA, as a source of any sand needed to construct this project.
RESPONSE: The Hollowell site does not contain enough sand to construct and
maintain the beach nourishment alternative; however, the Hollowell site is a potential
source of sand for the recommended alternative (Alternative 6) and this site does
contain an adequate supply for such implementation.
COMMENT 8: If silt and clay are associated with the proposed borrow site, re-
suspended sediments could adversely impact these resources.
RESPONSE: See response above to NMFS Comment # 3.
COMMENT 9: We do not agree with the conclusion of "none" of the alternatives
are expected to "cause any adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat or EFH species".
We believe that Alternative 2 would impact EFH.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 10: Limited information is currently available regarding the sediment
composition of the proposed [offshore] borrow site.
RESPONSE: See response above to NMFS Comment # 3.
COMMENT 11: Furthermore, we have a poor understanding of the impacts of the
disposal of dredged material on early life history stages of fishes. Therefore, we
disagree with the conclusion that these impacts are minimal.
15
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Road relocation with a dune (Alternative 6) has been
selected as the recommended alternative and does not involve the disposal of dredged
material from an offshore source. If beach nourishment is pursued in the future,
information from additional studies will be taken into consideration.
COMMENT 12: We disagree with the conclusion that the impacts of Alternative 2
are insignificant and do not add to the cumulative impacts of beach nourishment.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Please also refer to response to DOI Comments #25,
26, and 27.
COMMENT 13: In addition, the summary of beach disposal activities in North
Carolina found on page 76 does not include work proposed by the Corps of Engineers
(COE) as a part of the Wilmington Harbor Improvement Project or the beach
nourishment projects proposed by the U.S. Marine Corps at Onslow Beach and by
Carteret County at Bogue Banks.
RESPONSE: Please also refer to response to DOI Comment #25.
COMMENT 14: Based on our review of the EA, we have determined that the EFH
assessment does not adequately address project-related impacts to the following EFH
types: Surf Zone, (a subcategory of marine water column) and Marine Water Column.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. If beach nourishment is considered in the future,
information from additional studies will be taken into consideration and the EFH
assessment will be revised accordingly.
COMMENT 15: Information provided in the Draft Environmental Impact statement
(DEIS), Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control, Dare County Beaches
(Bodie Island Portion), Dare County, North Carolina, Volume 1, June 2000 indicates
that up to 24 percent of the North Carolina coastline undergoes beach nourishment on
an annual basis. In this DEIS, the COE recognizes that limited information is
available regarding the impacts of beach nourishment on early life history stages of
fishes. Studies recently funded by the COE will examine the impacts of beach
nourishment on early life history stages of fish as a part of the Wilmington Harbor
Improvement Project. Also, the COE's Engineering Research and Development
Center (ERDC), possibly in cooperation with the National Ocean Service, Center for
Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, will soon conduct studies of the effects of
various levels of turbidity on larval fishes at the ERDC Field Research Facility at
Duck in Currituck County, North Carolina.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. If beach nourishment is pursued in the future,
information from additional studies will be taken into consideration.
COMMENT 16: If elevated turbidity levels in the proposed borrow site result in
avoidance of prime overwintering habitat or a reduction in feeding efficiency, the
16
EFH value of the area for summer flounder and spiny dogfish would be reduced. The
EA therefore underestimates the potential impact of dredging the borrow site on
overwintering habitat for migratory fish populations that represent the primary brood
stock for these species.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 17: Further consideration of Alternative 2 should be delayed pending
completion of the studies being funded by the Wilmington District and the ERDC.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. If beach nourishment is pursued in the future,
information from those additional studies will be taken into consideration.
COMMENT 18: To minimize the direct and indirect impact of turbidity, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation should ensure that the project does not use any
sediment which consists of more than ten percent silt or clay particles.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. A commitment to use material containing no more
than 10% silt or clay has been added to the Environmental Commitments section of
this FONSI. Material from the Hollowell site has been tested and determined to meet
this condition. However, the project contractor may select other areas for use. If
other sites are selected, the contractor will be required to provide documentation
indicating that the material meets this condition.
US Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District (USACE)
COMMENT 1: We expect this public review process to be complete on or about
September 29, 2000 at which time we will be able to select the LEDPA for the
project.
RESPONSE: The public review process has been completed, and no new
substantive issues were raised. Comments received from state and federal agencies
were generally opposed to Alternative 2 (beach nourishment) and alternatives which
placed temporary hard structures on the beach (7, 8, and 9). These interests preferred
alternatives 1, 5, or 6. Alternative 6, as modified and described in this FONSI, is now
the recommended alternative.
COMMENT 2: We agree, as stated in the EA, that of the seven alternatives under
consideration, the beach nourishment alternative would have the most severe impacts
on the environment, including Essential Fish Habitat concerns, and would cost
significantly more than the other alternatives under consideration.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 3: Based on our knowledge of the project area and from the information
provided in the EA, relocation of the road at or below 7-feet msl, thus avoiding all
impacts to waters and wetlands is the least damaging alternative that has been
17
identified to date. This opinion is subject to the conditions and comments from the
state and Federal resource agencies as well as the general public pending the outcome
of our public review process as described above.
RESPONSE: See response to USACE Comment #1 above.
STATE AGENCIES
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources (DCR)
COMMENT: None.
RESPONSE: None.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
COMMENT 1: Although there were agency consensus on which alternatives would
be considered and examined, not all alternatives minimize the potential impacts to the
extent of a FONSI.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 2: While the department has not determined the best alternative
available, it is felt that alternatives 5 and 6 could eliminate the potential for significant
impacts.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Alternative 6 (road relocation with a dune), as
modified, has been selected as the recommended alternative.
NCDENR - N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
COMMENT 1: Beachfront homes, businesses and associated structures such as
swimming pools, walkways, seawalls, sand bags and sand fencing can significantly
reduce the amount of suitable nesting habitat [for sea turtles] on a beach.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 2: Beachfront development is often accompanied by roadways that are
well-lit by broad spectrum luminaries.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. No permanent lighting is planned in conjunction
with the recommended alternative. However, lighting may be required for safety
reasons during construction (variable message signing, flashing construction hazard
signing). If this type of lighting is needed during sea turtle nesting season NCDOT
will perform additional coordination with the USFWS and NCWRC.
18
COMMENT 3: Furthermore, roadways themselves are dangerous to sea turtles if
there is no barrier such as a dune or a fence, to keep turtles from entering the roadway.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Alternative 6, which is now being recommended.
includes a dune feature that will lessen the probability of sea turtles from reaching the
road.
COMMENT 4: The best solution for the health of the beach and all of its natural
inhabitants would be to remove all existing structures and supporting infrastructure,
turn Hwy. 12 into a low maintenance gravel road and allow natural coastal process to
take place. However, given the extent of existing development and the number of
human residents on the island, the NEPA/404 merger Process Team did not consider
this to be a feasible alternative.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 5: For reasons listed in Table 1, alternatives 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 are
particularly detrimental to sea turtles. If one of these alternatives were chosen, we
recommend that NCDOT prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
project.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 6: Road relocation with a dune (Alternative 6) will in all likelihood
have few direct effects on nesting turtles during the 5-10 year interim, provided that
all construction activities take place outside of the turtle (and bird) nesting seasons
and the sand used to construct the dunes matches the existing sand's color and grain
size.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Alternative 6 (Road relocation with a dune), as
modified, has been selected as the recommended alternative.
COMMENT 7: Furthermore, the construction of a dune 21 ft. in height may keep
nesting females and hatchlings from entering the roadway and to a small extent, help
shield highway traffic headlights and other sources of artificial lighting from the
beach.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The crest of the dune will be approximately 8 feet
(2.4 meters) to 15 feet (4.6 meters) higher than the natural ground elevation. It will be
placed on land with an elevation of approximately 6 feet (1.8 meters) NGVD, giving a
finished crest elevation of approximately 14 feet (4.3 meters) to 21 feet (6.4 meters)
NGVD.
COMMENT 8: It should be noted, however, that the construction of an artificial
dune will impede the natural movement of the beach, eliminate future bird nesting
habitat, and destroy the dune grass habitat that currently exists in the area where the
new dune will be constructed. Moreover, the dune may require periodic maintenance
19
(i.e., beach bull-dozing or replenishment) to ensure its survival during the next 10
years, which can also negatively affect the beach. Because of the significant impacts
associated with Alternative 6, road relocation alone (Alternative 5) appears to be the
best choice because it will have the least effect on the beach ecosystem as a whole.
However, we strongly recommend that some type of fencing be erected parallel to the
road and within the highway's east right-of-way to keep nesting sea turtles and
hatchlings from entering the roadway.
RESPONSE: While Alternative 5 would have fewer impacts than Alternative 6, it
would offer less protection from ocean overwash and was, therefore, not selected as
the recommended alternative. Alternative 6, as modified in this FONSI, should
effectively keep nesting sea turtles and hatchlings from reaching the roadway and
should serve as an effective visual barrier against highway traffic headlights if the
dune is effectively maintained. With the dune in place, sand fencing along the
highway right-of-way to keep turtles from the highway should not be necessary. In
addition, sand fencing along the right-of-way will hinder NCDOT's ability to
maintain the landward dune in the event that the dune suffers damage during a storm.
NCDOT will coordinate with the WRC to explore possible ways to enhance shorebird
habitat. As feasible, NCDOT will incorporate measures into the project.
NCDENR - Division of Water Ouality (DWO)
COMMENT 1: The Division of Water Quality is not in favor of any alternative that
includes the use of sheet piling or sandbags.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 2: Analysis of Alternative 2 needs to consider the full impact of
disturbing the natural sand transport mechanisms. The analysis should consider the
effects of the natural sand transport processes relative to the proposed borrow site as
well as the fate of the deposited sand. The analysis should consider the potential for
deleterious effects to the environment as a result of disturbing the natural process.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. If beach nourishment is pursued in the future, natural
sand transport mechanisms and the fate of nourishment material will be analyzed.
Road relocation with a dune has been selected as the recommended alternative.
COMMENT 3: Review of the regulations indicates that no applicable riparian buffer
rules apply to this project.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 4: Has DOT considered the effects of sound side flooding from the
prescribed storm event? Relocation of the road away from the ocean-side hydraulic
forces has the effect of decreasing the distance from the road to the sound, thus
increasing the potential for sound-side flooding onto the road. Regardless of the
20
source of the flooding, a flooded road is unusable. Do the road relocation alternatives
meet the proposed functioning of the road as prescribed in the project purpose and
need?
RESPONSE: The frequency and magnitude of sound-side flooding is determined by
the pavement elevation of the roadway, not its distance from the Sound. The
recommended alternative would be constructed at approximately 7 feet (2.1 meters)
NGVD which would be sufficient to meet the project purpose and need.
COMMENT 5: After selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of
the 401 Water Quality Certification (if it is required), the NCDOT is respectfully
reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of
impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. Based on the
impacts described in the document, wetland mitigation may not be required for this
project. Should impacts to jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acre (0.4 hectare),
mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. No wetlands will be affected with the recommended
alternative. Sediment and erosion control measures will not be placed in wetland
areas. No sediment is permitted to enter the wetland areas adjacent to the project.
These wetland areas will be delineated on the construction plans to advise the
contractor of this environmental commitment.
COMMENT 6: In accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any perennial stream. In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace
appropriate lost function and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. No perennial streams would be impacted by the
recommended alternative.
COMMENT 7: Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in
wetlands.
RESPONSE: With the proposed road relocation alternative, sediment and erosion
control measures would not be placed in the wetlands but adjacent to them. The
technique most likely to be used would be to place silt fences along the perimeter of
nearby wetlands to capture sediment prior to entering these areas. An environment
commitment has been developed and is included in this FONSI (see Commitment #9
in Section 111. Summary of Environmental Commitments). Also see response to
DWQ Comment #5 above.
COMMENT 8: Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable.
21
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Borrow/waste areas will not be allowed in any area
under the Corps of Engineers regulatory jurisdiction until the contractor has obtained
a permit for such borrow sources from the Corps District Engineer and has furnished
a copy of this permit to the NCDOT Resident Engineer.
COMMENT 9: There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable
impacts.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. No direct impacts on wetlands are associated with
the recommended alternative. Since no impacts to wetlands will occur, no mitigation
is proposed. See Response to DWQ Comment #8.
COMMENT 10: Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the
proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping (if applicable).
RESPONSE: Comment noted. This information was included in the Environmental
Assessment.
COMMENT 11: Based on the information presented in the document, the
magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams may not require an application to the
Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
NCDENR - Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
COMMENT 1: The Department of Transportation has provided and incorporated
much information into this document. It appears that a thorough discussion of the
issues involved with each alternative has been incorporated into this EA.
Unfortunately, several items of particular interest to the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) were not discussed or identified which would be beneficial in
our review of these alternatives. These items include: the location of the first line of
stable vegetation along the project area, the identification of the long-term annual
erosion rate(s) in the project area and the location of V-zones as identified in the
federal insurance rate maps (the High Hazard Flood Area of Environmental Concern).
RESPONSE: All of this information has been transmitted to the Division of Coastal
Management for their use in evaluating the project alternatives. Road relocation with
a dune (Alternative 6) is now the recommended alternative. It has been modified to
reduce overall impacts to National Seashore property. A current description of this
alternative is presented in Section II Description of Proposed Action of this FONSI.
COMMENT 2: Several of the other Alternatives (7, 8 and 9) are directly
inconsistent [with] CRC rules. Alternative 8 violates the CRC's ban on hardened
erosion control structures. Alternatives 7 and 9 involve placement of sandbags that
are also inconsistent with CRC rules. While sandbags can be considered a temporary
22
erosion control measure, the proposed location and size presented in Alternative 7 and
9 make them inconsistent with the CRC Rules.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 3: The "no-build", beach nourishment and dune construction
alternatives do not appear to be inconsistent with CRC Rules. In the case of beach
nourishment and dune construction, a CAMA permit will be required and a
determination of consistency will be made during the permit process. The beach
nourishment will also require a Dredge and Fill permit to be issued. The repair of the
roadway within the existing rights-of-way is generally exempt from CAMA
permitting requirements.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
NCDENR - Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF)
COMMENT 1: After review of the seven alternatives the Division would
recommend that Alternative 6 - Road Relocation with a dune be pursued as the
Preferred Alternative. The construction of the dune would provide protection of the
roadway. The dune could be constructed outside of the moratorium for sea turtles and
nesting birds.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Biodiversity Leaal Foundation (BLF)
COMMENT 1: Of the alternatives reviewed in the EA, alternative 5 satisfies the
project purpose while being the lowest cost and least environmentally damaging
option. However, the EA does not make a convincing case that the proposed project
length for this alternative (or others) is necessary. Thus, the project may be able to be
reduced in length, which would lessen impacts and costs.
RESPONSE: In addition to the information provided in the "Description of
Proposed Action," also see responses to DOI Comment #23 and 24.
COMMENT 2: In addition, we object to alternatives 2 and 6-9, for the reasons
discussed below. If the North Carolina Department of Transportation ("DOT") were
to proceed with alternative 2 or 7-9, we believe that DOT clearly would be required to
prepare and EIS; an EIS may also be required for alternative 6, depending on the
source of the sand and other environmental impacts.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
23
COMMENT 3: If DOT prepares an EA, the National Environmental Policy Act
("NEPA") requires DOT to include a proposed alternative.
RESPONSE: We respectfully disagree. Regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR
1508.9) state that an Environmental Assessment "[s]hall include brief discussions of
the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E), of the
environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of
agencies and persons contacted." It is true that when a sponsoring agency does have a
preferred alternative during the Environmental Assessment stage, the Environmental
Assessment should disclose that alternative. However, the decision to select
Alternative 6 (Road relocation with a dune) was not made until after the
Environmental Assessment was completed and comments from the public and
resource agencies were reviewed and considered. Of the utmost importance is that
each alternative identified in the Environmental Assessment provides sufficient
information for the public and regulatory community to provide relevant and useful
comments so that the decision makers (the NEPA/404 Project Team) may make a
well informed decision.
COMMENT 4: We strongly disagree that no "significant" impacts will result from
any of the alternatives, for the reason set forth below.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 5: We agree that NC-12 is subject to overwash. However, by implying
that "protection" can be achieved only in a location that is as or very near the existing
NC-12 location, DOT phrases the "Need" section in an manner that eliminates from
full consideration in the EA other alternatives that could provide transportation access
between Buxton and Avon, including a bridge or a ferry.
RESPONSE: The interim nature of this project is clearly laid out in the project's
purpose and need statement in the EA. This project effort focused only on interim
improvements for NC 12 sufficient to maintain the transportation corridor until the
ongoing study of long-term solutions can be completed and a recommended
alternative implemented. As such, this project focuses on securing the existing
highway corridor for a short period of time (7 to 10 years) while a more
comprehensive study is conducted that will consider appropriate solutions for the
long-term maintenance of a transportation corridor on Hatteras Island. Because of the
complexities of water resources and transportation planning, project development,
analysis, and documentation can be a very long and labor-intensive process. NCDOT
recognizes that there are options for meeting the long-term transportation needs on the
Outer Banks that were not considered in this EA; however, NCDOT does not believe
that bridge and ferry options meet this interim project's purpose and need. They will,
however, be fully evaluated within the context of the long-term study.
COMMENT 6: We are concerned that it could take longer for a "long term solution"
to be implemented than DOT's estimate of five to ten years. This would cause the
short-term project to have a much longer life span, and result in magnification of
24
accompanying financial costs and adverse ecological effects (e.g., under Alternative
2, there would be multiple instances of mining sand from the ocean and depositing it
on the beach).
RESPONSE: The long-term solution is already in the planning process and is
included in the current Draft Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The
expeditious development and construction of an appropriate alternative - one that is
both environmentally responsible and economically prudent - is critical in
maintaining the transportation corridor over a longer period of time.
COMMENT 7: The paragraphs assume that the opening of an inlet would not be
desirable. DOT may wish to make a substantive decision that an inlet should be
prevented, but DOT is still under an obligation to discuss all the direct and indirect
effects of that goal, as well as the cumulative impacts.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. NCDOT recognizes that there are benefits and
drawbacks associated with the natural opening of an inlet on both the natural and
human environment, as well as ramifications for the transportation system. The Outer
Banks Task Force (OBTF) is currently addressing the issues associated with inlet
formation and identifying the pros and cons of each of the identified issues. These
issues will be fully explored in the Long Range Transportation Planning Study of the
OBTF.
COMMENT 8: In addition, these paragraphs do not acknowledge other possible
transportation alternatives that would allow access if the road were washed out.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Other transportation alternatives, including ferries,
are being explored by the OBTF. The Emergency Ferry Contingency Plan
Subcommittee is investigating and obtaining the types of information that will be
needed to implement emergency ferry service (e.g., locations of suitable docking areas
and channels, amount of dredging needed, permit requirements, etc.). This
information will also be used in the evaluation of alternatives in the long-term study.
COMMENT 9: We suggest the DOT substitute "transportation corridor" for
"roadway" in the purpose and need statement, and revise the alternatives in response
to the modification.
RESPONSE: The project purpose and need was determined by the NEPA/404
Merger Team and officially adopted as Concurrence Point # 1. NCDOT is not able to
change the project purpose and need statement without full concurrence of the Merger
Team. Transportation Improvement Project R-4070B and the OBTF Long-Range
Planning Study are addressing the maintenance of a transportation corridor that is not
modal-specific.
COMMENT 10: We suggest that DOT move "between Buxton and Avon" to modify
the appropriate noun: "Maintain the integrity and viability of the transportation
corridor between Buxton and Avon with minimal interruption of traffic ...."
25
RESPONSE: See response to Comment # 9 above. The intent of the statement is to
reflect the portion of roadway between Avon and Buxton and the effects of a storm
event in that area.
COMMENT 11: The Ash Wednesday storm was no "moderate;" it was a Class 5
storm (Extreme) on the Dolan/Davis northeasters ranking. Until the Halloween storm
in 1991, the Ash Wednesday storm was the storm of record for the area. This issue is
not simply academic; if the modeling efforts to design the alternatives are based on
the road surviving this - or the Halloween - storm, DOT is designing alternatives to
address a worst case scenario, rather than a "moderate" storm. In turn, this would
cause DOT Lo undertake an excessive effort and overbuild any proposed action.
RESPONSE: In terms of storm surge, the Halloween Storm can be classified as a
moderate storm event and is comparable to Hurricane Dennis. The storm surge of the
Halloween Storm had a storm surge roughly 1 to 2 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meter) lower than
the Ash Wednesday storm surge.
COMMENT 12: While the hurricane washed out a section of the dune, DOT moved
the road further west in the washover area, and just this month, completed
reconstruction of a large artificial dune in front of the new section of road. Thus, in
the Buxton to Avon segment, the statement that the dunes are "eliminated" is not
accurate.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The recently constructed dune is approximately
4,000 feet (1219 meters) in length, 10 to 12 feet (3 to 3.7 meters) high, and has a base
about 60 feet (18.3 meters) wide. The dune is located about 25 feet (7.6 meters) from
the edge of the pavement.
COMMENT 13: The statement that loss of the highway would create a "severe
emotional .. hardship" on residents overstates the impact. Many, if not most, of the
residents realize that life on a barrier island includes risks regarding the reliability of
the transportation. Likewise, as to the economic disruptions, while there would be
short-term economic disruptions caused by loss of road, we believe that ferry service
could alleviate such impacts. And, Ocracoke has prospered; yet, it is accessible only
by boat or ferry.
RESPONSE: Ferry service would not provide same level of service (carrying
capacity) as the existing NC 12. Residents that have grown to be dependent on the
highway would find the ability to deliver of goods and services would be changed
with ferry service on both ends of Hatteras Island. During the Public Hearing held on
August 21, 2000, strong support was voiced from many residents for keeping the
existing highway open; however, some residents may have differing opinions about
how access affects them. The residents at Ocracoke Island have never been reliant on
a direct highway link for their existence as there has never been a highway directly
from the mainland to Ocracoke. Ferry service is all the Ocracoke Island residents
26
have ever known, and it meets with their current transportation needs and
expectations.
COMMENT 14: DOT must remember that providing quick easy access to this area
has many different consequences. Some may view those consequences in a positive
fashion; others will be much more concerned about the adverse indirect effects that
accompany easier access. Many people live here precisely because they are spared the
overcrowding and excessive crime that plague many other coastal areas. While there
are different reasons this area has so many good qualities, one factor is that compared
to other coastal areas, it takes more effort to travel here.
RESPONSE.: Comment noted. The recommended project would maintain only the
existing level of access. There are no provisions in the recommended project to make
access easier.
COMMENT 15: NC 12 is not the "only link to the mainland" for the reasons noted
above.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. It is the only "highway" link to the mainland.
COMMENT 16: The conclusion that overwash is a "dangerous condition" is not
supported by information that is presented in the EA. During Hurricane Dennis, the
island was under an evacuation order, and those who choose to remain were inside
their houses, riding out the storm. No one died during Hurricane Dennis trying to
drive through the overwash section. However, since the road has been moved
westward and re-paved, two people have died driving in cars on that section of the
road. Which is more dangerous? While loss of the road could pose some medical
risk, a helicopter is available for true medical emergencies and is utilized when time
is a factor in transportation to a medical facility.
RESPONSE: NCDOT expends considerable effort to maintain the transportation
system so that it provides a safe travel way for the public. Loose sand on the roadway
is not considered a safe situation for the traveling public and, accordingly, NCDOT
strives to keep both wind blown and overwash sand off of the roadway.
Implementation of Alternative 6, as described herein, will substantially reduce the
curves in the relocated section of road that is of concern. While the existing road
meets all design specifications, driver expectations have lead some drivers to travel
through the area in an unsafe manner.
COMMENT 17: This paragraph ("coastal consideration"), and others in the
document, consistently take a biased, unscientific view in describing results of ocean
overwash. Without question, overwash can make road maintenance work difficult,
and we fully acknowledge such considerations. However, overwash is also very
important from geological and biological perspectives. First, overwash is critical to
maintaining the width of narrow barrier island sections. This was specifically pointed
out to DOT in the BLF's scoping comments. In support, we attach to this letter the
photographs from a study of overwash areas on the Outer Banks (Godfrey, n.d.:24-
27
25); note the significant growth that has occurred on the sound side of the barrier
island due to movement of sand from overwash. By trying to reduce overwash
events, DOT is threatening the very island they are trying to protect. By failing to
disclose the effects of this effort, DOT is violating NEPA and not providing the
public with a critical piece of information that allows an accurate review of the issues.
In addition, DOT does not mention, in this section, the critical role that overwash
areas play in providing habitat for numerous shorebirds and other species that utilize
beach habitats.
RESPONSE: NCDOT recognizes overwash does play an important role in the barrier
island system, both from a geological and ecological standpoint.
With regard to coastal geology and geologic time, however, the extent that the
proposed dunes will limit transport across the island is negligible with respect the
overall sediment budget and geologic processes for this island. While island
overwash is recognized as an important part of barrier island ecology, recent studies
indicate that it's significance in the long-term maintenance of the island may be
different than is widely believed. Comparative analysis of barrier island changes
dating from the mid-1800's to the mid-1940's indicates that the barrier islands did not
migrate during this period. The Wilmington District - Corps of Engineers compared
detailed maps of the barrier islands from the Rodanthe area south to Beaufort Inlet; in
addition, comparisons were made to Masonboro Island, which is located along the
southern portion of the North Carolina coast. The comparative analysis determined
changes in the shoreline position and changes in the marsh vegetation over the
approximately 75-year period. This particular time period was selected as it did not
include the significant impacts of the artificial dune building program on Hatteras and
Ocracoke islands that began in the mid to late 1930's. The study found that all of the
barrier islands, including Core and Shakleford banks which were not included in the
dune building program, are experiencing general erosion on both the ocean and sound
sides. Also, the marsh vegetation line generally moved seaward. These measured
changes were deemed to be consistent with the changes one would expect as a result
of a 0.75- to 1.0-foot (0.2- to 0.3-meter) rise in sea level during the analysis period.
The only area exhibiting classic barrier island retreat characteristics was the east end
of Ocracoke Island which "rolled over" in response to a sediment deficit created by
the opening of Hatteras Inlet in 1846. The General finding of the Wilmington District
study were verified by subsequent work of Everts, Battley, and Gibson in a report
entitled "Shoreline Movement" which was published as a Coastal Engineering
Research Center Report TR CERC-83-1. Everts et al also found that the islands from
Virginia Beach south to Cape Hatteras were eroding on both the ocean and sound
side.
Dunes do influence the suitability of habitat for certain species. As suggested,
overwashed areas do provide desirable habitat for shorebirds, including the piping
plover. On the other hand, other species may prefer beach habitat that includes a dune
feature.
28
COMMENT 18: Based on duration and wave heights, the Halloween Storm is now
the "storm of record" for this area; and a Class 5 storm ("extreme") on the
Dolan/Davis ranking. Thus the conclusion that this storm was "moderate" is not
supported by existing data.
RESPONSE: The Ash Wednesday storm continues to be the storm of record for this
area due to the effects of wave height, duration and surge. The Halloween Storm may
be the storm of record according to the Dolan/Davis raking, which is based on wave
height and storm duration but does not directly consider storm surge. The Halloween
Storm is "comparable" to the Hurricane Dennis in regard to its storm surge and
impact on the dunes. Please also see response to BLF Comment 411.
COMMENT 19: We request that the EA include additional elaboration on the inputs
of SBEACH modeling runs; such information could easily be included in an
appendix.
RESPONSE: The Vulnerability Analysis is appended to this document by reference.
Copies of the Vulnerability Analysis may be obtained upon request from NCDOT, in
addition to the specific inputs for the SBEACH model.
COMMENT 20: We request that the EA be revised to include a risk analysis for the
"result" conclusions. How likely is it that this paragraph's conclusions will be
accurate?
RESPONSE: NCDOT believes the analysis provided is sufficient to evaluate the
existing profile and the potential consequences of the chosen hypothetical storm
sequence on the alternatives that were considered.
COMMENT 21: We agree that DOT needs to consider the NC-12 corridor between
Buxton and Oregon Inlet "as a single system;" if anything, the statement should be
amended to read from Oregon Inlet to Ocracoke Village. We would note that this
paragraph and the preceding two paragraphs sharply undercut the implied message of
the EA that if the Avon to Buxton section of NC-12 is modified, everything will be
okay in the interim period. We believe that it is prudent for DOT to honestly
acknowledge that even if the Avon to Buxton section is modified, those efforts could
be easily frustrated by overwash events, or even a new inlet, in other locations to the
north or south. Failure to acknowledge such a reality could lead to stringent criticism
of DOT when (not if) an inlet opens up. As discussed in the BLF scoping letter, inlets
are an expected part of coastal geology; it is just not realistic to suggest otherwise.
RESPONSE: NCDOT readily acknowledges that inlets could open at other
locations along the Outer Banks. The Vulnerability Analysis by Fisher and Overton
(2000), funded by NCDOT, clearly determined that the highway is vulnerable in
several areas. The report is available from the DOT upon request.
COMMENT 22: If sand were mined from the "Hollowell" site, DOT would have to
consider, and disclose in the EA, the effects of that action.
29
RESPONSE: Disagree. The Hollowell is a commercial operating mine and operates
under existing permits. The Hollowell site (and any impacts mining of the site may
have on the environment) is not part of the project being proposed by NCDOT.
However, it is NCDOT policy that any source of sand (or other borrow material) that
may be used for the selected project must come from a permitted site.
COMMENT 23: While a transportation corridor is helpful to maintaining the
economic prosperity of the area, we strongly question the use of the word
"sustainability." Many of the aspects of development on the Outer Banks certainly are
not ecologically "sustainable" under any reasonable definition of the term.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 24: Please disclose the calculations and assumptions behind the
conclusion that the traffic on NC-12 is estimated to be 15,300 vpd in 2020.
RESPONSE: In 1991, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. conducted the
Feasibility Study for the Replacement of Bonner Bridge at Oregon Inlet in Dare
County. That study provided a description of existing and future traffic conditions for
the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge located on NC 12 over Oregon Inlet in Dare County. The
study analyzed population changes for both permanent residents and the tourist
populations and tracked the relationship between population changes from 1970 and
traffic volume changes from 1979. Their study illustrated a correlation between
population and the amount of vehicular travel. As the populations (permanent and
visitor) increased, so did the average daily traffic along NC 12. Their findings were
instrumental in developing the forecast for the area of NC 12 between Avon and
Buxton in Dare County.
The Parsons study analyzed a section of NC 12 north of the Buxton/Avon area. The
calculations and assumptions from this study were applied to the section of NC 12 from
Hatteras to the north end of Hatteras Island at the Oregon Inlet Bridge. The Parsons
study used projected population from the Dare County Carrying Capacity/Development
Study, 1987 and the Dare County-Service Requirement, and Development Options Cost
Report, 1986. The Parsons study then used the relationship of past populations and
traffic volumes to determine the corresponding future average daily traffic (ADT) for
each of the future population projections as shown below in Table 2.
TABLE 2. POPULATION AND TRAFFIC FLOW PROJECTIONS
1990 2000 2010 2020 2040
County
ResidentNisitor 102,944 169,390 252,500 --- ---
Population
ADT on Bonner
Bride C 12 4,170 6,610 9,525 11,430 15,240
Source: Feasibility Study for the Replacement of Bonner Bridge at Oregon Inlet. Traffic Analysis.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas. Inc. 1990.
30
The Parsons study did not conduct population projections for combined resident and
visitor populations for the years after 2010. For the purpose of forecasting traffic on
the Bonner Bridge after 2010, an average growth rate of 2.0% per annum was assumed.
The study concluded that growth beyond year 2010 is expected to be slow, though it is
unrealistic to project a no-growth scenario beyond that year.
The most recent ADT count available during the R-3116C study was the 1998 ADT
(8300) taken from the North Carolina Department of Transportation County Traffic
Maps for Dare County. The projected 2000 ADT for R-3116C was calculated using an
historical trend analysis. Six types of regression models using historic traffic data
yielded predicted 2000 ADT's ranging from 7,700 to 13,400. Based on the 1998 ADT
of 8,300 and the regression analysis, a reasonable estimate of 9,000 vehicles per day
was used as the base year. The Parsons study provided a 2000 and a 2020 ADT for NC
12 at the Bonner Bridge, 6610 and 11,430 respectively. The difference in the ADT's
over the twenty-year period equate to a 2.7% annual growth in traffic volumes. This
annual growth rate was then applied to the projected 2000 ADT of 9,000 to arrive at the
2020 ADT of 15,300 for TIP project R-3116C. On average the ADT in the Hatteras to
Avon area is higher than the ADT on the Bonner Bridge. This is due in part because of
the higher intensity of land use between Hatteras and Avon, which includes the
communities of Hatteras, Frisco, Buxton, and Avon.
COMMENT 25: "Nourish" means: "1. To provide with food or other substances
necessary for life and growth; feed. 2. To foster the development of, promote; 'Athens
was an imperial city, nourished by the tribute subjects' (V. Gordon Childe). 3) To
keep alive, maintain: nourish a hope" (Soukhanov, 1992:1239). Alternative two -
dumping dredged sand on the beach - does not "nourish" the beach; from the
standpoint of coastal geology, the beach itself would do just fine without our
intervention. Indeed, as the EA acknowledges, this alternative would result in many
adverse ecological impacts to species that depend on or utilize beach habitats. It is
inaccurate to suggest that such an action is "nourishing" the beach. We request that
this alternative be called: "ocean sand mining and beach disposal."
RESPONSE: While the suggested terminology may be more technically accurate,
beach nourishment, as used in this document, is a term widely used in the public
domain. Most coastal residents have seen beach nourishment projects and have a
clear understanding of what the term means. To use a different term for the same type
of project here would not necessarily portray the nature of these projects more clearly
because their nature is already widely known; on the contrary, unnecessary confusion
could result.
COMMENT 26: The EA does not make a convincing - or even a strong - case that
the proposed 11,050 foot project length (plus transition areas) for this alternative is
necessary. Thus, DOT may be able to reduce the length of the project area, which
would lessen impacts and costs. We emphasize that this concern also applies to
alternatives 5-9. How was the project size picked? Could DOT reduce the length of
31
the project while still meeting the purpose? Given the impacts of the alternatives. this
issue should be addressed for all alternatives.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The size of the project has been reduced. Please see
previous response to DOI Comment #23.
COMMENT 27: DOT concludes that the sand from the borrow site "has been
determined to be compatible" with the existing beach." However, earlier in the EA
(page 19), DOT states that only "minimal sampling" has been done; that "preliminary
analyses indicate that this material is likely to be suitable for beach fill; and that if this
alternative is selected, "additional analyses will be performed to assess its
compatibility." The statements on these two pages are very different. "Preliminary"
is not the same as being sure.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Please see previous response to NMFS Comment #3.
COMMENT 28: In addition, according to Plate P-8, two vibracores were done for
the entire 220 acre borrow site. Is this sufficient sampling to draw conclusions about
compatibility for the entire area? The number appears to be below the number of
vibracores done for the Dare County Beaches (Bodie Island portion) sand mining and
beach disposal project ... Why is there less here? If the sand is not compatible,
where will it come from? What will the ecological impacts be? Without a reasoned
determination that the sand is compatible, it would be premature for the Corps to
select this alternative.
RESPONSE: Please see our previous response to NMFS Comment #3. Closer
examination of Plate P-8 will reveal that multiple samples were taken outside of the
proposed borrow site as well. All of these samples were used together to characterize
the nature of the ocean sediments in the area. More samples would be taken and
additional ecological investigations performed if beach nourishment is pursued
further. This project is sponsored by FHWA and NCDOT, not the COE, and the COE
is not responsible for selection of the recommended alternative. All decision making
on this project is shared through the NEPA/404 Merger Process.
COMMENT 29: If DOT were to choose this alternative, we would strongly object to
sand being deposited on the beach between April 1 through November 15 because of
the resulting significant adverse effects on shorebirds and listed sea turtles.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 30; The DOT does not provide sufficient information to support the
proposed 100 foot width for the roadway right of way. DOT admits on the next page
that for a 7 foot elevation, 70 feet would be needed; for an 8 foot elevation, 80 feet
would be needed. We object to providing a right of way that is any wider than
absolutely necessary to locate the road and shoulder, and we urge DOT to utilize a 70-
foot right of way.
32
RESPONSE: The width of the highway right of way and the width of the project
footprint are different. There is a 100-foot (30.5-meter) right of way for the existing
NC 12, as allowed by the National Park Service for the express purpose of
maintaining the highway through the Seashore. This 100-foot (30.5-meter) right of
way width is also anticipated with the proposed improvements and will likely include
any utility relocation that is needed in conjunction with the project. The actual
roadway construction may only require 70 feet (21.3 meters) of this right of way but,
when the dune is added in, the project footprint will be more than 100 feet (30.5
meter) wide. A Special Use Permit will be required from the National Park Service in
order to construct the dune on their property. Under the recommended alternative,
some of the dune would be in the highway right of way, but most of it would be
outside the right of way.
COMMENT 31: The EA concludes that the dune would be "adequate to keep ocean
flooding and overwash off of the highway but would not stop sound-side flooding."
What assumptions were utilized to arrive at this conclusion? What are the confidence
intervals for this conclusion. How accurate is this conclusion if one assumes a storm
that produces first strong onshore winds, and the, as the storm passes, strong offshore
winds? The EA appears to focus on ocean overwash events, but many inlets were
formed by water from the sound pushing over the dunes and into the ocean. Also,
how accurate is the conclusion in the context of two storms striking this area with
only a short interval between the storms?
RESPONSE: Soundside flooding comes from the sound; therefore, oceanside dunes,
as proposed, are not effective in preventing soundside flooding. Furthermore, there
was no detailed analysis undertaken to evaluate soundside flooding.
COMMENT 32: The statement that "maintenance" of the sandbag alternative is
"expected to be minor, depending on storm frequency and severity," requires
elaboration. What frequency and severity? We are concerned that a severe storm, or
multiple smaller storms in short frequency, could expose the sandbags; in turn, the
sandbags could become destabilized and shift.
RESPONSE: Every alternative under consideration would likely require
maintenance, and maintenance requirements did not need to be developed for every
conceivable storm scenario in order to compare alternatives. Under Alternative 7,
road relocation with subsurface sandbags and a dune, the sandbags would certainly
require little maintenance as most of the erosive forces of storms, regardless of their
intensity or frequency, would be cast against the dune, not the sandbags. With proper
maintenance of the dune structure, the sandbags would likely not be exposed.
However, if storms were frequent and severe enough, adequate maintenance could
become extremely problematic and, under those circumstances, the bags could be
exposed. Even if this happened, it is considered highly unlikely that these bags would
shift. Each sandbag would be 2 feet (0.6 meter) high, 4 feet (1.2 meter) wide, and 12
feet (3.7 meters) long and would be laid in a trapezoidal system of 20 sandbags. To
undercut this system, waves would have to lower the beach elevation by more than 8
feet (2.4 meters).
33
COMMENT 33: The EA states that the sheet pile was based on the assumption that
erosion seaward of the wall would extend down to elevation -2 feet (46 meter).
Why was this level picked? What would be the effects if erosion exceeded that level?
We are very concerned that one large storm, or several smaller storms placed closely
together, could cause the sheet pile to function as a seawall, with all the problems that
entails. We also do not believe that a sheet pile alternative is consistent with either
state coastal armoring prohibitions or the federal statues governing management of
the seashore.
RESPONSE: See previous response. As with Alternative 7, with proper
maintenance, the sheet pile would likely not become exposed. However, under
adverse circumstances, the wall could become exposed. Two feet of exposure was
simply a reasonable estimate of what might be exposed before the dune could be
maintained.
COMMENT 34: We strongly question the conclusion that "[a]ll sheet pile would be
removed once a long-term solution is in place." This is inconsistent with the
judgement of coastal geologists who have reviewed the history of numerous similar
structures across the country: "hard stabilization is irreversible. Removal or groins,
jetties, seawalls, and the like almost never occurs. Coastal engineering structures are
often altered or replaced but seldom taken away" (Pilkey and Dixon 1996:52). This
observation makes it even more likely that another problem would occur that the EA
fails to disclose: if the sheet pile were exposed, this would cause the structure to act in
a manner that is similar to a groin or jetty. As Bush et al. Note, one of the
disadvantages of hard shoreline stabilization - including a seawall - is that it
"[I]ncreases erosion at ends of wall and/or downdrift" . In turn, this would result in
increased erosion at the northeast end of the village of Buxton.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Regardless of the published opinions of some
authors, the NCDOT would abide by all conditions of permits issued for any
alternative selected, including the required removal of sheet pile after a set period of
time. With proper maintenance of the dune covering, exposure of the sheet pile
would only be a temporary problem occurring after storms of unusual intensity or
frequency.
COMMENT 35: The statement that "[b]ecause of the severe erosion being exhibited
in this area, little of the beach/sand community remains" is not supported by
principles of coastal geology. The limited beach/sand area is because people have
intentionally constructed a massive, artificial dune.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 36: By minimizing the geologically positive effects of washover fans,
DOT is facilitating sound side erosion by robbing these areas of additional sand.
RESPONSE: See response to BLF Comment # 17.
34
COMMENT 37: We understand, of course, that a decision was made to build the
artificial dunes to reduce overwash events and reduce the likelihood that the paved
road would be made impassible due to the large amounts of sand being washed onto
the road. However, paradoxically, that approach also results in a narrowing of the
island that would not otherwise occur. DOT may wish to make that substantive
judgement, and NEPA would not preclude such a judgement. However, that does not
relieve DOT of the legal responsibility to fully disclose the direct and indirect effects
of a particular proposal.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also see response to BLF Comment #17.
COMMENT 38: We thank DOT for acknowledging some of the adverse effects of
the ocean sand mining and beach disposal alternative (alternative 2). We agree that
the area would be subject to higher rates of erosion and decreased shorebird use. The
DOT should disclose, however, that the deposition of large volumes of sand on the
beach could result in over compaction, which would adversely affect sea turtle nesting
success, as noted below.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Compaction issues are typically addressed through
beach tilling after beach nourishment is completed. With proper management of
beach hardness, impacts to nesting sea turtles are minimal. If beach nourishment is
pursued in the future, more information will be provided as to possible methods to
mitigate over-compaction of the beach.
COMMENT 39: We commend DOT for acknowledging the adverse effects on
invertebrates from deposition of sand on the beach.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 40: DOT should disclose that the large, artificial dunes result in several
significant ecological effects. First, this adversely affects shorebird species that are
adapted to, and depend on, natural beach dune habitats, which exhibit breaks in the
dune from "blowout" areas ...
RESPONSE: Comment noted. It should be noted that under existing conditions
dunes are present along the roadway. NCDOT proposes to maintain a dune system by
maintaining the dunes that are constructed and enhanced by the proposed project; the
existing primary dunes seaward of the proposed secondary dune will be allowed to
erode naturally. The long-term studies (R-4070B and R-3116) currently underway
will look into the adverse impacts resulting from dune construction on the barrier
island complex.
COMMENT 41: Second, the artificial dunes can modify vegetation patterns. This is
hinted at on page 44 but the EA does not acknowledge the role that the dune building
program played in causing this effect.
35
RESPONSE: Comment noted. See also response to the previous comment.
COMMENT 42: We also note that in areas where the artificial dunes have been
broken up by storms, and the dunes reconstructed by the DOT further west. .
shorebirds have returned and commenced breeding activity. This raises the question
whether the DOT intentionally should break up the existing dune field and move the
dune west. Moving the dune would still provide protection for Highway 12, while
restoring shorebird breeding habitat.
RESPONSE: The existing dunes along NC 12 do provide some protection to the
highway. If the existing dunes were removed, the replacement dunes would have to
be made large enough to provide an equitable level of protection. Making dunes this
large would have additional environmental impacts.
The existing primary dunes, where the newly constructed dunes serve as a secondary
dune, will be allowed to erode naturally.
COMMENT 43: For the reasons noted above, we strongly disagree with the
statement that constructing a new, large, artificial dune to the west of the existing
artificial dune would cause the existing artificial dune to "increase in habitat value."
It may benefit certain species -such as red-winged blackbirds - but for the most in
decline and at risk, the effect surely would be negative, as noted above.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The referenced discussion actually referred to a
dune being constructed to the east, not the west. But the comment is valid. For
species requiring overwash areas, only Alternatives 1 and 5 might possible promote
favorable habitat. However, NCDOT would maintain the existing dune field, to the
extent possible, for both Alternatives 1 and 5. For all other alternatives, tradeoffs
will occur with changes in habitat, with the result being good for some species and
bad for others.
COMMENT 44: We believe that all alternatives, with the possible exception of
alternative 1, would adversely affect the piping plover, for the reasons noted above.
RESPONSE: All endangered species issues have been thoroughly coordinated with
the US Fish and Wildlife Service. That agency has determined that Alternatives 1, 5,
& 6 are not likely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered or threatened
species.
COMMENT 45: The roseate tern has been seen a few times every year in the
vicinity of Cape Point (including by the author). Thus, it is a rare or occasional
(depending on the month of the year) visitor to the area during migration. Because of
the reduction in habitat due to the artificial dune line, we believe that the tern would
be adversely affected by all alternatives except for 1.
RESPONSE: Please see response to BLF Comment # 44 above.
36
COMMENT 46 : The statement that loggerhead turtles use beaches "as far north as
Ocracoke Inlet" is in error; the species has been recorded nesting in the project area
and further north (as acknowledged by DOT on page 57).
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The EA has been revised to reflect this error.
COMMENT 47: We are concerned that the discussion of ocean sand mining and
beach disposal (alternative 2) does not fully acknowledge the impacts to listed sea
turtles. The National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
note (1993:6):
Sand sources may be dissimilar from native beach sediments and can affect nest
site selection, digging behavior, incubation temperature (and hence sex ratios),
gas exchange parameters within incubating nets, hydric environment of the nest,
hatch success and hatchling emergence success (Mann, 1977; Ackerman, 1980;
Mortimer, 1982; Raymond, 1984a). Beach nourishment can result in severe
compaction or concretion of the beach. Trucking sand onto project beaches may
increase the level of compaction.
Significant reductions in nesting success have been documented on severely
compacted nourished beaches (Raymond, 1984a). Nelson and Dickerson (1988)
evaluated compaction levels at ten nourished east coast Florida beaches and
concluded that 50 percent were hard enough to inhibit nest digging, 30 percent
were questionable as to whether their hardness affected nest digging and 20
percent were probably not hard enough to affect nesting. They further
concluded that, in general, beaches nourished from offshore borrow sites are
harder than natural beaches, and, while some may soften over time through
erosion an accretion of sand, others remain hard for 10 years or more.
Nourished beaches often result in severe escarpments along the mid-beach and
can hamper or prevent access to nesting sites.
We request that these impacts be disclosed for the sea turtle species that have been
documented to nest in or near the project area (loggerhead, green, and leatherback).
RESPONSE: Please see response to BLF comment #44 above. Alternative 6 is the
recommended alternative. If beach nourishment (Alternative 2) is pursued in the
future, additional coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission will be required to fully address impacts to
nesting sea turtles.
COMMENT 48: We do not question the negative survey conclusions for the
seabeach amaranth in the project area. However, by maintaining the artificial dune,
and diminishing natural washover events, we believe that the alternatives will
adversely affect this species by reducing the creation of suitable habitat.
RESPONSE: Please see response to BLF Comment #44.
37
COMMENT 49: While we commend the DOT for including the discussion of
cumulative effects [of] the other coastal engineering activities in North Carolina, we
believe that a full review of cumulative effects should include a listing of similar
projects on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Many of the sensitive and listed species will
be adversely affected not only by North Carolina projects, but projects in these other
states. Some, such as the piping plover, are under threat from coastal engineering
projects on the breeding, migratory, and wintering grounds, and thus, never get a
break from the adverse effects of such activities.
RESPONSE: Please see response to DOI Comment # 25.
COMMENT 50: We do not believe that the activities can be passed off as
"relatively insignificant in scope," given the effects noted above. We believe that the
sheet pile (alternative 8), sand bag (alternatives 7 and 9), and sand mining and beach
deposition (alternative 2) alternatives would require an EIS, as such alternatives
would be a major federal action significantly affecting the human environment.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 51: For the reasons set forth above, we strongly disagree with the
conclusion that all the alternatives would not substantially impair the activities,
features, or attributes of the Seashore. Of the alternatives reviewed in the EA,
alternative 5 (with a 70-foot [21.3-meter] right of way) would most minimize
ecological harm to the Seashore.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. While Alternate 5 (Road relocation) may impact the
Seashore to a lesser extent, it does not meet the project purpose and need. The
Vulnerability Analysis indicates that, given the chosen hypothetical storm scenario,
the roadway will be undermined at several locations in 2005. The presence of a
protective dune, as included in Alternative 6, is anticipated to provide protection of
the highway such that undermining would not occur under the chosen hypothetical
storm scenario. It is important to understand that the results of modeling performed
in conjunction with the Vulnerability Analysis are only to be used to help us
understand how the roadway might be effected under a certain sequence of storms.
COMMENT 52: In addition, we question the consistency of alternatives 2 and 6-9
with the legal mandates that govern management of the Seashore. The Organic Act
directs the NPS to "regulate the use" of the Seashore "by such means, and measures
that conform to the fundamental purpose of said parks, monuments and reservations,
which purpose is to conserve natural and historical objects and the wildlife therein
and to provide for the enjoyment of same in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." In addition to this
mandate, the enabling legislation contains a very restrictive limitation on the
management of lands:
Except for certain portions of the area deemed to be especially adaptable for
recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other
38
recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses
as needed, the said area shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness
and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall
be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the
unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing in this
area...
As discussed in this letter, the alternatives would cause severe adverse ecological
impacts to the Seashore. They will not leave the Park Service lands "unimpaired" for
future generations, nor will they conserve wildlife. In addition, the alternatives are
the antithesis of "wilderness."
RESPONSE: The Department of the Interior has determined that alternatives 2, 7, 8,
& 9 are unacceptable for placement in the National Seashore. They also determined
that Alternatives l and 5 are acceptable. Alternative 6 would be acceptable if it was
modified to reduce its area of impact. Alternative 6, which is now the recommended
alternative, has been reevaluated and reduced in size. A complete description of the
currently recommended plan can be found in Section II, Description of Proposed
Action, of this FONSI.
COMMENT 53: The "no impacts" to wetlands conclusion is clearly incorrect: the
EA, in another section, explicitly notes impacts to wetlands depending on the width of
the right of way.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. No wetland impacts are associated with the
approximate 7-foot (2.1-meter) elevation for Alternative 5 or 6.
COMMENT 54: The "minimal effects" determination to shorebirds is incorrect, for
the reasons noted above.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Please see responses to BLF Comments # 42 and
43.
COMMENT 55: In the event DOT intends to proceed with alternatives 2,7,8, or 9,
we would strongly disagree with the implied conclusion that an informal consultation
is adequate to comply with the requirements of the ESA. Clearly, for those
alternatives, formal consultation, including preparation of a biological opinion, is
required. Failure to enter into consultation would leave DOT subject to liability for
violations of the take prohibition.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The text of the Final 4(f) evaluation has been
revised. Alternative 6 has been selected as the recommended alternative and, as
proposed, is not anticipated to adversely affect federally protected species.
COMMENT 56: We request that DOT comprehensively evaluate the bridge and
ferry options, not only as part of the 4(f) statement, but also as part of the EA.
Realistically, we believe that one, or both, will be implemented within the next 10 to
39
15 years; in addition, ferry use may be necessary even sooner, depending on the
intensity and number of storms that occur in the future. As hinted at by the brief 4(f)
discussion, there are positive aspects to both alternatives that are not discussed in the
EA.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. See also response to DOI Comments #1 and #5
and response to BLF comment # 5.
Defenders of Wildlife (DOW)
COMMENT 1: North Carolina's Outer Banks are the stage for magnificent and
dynamic natural processes. Exposure to severe annual storm events, coupled with
background wave and wind actin continually erode and deposit sediments, in effect
causing these barrier islands to migrate. Any permanent infrastructure on these
islands, including NC 12, will continually have to battle the forces of nature. This is
why we strongly recommend long-range, comprehensive planning of the
transportation system of the Outer Banks that takes coastal dynamics and the needs of
wildlife into account
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 2: The current effort to conduct small-scale environmental assessments
for individual "hot spots" along NC 12, while necessary, should not inhibit, exclude,
or prevent any potential alternatives developed during long-range, comprehensive
planning.
RESPONSE: Comprehensive planning for the area is ongoing. Temporary solutions
to problems in hot spots will not restrict the evaluation of alternatives.
COMMENT 3: Nor should these small-scale, short-term, "band-aid" projects detract
from the urgent need for long-range, comprehensive planning.
RESPONSE: See response to DOF Comment # 2, above.
COMMENT 4: The Outer Banks, including the study area, are also home to a
diverse complement of species, including federally protected sea turtle and piping
plover. Certainly, alternatives 7 and 9, which include construction that "is likely to
adversely affect sea turtles", are unacceptable and should be rejected. All of the
alternatives potentially affect piping plover and should be re-analyzed accounting for
the recent piping plover critical habitat designation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Federal Register 41781-41812). The FWS critical habitat designation
recognizes the importance of the 'physical features necessary for maintaining the
natural processes that support these habitat components" (Federal Register 41784).
Habitat components for the piping plover "are found in geologically dynamic coastal
areas" (Federal Register 41784).
40
RESPONSE: The US Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the project area
is not in any of the areas currently proposed for designation as critical habitat for
wintering piping plovers. They have also determined that Alternatives 1, 5, & 6 are
not likely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species.
COMMENT 5: The FWS further highlight the importance of washover areas for
piping plovers defined as "broad, unvegetated zones with little or no topographic
relief, that are formed and maintained by the action of hurricanes, storm surge, or
other extreme wave action" (Federal Register 41784). These important geologic
events are exactly what the proposed project is trying to prevent, so clearly all of the
alternatives except the "no build" alternative will have impacts on piping plover.
These impacts should be analyzed and new alternatives that avoid these impacts or
measures to mitigate these impacts should be developed.
RESPONSE: See response to the previous comment.
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing
Following the distribution of the Environmental Assessment, an informational
meeting followed by an open forum public hearing was held at Cape Hatteras School in
Buxton on August 21, 2000. A summary of the comments received as part of the public
hearing is included as Appendix B. Copies of the public hearing notice and a copy of the
handout presented at the public hearing are included as Appendix C to this FONSI. Over 200
citizens attended the public hearing. Overall, the comments made by the attendees stressed
the importance of keeping NC 12 open for the safety of the residents and the health of the
local economy. Most comments indicated strong support for beach nourishment along NC
12, in the project area and at other points on the barrier island. In addition, several comments
were made asking that the curves in the area of the existing road relocation be straightened
out as several deaths have occurred in that area within the past year.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
On page 4 of the EA, it incorrectly stated that Alternative 8 was not likely to
adversely affect sea turtles. The correct affect determination is found on page 59 of the EA,
which states: "Because of the uncertainties associated with the potential erosion impacts of
this alternative and the possibility that construction or maintenance work would encroach into
the sea turtle nesting season, it has been determined that this alternative may affect the
loggerhead sea turtle." This sentence should be inserted to replace the incorrect sentence on
page 4. Affect determinations for the green, Kemp's ridley, and leatherback sea turtles were
identical to that made for the loggerhead.
On page 56 of the Environmental Assessment, the northern limit of nesting for the
loggerhead sea turtle is incorrectly given as Ocracoke Inlet. The species has actually been
recorded to nest into Virginia.
41
Table 14, on page 91 of the EA, incorrectly states that the "Road Relocation"
alternative would have a negligible or no effect on natural systems and would allow coastal
processes to continue naturally. This should be revised to read that Alternative 5 (Road
Relocation) would have a negative effect on natural systems and would not allow natural
coastal process to continue since maintenance of the existing dunes would occur.
VII. FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
1. Introduction
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.
The alternative being recommended (Alternative 6) will use land from the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore; thus, the requirements of Section 4(f) are applicable. It will maintain the
level of access to the resources now provided by existing NC 12 within the Seashore.
This chapter documents the location and characteristics of the Section 4(f) property that
will be used by the recommended alternative, describes the impacts to the property, discusses
why no prudent and feasible avoidance alternatives were identified, addresses measures to
minimize harm, and describes coordination with officials having jurisdiction over the
affected Section 4(f) property.
2. Description of Section 4(f) Resource
The Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore) in Dare and Hyde Counties stretches
north to south across 30,318 acres of land on three islands: Bodie, Hatteras, and Ocracoke
(see Figure 1.) These barrier islands have a wealth of sand dunes, marshes, and woodland.
The Cape Hatteras National Seashore was established in 1953 and has contributed to the
area's increase in tourism. It was the first in a series of national seashores established to
preserve significant segments of unspoiled barrier islands along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts.
The Cape Hatteras National Seashore contains 30,319 acres (12,270 hectares) of land and 70
miles (112.7 kilometers) of open and virtually unspoiled beach. The Seashore is owned by
the federal government and administered by the National Park Service. Where the
boundaries of the Seashore overlap with those of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, the
National Park Service takes responsibility for visitors and visitor facilities and the US Fish
and Wildlife Service is responsible for wildlife management.
Eight communities exist within the Seashore's authorized boundaries (seven on Hatteras
Island) but are not park lands. NC 12, a hard-surfaced, two-lane road serves the communities
42
and the Seashore. It is approximately 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) in length within the
Seashore. NC 12 is the only road serving motor vehicle travel through the Seashore and is
designated on the Federal-Aid Highway System as an intermodal connector. NC 12 was built
and is maintained by the State of North Carolina under an agreement with the National Park
Service. The Bonner Bridge provides access from Bodie Island to Hatteras Island. Access to
Ocracoke Island is via the Hatteras Inlet ferry between Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island
and two NCDOT ferry routes operating between Ocracoke Island and the mainland.
Seashore facilities on Bodie Island include:
• Whalebone Junction Information Center
• Cocrina Beach Day Use Facility
• Bodie Island Visitor Center and Nature Trail
• Bodie Island Lighthouse
• Oregon Inlet Campground
• Oregon Inlet Marina and Fishing Center
Seashore facilities on Hatteras Island are:
• Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge Nature Trail
• Rodanthe fishing pier
• Chicamacomico US Life Saving Service Station
• Salvo Campground
• Little Kinnakeet US Life Saving Service Station
• Avon fishing pier
• Hatteras Island Visitor Center and nature trail
• Cape Hatteras Lighthouse
• Cape Point Campground and Day Use Facilities
• Frisco Campground
• Frisco area fishing pier
Seashore facilities on Ocracoke Island are:
• Ocracoke Campground and nature trail
• Ocracoke Island Visitor Center
• Ocracoke Island Lighthouse
Statistics provided by the National Park Service indicate that visitors to the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore (irrespective of where they are staying) increased from 1,263,837 in 1985
to 2,200,208 in 1990. Visitation in 1999 was 2,772,420. Generally, not only is the use of
Hatteras Island increasing, but an increasing proportion of residents and visitors to Dare
County are taking day trips to the Hatteras Island portion of the Seashore. NC 12 is used by
most visitors traveling to Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island facilities.
Visitors to the Seashore enjoy a wide variety of recreational opportunities that relate to the
unique natural, undeveloped, and protected character of the area. Activities along the beach
area include: sunbathing, beachcombing, swimming, fishing, off-road vehicles, birding, and
43
kayaking. Soundside activities include windsurfing, swimming, outboarding, fishing, birding.
off-road vehicles, kayaking, and canoeing.
The length of the proposed project is approximately 9,500 linear feet (2,896 meters),
approximately 2.5 % of the length of the Seashore along Bodie, Hatteras, and Ocracoke
Islands.
3. Applicable Regulations, Policies, and Management Plan for the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore
The General Management Plan and Amended Environmental Assessment for Cape
Hatteras National Seashore (1984) and the Revised Statement for Management (1991) serve
as the National Park Service plans for Cape Hatteras National Seashore. They provide for the
preservation of the cultural resources and the flora, fauna, and natural physiographic
conditions, while allowing appropriate recreational use and public access to the oceanside
and soundside shores. Included in the plan are provisions for controlling off-road vehicles,
providing for accessible oceanside and soundside sites, allowing natural seashore dynamics to
occur, controlling exotic vegetation, preparing natural and cultural resource studies, and
cooperating with state and local governments to achieve mutual planning objectives.
In 1973, the National Park Service, realizing the problems that the managed dune system
caused to the estuaries, announced a change of policy with respect to management of the
Seashore. The government no longer attempts to stabilize the Outer Banks artificially but lets
natural processes take their course. In its 1991 Revised Statement of Management, the Park
Service affirmed a policy of managing the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in ways "that
support the natural processes of barrier island dynamics..." (National Park Service, 1991).
This Environmental Assessment for interim improvements to NC 12 between Buxton and
Avon assumes that this long term policy has not changed despite recent threats to NC 12
within the Seashore.
No new Seashore facilities are planned in the project area. The Seashore management
plan focuses on restoration and maintenance of existing facilities. It also supports the use of
bicycles along NC 12.
The following regulations, policies, and excerpts from the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore Management Plan are applicable to the project area:
National Park Service Organic Act of 1916: "... to conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objets and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment
of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations."
An Act to Amend the Act of October 2,1968, An Act to Establish a Redwood
National Park in the State of California, and_for other Purposes, 1978 (92 Stat. 163):
The first section of the Act of August 18, 1970 (84 Stat. 825), is amended by adding
the following: "Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that the promotion
and regulation of the various areas of the National Park system, as defined in section
44
2 of this Act, shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by the
first section of the Act of August 25, 1916 [NPS Organic Act], to the common benefit
of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities shall be
construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be
conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System
and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these
various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directed and
specifically provided by Congress."
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (PL 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280). This act states a
national policy to "preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or
enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zones" and to encourage and assist the
states in implementing management programs to achieve wise use of land and water
resources of coastal zones. Federal agencies are required to comply, as much as
possible, with applicable, approved state coastal zone management programs.
NPS Management Policies (1988): "In natural zones, natural shoreline processes
(erosion, deposition, dune formation, inlet formation and shoreline migration) that are
not influenced by human actions will be allowed to continue without abatement
except where control measures are required by law. The National Park Service will
comply with provisions of State coastal zone management plans prepared under the
Coastal Zone Management Act when such provisions are more environmentally
restrictive than NPS management zoning." (Chapter 4:20)
Endangered Species Act of 1973.(PL 93-205, 87 Stat. 884). This act requires federal
agencies to ensure that their activities (authorized, funded, or carried-out) will not
jeopardize the existence of any endangered or threatened species of plant or animal
(including fish) or result in the destruction or deterioration of critical habitat of such
species.
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Enabling Legislation: An Act to provide_ror the
establishment or the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in the State of North Carolina,
and for other purposes, approved August 17, 1937 (50 State. 669): "Except for certain
portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses,
particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of
similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed, the said area shall
be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and no development of the project
or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be
incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic
conditions now prevailing in this area."
General Management Plan, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 1984: "The key issue
in managing the park lands is the perpetuation of shoreline and dune processes upon
which the barrier island ecosystems depend. However, there is a conflict between this
objective and that of maintaining the existing transportation link to the mainland. The
impacts of NC 12 on coastal processes and the long-term cost of maintaining the
highway could be considerably reduced by relocating the road out of potential
45
overwash areas or elevating it to avoid interference with overwash and inlet
formation. The National Park Service will cooperate with the state of North Carolina
in developing a long-term plan for maintaining the transportation link. In the interim,
temporary remedial actions, including dune stabilization, may be necessary to
maintain access to the national seashore and villages."
NPS-77, Natural Resources Management Guideline (1991)
• Chapter 2, page 95, Marine Resources Management: The National Park Service
will manage the natural resources of the national park system to maintain,
rehabilitate, and perpetuate their inherent integrity.
• Chapter 2, page 98, Disturbance: Many marine organisms and even ecosystems
are well adapted to harsh physical extremes, but are very sensitive to unnatural
perturbations and are slow to recover. Filling areas with dredge spoil or upland
sediment to create more "usable" shoreline is also habitat disruption. All of these
activities can affect substrate types, currents, and wave patterns, which changes
community structure.
• Chapter 2, page 100, Adjacent Land Use: Adjacent land use practices can have a
significant effect on coastal resources and processes of park units. ... Dredging
increases sediment loading and potentially introduces toxins into the water
column. Dredging and filling both modify and destroy habitat such as coastal
wetlands and seagrass beds. Before implementation of dredging or major
construction activities in or outside of the park that could affect coastal resources
in the park, the potential impact to the complex coastal processes should be
carefully identified, and the least damaging approach should be implemented.
The site should then be monitored to assess and document the impact on the
resource.
• Chapter 2, pages 110-121, Geological Resources Management: Geological
resources are present in all natural parks. Surficial geologic features are especially
important for their scenic grandeur, their provision of a structural foundation for
biotic system, and as a primary interface with most cycling ecosystems. They are
important for recreation, as well.
• Chapter 2, page 118, Coastal Areas/Shorelines: Coastal and shoreline
management entrails more than just the geologic resource itself. The migration of
barrier islands, sand bars, and dunes, the erosion of beaches and shorelines, and
the creation and destruction of lagoons and inlets have impacts beyond the
management of the geologic resource solely for NPS purposes. Homes,
businesses, the shipping industry, tourism, boating, fishing, and other coastal
activities are all greatly affects by how shorelines are managed. Often this is out
of NPS control. Management must consider federal, state, and local laws,
ordinances, and policies pertaining to shoreline management.
It has been the National Park Service's long-term policy to let its managed dunes erode
and for the natural coastal processes to occur. However, the National Park Service also
permits, by regulation, the existence of a right-of-way on Hatteras Island for the purpose of
NCDOT maintenance of the highway. As such, the National Park Service strives to allow for
maintenance of the highway corridor while allowing the natural coastal processes to continue.
In addition, NC 12 provides the sole vehicular access through the Seashore, and visitation to
46
and enjoyment of the areas of the Seashore within and south of the project area are largely
dependent upon maintenance of the NC 12 corridor.
4. Natural Resources
The Seashore provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. Thirteen biotic
communities/habitats have been identified in the project area. A description of these habitats
is included in the "Biotic Communities" section of the Environmental Assessment.
Thirteen federally listed protected species potentially occur within Dare County. Eight
have been documented in the project area and/or have suitable habitat within the project area.
Five of these specieb, the loggerhead sea turtle, the Atlantic leatherback sea turtle, the green sea
turtle, the hawksbill sea turtle, and the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, are occasional visitors to the
waters of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore area. The other species are the piping plover,
roseate tern, and seabeach amaranth. These findings have been affirmed through informal
consultation (Section 7) with the USFWS. Natural resources in the project area and potential
impacts associated with each alternative were described in detail in the Environmental
Assessment.
5. Impacts of Alternatives on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore
The alternatives that were considered are all located within the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore. Descriptions of the alternatives considered are provided below in Table 3. A more
detailed evaluation of these alternatives was included in the Environmental Assessment.
The level of access to this resource provided by NC 12 would have been maintained to
some extent by all alternatives under consideration. However, the "No Build" alternative is
not anticipated to survive the 7- to 10-year life expectancy of the project and, therefore, does
not meet the intended purpose of the proposed project.
The recommended alternative (Alternative 6) will require the permanent use of the
Seashore. A summary of the impacts by each alternative under consideration was included in
Table 12 of the Environmental Assessment.
While some impacts will occur to the Seashore, activities, features, or attributes of the
park resource will not be impaired substantially by the alternatives because:
• NC 12 was planned to serve the park and the access it provides must be maintained.
• The alternatives under consideration will be in the same general corridor as the
existing roadway.
In the vicinity of the alternatives under consideration, natural systems will be affected.
Since all of the alternatives under consideration are wholly within the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, the impacts discussed for the alternatives under consideration in the Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact are applicable to this discussion of
impacts.
47
TABLE 3. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, CONSTRUCTION
FOOTPRINTS, AND IMPACT ACREAGE
Construction Impact
Alternative Description Footprint Acreage
Required (acres)**
(feet)*
Alternative 1 - "No Build" Routine maintenance continues. None 0
Alternative 2 - Beach Extension of beach and formation
Nourishment of dunes using sand from off-shore; 105.9 121.7
road remains in existing location.
Alternative 5 - Road Relocate road only. Maintenance
Relocation of dunes continues, as needed, in 8.6 26.8
response to blow-outs during
storms.
Alternative 6 - Road Relocate road and build a dune to 32.1 47.6
Relocation with Dune minimize ocean overwash.
RECOMMENDED
Alternative 7 - Road Relocate roadway. Protect roadway
Relocation with from severance by a cut in the 32.1 61.1
Subsurface Sandbags island by constructing sandbags
and Dune below ground. The dune will help
minimize overwash from ocean.
Alternative 8 - Road Relocate roadway. Protect roadway
Relocation with from severance by a cut in the
Sheetpiling and Dune island by constructing a sheet pile 32.1 61.1
walls below ground. The dune will
help minimize overwash from
ocean.
Alternative 9 - Road Relocate roadway. Protect roadway
Relocation with Surface from severance by a cut in the
Sandbags and Sand island by constructing sandbags 27.4 57.4
Covering above ground. The fortified dune
will help minimize overwash from
ocean.
Note: Alternative 3, 4, and 10 were eliminated from further study as they were determined to
not meet the intended purpose and need of the proposed project. (*multiply feet by 0.3048 to
convert to meters, **multiply acres by 0.4047 to convert to hectares)
The National Park Service is required by deed from the State of North Carolina to allow a
public road on its property. Therefore, there is no prudent or feasible interim alternative
except to use parkland for this purpose. As such, there are unusual factors involved in the
use of alternatives that avoid this property.
The following paragraphs summarize the Environmental Assessment's findings on key
Seashore-related issues.
a) Facilities, Recreational Activities, and Scenery
The alternatives under consideration will not impact any existing facilities.
No new facilities or activities are planned by the National Park Service within or near
the proposed project area.
48
Access to the informal vehicular paths between NC 12 and the Pamlico Sound
will be impacted by the alternatives that involve roadway relocation. In the event a
roadway relocation alternative is selected as the preferred alternative, NCDOT will
coordinate with the National Park Service regarding the reconnection of these paths to
NC 12.
The beach nourishment alternative will result in substantial changes in views
from the Seashore due to the creation of a 100-foot (30.5 meters) wide beach (beyond
the toe of the dune). Alternatives that include road relocation will also result in some
view changes. The relocated road will be up to 150 feet (45.7 meters) closer to the
Pamlico Sound than the existing road. Dunes will also be included with four of the
road relocation alternatives, which will result in some changes in the view shed from
travelers on NC 12. None of the alternatives under consideration will result in
changed activities of the Seashore.
Carbon monoxide (CO) levels exceeding National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) will not be generated by any of the alternatives under
consideration. The noise levels will not be exceeded at sensitive receptors with any of
the alternatives under consideration. No traffic noise abatement will be needed or is
proposed.
b) Coastal Conditions
The "build" alternatives under consideration are designed to maintain the
integrity and viability of the roadway with minimal interruption of traffic service due
to a moderate storm event between Buxton and Avon for a period of 5-10 years until a
long-term solution is in place. As such, combinations of beach nourishment, roadway
relocation, dune construction, and other stabilization methods were analyzed,
including the use of sheet piling and sandbags (both subsurface and above-ground
sandbags).
Each alternative under consideration, except for the "No Build" alternative
(Alternative 1), provides some degree of protection of the access provided by the
highway. The access provided by the highway can be maintained by reducing the
amount of sand overwash on the roadway, the amount of ocean or soundside flooding,
or the potential for a severance of the roadway due to a cut through the island. Features
such as sandbags, sheetpiling, or even an increased beach profile (as proposed under
the Beach Nourishment alternative) provide increased assurance against a severance of
the roadway. Table 2, Summary of Potential Impacts to Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, lists each alternative considered and if they are designed to allow natural
coastal processes to continue.
C) Natural Systems
The biotic community (excluding man-dominated areas) impacts within the
Seashore for the preferred alternatives were summarized in the Environmental
Assessment. Wetlands will not be impacted by any of the alternatives under
consideration except those calling for relocating the road at a higher elevation.
49
The alternatives considered will have a minimal effect on the birds using
Seashore lands. Dredging in the surf zone will cause temporary increases in turbidity
and potential decreases in dissolved oxygen levels within the immediate vicinity of
dredging activities. This temporary increase in sedimentation within the immediate
area of dredging will be temporary and short-term.
With the possible exception of the piping plover and loggerhead sea turtle,
protected species impacts are not expected. Coordination with the USFWS resulted
in the resolution of potential impacts and guidelines for addressing each of the species
that could occur potentially in the project area (March 27, 2000 meeting minutes on
USFWS Iniormal Consultation from Julie A. Hunkins to file). The NCDOT and the
FHWA will consult further on the approach to avoiding or minimizing impacts to
protected species as project design progresses. A complete discussion of natural
resource impacts in the Environmental Assessment.
d) Construction
Construction of the alternatives under consideration and potential removal of
the existing road will be governed by NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads
and Structures (July 1995).
A construction staging area may be required. If a construction staging area is
required, the NCDOT will coordinate with the NPS to identify sites if none can be
located outside the National Seashore boundaries.
Traffic will be maintained on NC 12 throughout construction. Construction
vehicles operating on NC 12 could cause motorists to encounter brief periods of delay
and disruption. A traffic control plan will be developed, as per current criteria.
Overall, construction noise impacts will be minimal.
e) Summary of Impacts to Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Table 4 summarizes the potential impacts to the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore that are anticipated to occur as a result of each alternative. These impacts do
not include temporary impacts that may be realized during the construction period.
This assessment of impacts was developed collaboratively with the National Park
Service.
During construction, there may be some construction activities that preclude use
of areas of the beach or sound through the project area. For instance, construction of a
beach fill and dunes associated with the beach nourishment alternative and periodic
maintenance activities would impair use of the beach during the period of time that
sand is being pumped. Likewise, dune construction activities associated with several
of the alternatives under consideration would limit access to the beach during
construction. Continuous access along the informal vehicle paths between the existing
roadway and the Pamlico Sound would be severed during construction of alternatives
50
that involve roadway relocation. Access to these informal vehicular paths will be
permitted to the sound as can be provided in a safe and practicable manner.
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO
CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE
Recr eation
Activity Beach Use Sound Use Natural
• Sunbathing • Windsurfing Scenery Natural Coastal
• Beachcombing • Swimming (Impact on Systems Processes
• Swimming • Out boarding Primary . Flora Allowed to
• P-hing • Fishing Viewsheds) • Fauna Continue
• Off-road Vehicles • Birding • Formation
• Birding • Off-road Vehicles of Inlets
• Kayaking • Kayaking • Overwash
Alternative • Canoeing
No Build Negligible or Negligible or Negligible o Negative No
no effect no effect no effect
Beach No
Nourishment Negligible or Negligible or Negligible or Negative
no effect no effect no effect effect
Road
Relocation Negligible or Negative effect Negligible Negative No
no effect effect effect
Road
Relocation w/ Negligible or Negative effect Negative Negative No
Dune no effect effect effect
Road
Relocation w/ Negligible or Negative effect Negative Negative No
Dune and no effect effect effect
Keved-in
Sandbags
Road
Relocation w/ Negligible or Negative effect Negative Negative No
dune and no effect effect effect
sheetpiling
Road
Relocation w/ Negligible or Negative effect Negative Negative No
dune and no effect effect effect
surface
sandbags
51
6. Avoidance Alternatives
All alternatives under consideration would involve the use of Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, including the "no build" alternative, which calls for routine maintenance to
continue as it has in the past in a reactive manner. The identification of avoidance
alternatives is difficult because the entire project area lies within this Section 4(f) property.
In addition, one of the principal functions of NC 12 is to provide access to the Seashore on
Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands. If NC 12 were severed and the access it provides were not
replaced, the ability of Seashore users to reach many of the Seashore facilities and activities
would be substantially impaired and the utility of the Seashore would be diminished
substantially. Furthermore, access to communities along NC 12, especially those south of the
project area, depem! on this highway for their existence.
Potential avoidance options were considered: a bridge across Pamlico Sound from Avon
to Buxton or ferry service between Avon and Hatteras Inlet. The pros and cons of each of the
avoidance alternatives are provided below.
Bridee (across Pamlico Sound or from Avon to Buxton)
Pros
• Avoids direct impacts to Seashore
• Is considered a long-term option
• Would eliminate need for continued maintenance of NC 12 and associated impacts at
project site
Cons
• Long-term option - reaches far beyond the scope or purpose and need of the proposed
project; the bridging option between Avon and Buxton is being considered as a long-
term option to be in place by the end of the life expectancy of this interim project.
• Could reduce access to parts of the Seashore currently served by this portion of NC
12, depending upon how existing roadway would be maintained and by whom
• Expensive (not a primary consideration under Section 4(f))
Ferry (between Avon and Hatteras Inlet)
Pros
• Would eliminate need for continued maintenance of NC 12 and associated impacts at
project site
Cons
• Avon dock area too small; would require re-construction of ferry docks with
associated impacts (relocatees, wetlands, etc.)
• Would increase time required to get from mainland to communities south of project
area, creating potential adverse economic impacts associated with diminished access
to the area
• Impacts due to dredging in sound (SAV etc.)
52
7. Proposed Improvements
The proposed improvements consist of relocating the roadway and constructing dunes, as
detailed in Section II of the FONSI. Alternative 1 (No Build) and Alternative 5 (Road
Relocation) do not meet the intended purpose and need of the proposed project. Alternatives
2, 6, 7, 8, & 9 all meet the project purpose and need but have varying degrees of impact on the
National Seashore. The Department of the Interior (DOI), in a letter dated October 10, 2000,
has determined that Alternatives 2, 7, 8, and 9 are not acceptable for placement within the
National seashore. DOI also determined that Alternative 6 (recommended) could be made
acceptable if it could be reduced in scope. A reevaluation of this alternative has been
performed and it has now been reformulated. The modified Alternative 6 is described in
Section II of the FONSI. It results in a 22% reduction in impacts to parklands (13.5 acres [5.3
hectares]) from Alternative 6 as previously described in the Environmental Assessment.
8. Measures to Minimize Harm
The purpose of the project is to maintain the transportation access provided by NC 12
through the project area. In that NC 12 is the only vehicular access to and from the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore, loss of access through the project area would severely diminish
the public's ability to use parts of the Seashore south of the project area. Keeping NC 12
open and regularly accessible to the public and Seashore visitors is key to the enjoyment and
operation of the National Seashore.
Potential approaches to minimize harm to the Cape Hatteras National were considered.
They include:
• Analysis of different roadway alignments to avoid wetland impacts and impact to the
Seashore
• Analysis of different methods of providing protection to NC 12 (beach nourishment, sheet
piling, sandbags, and dunes)
• Analysis of different dune heights and roadway elevations
• Removal and restoration of the old roadway with native vegetation for road relocation
options
• Use of contaminant-free sand and compatible sand for alternatives that involve beach
nourishment, dune construction, and/or sandbag installation.
• Full comparison of alternatives with tradeoffs for impacts to the Seashore
The proposed project includes all possible measures to minimize harm to the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore. Minimizing the size and extent of the protective dune has reduced
the impact of the recommended alternative to the maximum extent practicable. Informal jeep
roads that currently connect to NC 12 will be reconnected to the relocated road if desired by
the National Park Service. Access to the public parking area at Canadian Hole will be
maintained throughout project construction. All sand used in constructing the dune will be
beach compatible, containing no more than 10% silt or clay. Sedimentation and erosion
control measures will be used to minimize offsite impacts of construction. The proposed road
53
has been aligned to avoid all wetland areas. Work will be conducted in a manner to avoid any
impacts to federally listed species.
9. Coordination
Consultation with the National Park Service (NPS) was initiated at the beginning of the
project development process. The NPS:
• Provided information on the significance and use of the lands within their jurisdictions.
This information is presented in various sections in the Environmental Assessment.
• Were consulted in developing the assessment of impacts to recreational activities,
scenery, and natural systems, in addition to the determination of whether the alternatives
under consideration allow natural coastal processes to continue.
• Were given the opportunity to participate in the project scoping processes.
• Sent representatives to government officials meetings.
• Sent representatives to the NEPA/404 Merger Team meetings.
• Sent representatives to Outer Banks Task Force meetings where various issues regarding
the NC 12 corridor were discussed.
• Participated in a meeting addressing Section 7 issues.
Issues raised in connection with impacts, avoidance alternatives, and measures to
minimize harm were as follows:
• Alternatives should be considered that will be compatible with the dynamic nature of the
coastal barrier island complex.
• Resource impacts related to the construction and eventual removal of the alternatives under
consideration should be evaluated and discussed in the Environmental Assessment.
• Sand compatibility and sediment contamination analyses should be conducted for material
that is proposed for use as fill in sandbags, for dune construction, or beach nourishment.
• Construction methodology and associated potential impacts should be assessed.
• A vulnerability analysis of the three "hot spots" to the north should be made, in addition to
the project area, to ensure that the proposed alternatives are not "over-designed" and to
compare the accessibility through these areas during and immediately following certain
storm events.
The above issues are discussed in the Environmental Assessment.
This project has been formally coordinated with the National Park Service, who has
jurisdiction over this Section 4(f) resource and with the Headquarters Offices of Department of
the Interior. Their October 10, 2000 letter discussing the alternatives is included in Appendix
A. Their comments on the project and the Section 4(f) evaluation, in addition to responses, are
presented in Section V of this FONSI.
54
10. Applicability Criteria of Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
A programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation may be applied by the Federal Highway
Administration if certain criteria, as outlined in CFR 31116 (August 19,1987), are met. The
following summarizes this project's applicability to a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation
and approval:
1) The proposed project is designed to maintain the integrity of the highway facility
between Buxton and Avon. The proposed improvements will occur within the same
general corridor and immediately adjacent to the existing facility.
2) The project, as fully described above, lies wholly within (and, therefore, adjacent to)
the Cape Hatteras National Seashore - a publicly owned recreational land.
3) The total acreage of the Cape Hatteras Seashore is 30,318 acres. The proposed project
is anticipated to impact approximately 47.6 acres of land, including land that will be
used for both "permanent" improvements (roadway construction) and "temporary"
construction easement (dune construction). The use of 47.6 acres represents an impact
to less than 0.2% of the total Seashore land. Therefore, the amount of land to be
acquired from the Section 4(f) resource does not exceed the threshold values. (If the
site is greater than 100 acres, the maximum amount of land to be acquired cannot
exceed I percent of the site).
4) The proximity impacts of the project on the remaining Section 4(f) land (30,270 acres)
will not impair the use of such land for its intended purpose.
5) The Cape Hatteras National Seashore, through the Department of the Interior, have
agreed, in writing, of the assessment of impacts of the proposed project on, and
mitigation for, the Section 4(f) resource (see DOI letter in Appendix A).
6) The project does not involve Section 4(f) land that has been purchased with funds
under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration
Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act, or similar laws. The lands are encumbered with a
federal interest (the National Park Service) for the purposes of a national seashore. The
National Park Service - Cape Hatteras Group has been integrally involved during
project development and decision-making process for the preferred alternative. The
Department of Interior -- National Park Service (Cape Hatteras Group) has indicated
the agency would not object to approval for use of the Seashore lands provided that the
project commitments are fulfilled.
7) An Environmental Assessment was prepared for the proposed project, and it has been
determined a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for this project and the
recommended alternative, as proposed. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement
is not required.
11. Conclusion
Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use
of land from the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and the proposed action includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore resulting from
such use. The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
approved on December 23, 1986.
55
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the Environmental
Assessment and upon comments received from federal, state and local agencies and the
public, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal
Highway Administration that this project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the
human or natural environment. The recommended alternative for the proposed project is not
controversial from an environmental standpoint. No significant impacts to natural,
ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are expected. The proposed project is consistent with
local plans and will not disrupt any communities. In view of the above evaluation, it has
been determined a I inding of No Significant Impact is applicable for this project. Therefore,
neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis is required.
56
15'X15' Dune
15 ft

Tic into existing
dune with 8'x8' dun(
Transition from
15'x15' dune to 8'x8' dun
15'x15'dune -51
Transition from 8'x8'
dune to 15'x 15' dune -50
Begin at existing
dune with 8'x8' dtmc -450
Project Study Area
trance to Parking Lot
uxton/Canadian Hole)
8'X8' Dune
8 ft
Study
txton)
Bu xton. shp
Hvvyl2.shp
13uxtontln
Breakllnve
Hard
Soft
Elevation Range
M 2 -3.918
- 3.918 - 6.946
® 6.946 - 7.976
(-? 7.976 -10.004
10.004 -12.033
0 12.033 - 14.062
_ 14.062 -16.091
?_77s 16.091 - 18.119
[?-'?,] 18.119 - 20.148
- 20.148 - 22.177
22.177 -24.206
24106 - 26.236
26136 - 28.264
28164 - 30.292
30292 - 32.321
32.321 - 34.36
-a.1-2
N
W E
S
Figure 1 "- Transects from Vulnerability Study and Proposed Dune Dimensions
i w it (impact wtam)
Appendix A
Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
q DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ?\\\I I// © WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 AUG 3Q 2=
IN REPLY REFER TO August 29, 2000
STATE HIGHWAY
Regulatory Division }1DMIMISTTOR
Action ID No. 200001121, Interim Improvements to NC Highway 12, TIP R-3116C
Ms. Julie A. Hunkins
Assistant State Highway Administrator
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Dear Ms. Hunkins:
Reference the July 28, 2000 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Environmental
Assessment (EA) that described the impacts associated with seven alternatives designed to
provide interim protective measures to an approximately 11,000 foot segment of NC Highway
12, north of Buxton, Dare County, North Carolina. As you are aware, this project is being
reviewed pursuant to the NEPA/404 merger process. In previous correspondence we have
provided concurrence on the project purpose and need and alternatives to be carried forward in
the NEPA document. After soliciting public and agency comment through our normal public
review process, we will be able to select the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA). We expect this public review process to be complete on or about
September 29, 2000 at which time we will be able to select the LEDPA for the project.
Overall, we feel that the EA adequately described the impacts associated with each of the
alternatives and at this time we have no further comments regarding this document.
As you are aware, a Department of the Army permit will be required if the beach
renourishment alternative is selected. We agree, as stated in the EA, that of the seven alternatives
under consideration, the beach renourishment alternative would have the most severe impacts on
the environment, including potential Essential Fish Habitat concerns, and would cost
significantly more than the other alternatives under consideration. The remaining alternatives,
with the exception of the "no-build" alternative, involve relocating the road west of its current
location with protection from storm events by sandbags, dunes, sheetpile, or various
combinations of these structures. Provided the road is relocated at or below an elevation of 7.0-
feet above mean sea level, no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will occur.
A-1
Based on our knowledge of the project area and from the information provided in the EA,
relocation of the road at or below 7-feet above msl, thus avoiding all impacts to waters and
wetlands is the least damaging alternative that has been identified to date. This opinion is subject
to the conditions and comments from the state and Federal resource agencies as well as the
general public pending the outcome of our public review process as described above.
Questions or comments may, be addressed to the undersigned, Wilmington Field Office,
Regulatory Division, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
?l
E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Mr. Tom McCartney
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
2
A-2

Mr. Ted Bisterfeld
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region IV
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. David Cox
Highway Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
11411-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
3
A-3

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER M August 29, 2000
Planning Services Section SEA 1 200
STATE HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATOR
Ms. Julie A. Hunkins, P.E.
Assistant State Highway Administrator
North Carolina Division of Highways
1536 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1536
Dear Ms. Hunkins:
This is in response to your letter of August 1, 2000, requesting our comments on
the "Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 12, Interim Improvements for Protection
NHF-12(7), State Project No. 8.1052301, TIP No. R-3116C" (Regulatory Branch Action
ID #200000889).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Our Regulatory Division has had significant coordination with your
department and will provide their comments on waters and wetlands by separate
correspondence. Enclosed are our comments on flood plains.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
?J
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Planning and
Environmental Branch
Enclosure
A-4
August 29, 2000
Page 1 of 1
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 12, Interim Improvements for Protection
NHF-12(7), State Project No. 8.1052301, TIP No. R-3116C" (Regulatory Branch Action
ID #200000889)
FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis. Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section. at [phone]
Based on a review of Panel 820 of the April 1993 Dare County Flood Insurance
Rate Map, all the land area along the portion of roadway considered for improvement is
within the 100-year flood plain. The existing road location is generally in Zone AE, with
the 100-year (base) flood elevation of 9 feet N.G.V.D. Portions of the road are shown
as the boundary between Zone AE and the velocity zone (VE). Base flood elevations in
the velocity zone along this section of highway range from 11 feet to 18 feet N.G.V.D
Although the project itself would be impacted by the 100-year flood event, it would not
be expected to significantly impact the 100-year flood plain. It is plausible that some
shifting of the velocity zone oceanward could occur in some locations with the beach
renourishment alternative. Since the flooding source is coastal storm surge, none of the
alternatives should affect the 100-year flood elevation.
A-5
?r
Mr. Len Sanderson
?4+`pf 0I C0%
•OIArp a ?+
State Highway Administrator
N.C. Division of Highways
1536 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1536
Attention Julie Hunkins
Dear Mr. Sanderson:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERC
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrati
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive N
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
August 28, 2000
?- r
AUG 31 2MO
STATE HIGHWAY ;
ADMINISTRATOR
Please reference your August 1, 2000, request for comments on the Federal Environmental
Assessment (EA) for NC 12, Interim Improvements for Protection NHF-12(7), State Project
8.1052301, TIP No. R-3116C, Dare County, North Carolina. The EA addresses a portion of NC
12 between Buxton and Avon that is vulnerable to frequent over wash and flooding from the Atlantic
Ocean. The purpose of the project is to maintain the roadway with a minimum interruption of traffic
service due to moderate storm events for an interim period of five to ten years. Seven alternatives
that provide temporary protection to NC 12 on Hatteras Island are considered. Included in the EA,
Section IV.C.3 is an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessment, pursuant to the EFH coordination
procedures required by the 1996 Amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSFCMA).
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the subject document and offers the
following comments for consideration.
General Comments
The EA describes the fishery resources, including EFH for Federally managed species, found in the
project area and considers a range of alternatives that address the purpose and need of the project.
Because Alternative 2: Existing road location - with beach nourishment is the only alternative that
directly impacts fishery resources by offshore dredging and beach disposal of dredged material, our
comments are limited to sections of the document that address Alternative 2.
The nearshore areas proposed for the discharge of dredged material provide habitat for a variety of
estuarine dependent and marine species. In addition these areas are designated as EFH for early life
stages of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), managed by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management
Council (SAFMC) and summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) and bluefish (Pomatomus
n9
saltatrix), managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC). The EA does
not adequately consider the adverse impacts of the discharge of dredged material on these resources.
In our EFH comments, several ongoing studies are noted that will provide new information that
should be considered before the use of beach nourishment is determined to be a viable alternative
for this project.
The EA describes the physical characteristics and benthic and pelagic species associated with the
proposed offshore borrow site, but the importance of overwintering habitat for migrating fish in the
vicinity of the borrow site is not adequately addressed. Species known to overwinter in this area
include striped bass (Morone saxatilis), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), and weakfish
(Cynoscion regalis). This area also is EFH for juvenile and adult summer flounder (Paralichthys
dentatus) and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), species managed by the MAFMC. No data is
provided to document that the material to be dredged is beach quality sand. Dredging sediments that
include silt and clay may result in suspended sediment load and turbidity that exceed the levels
predicted in the EA. The borrow site is located within an area where the above species concentrate
in the winter months because of favorable habitat conditions. If the turbidity levels in these waters
are higher than predicted, avoidance reactions and/or a reduction in feeding efficiency due to poor
visibility could be expected. These effects could reduce survival rates of fish subject to these
conditions.
The EA implies that beach nourishment will have minimal impacts on fisheries, but this conclusion
is poorly supported. Few peer-reviewed field studies on short-term effects of beach disposal of
dredged material have been published and no studies of long-tern effects are available. The
utilization of nearshore areas by fishery resources, especially larvae and juveniles, is becoming better
documented. The effects to these sensitive life stages from sediment suspensions, elevated turbidity,
and modification of the nearshore area warrants better information. The NMFS believes that a more
environmentally responsible plan for this project would be to eliminate Alternative 2 until current
studies, applicable to the nearshore areas of the project site, are completed and evaluated.
Specific Comments
II. PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
E. Characteristics of Existing Facilities
13. Sand Compatibility and Contaminants
Page 19• paragraph 1. The proposed borrow site is located in an area that provides habitat for
Federally managed fishes. To date the level of sampling is inadequate to determine that the area
meets the less than ten percent fines criteria to be considered for beach disposal. To avoid potential
impacts to fisheries at offshore borrow site, we recommend further exploration of the upland
"Hollowell" mining site described in the EA, as the source of any sand needed to construct this
project.
A-7
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
C. Environmental Impacts
1. Biotic Communities
Impacts of Alternatives
Page 49, paragraph 3. We disagree with the conclusion in this paragraph that dredging in the borrow
area will be relatively benign. The area offshore of the project site has been identified as important
overwintering habitat for Federally managed species. If silt and clay are associated with the
proposed borrow site, re-suspended sediments could adversely impact these resources. For this
project these impacts could be avoided by selection of one of the other seven alternatives.
3. Essential Fish Habitat
Impact summary for Essential Fish Habitat
Page 72, paragraph 3. We do not agree with the conclusion that "none" of the alternatives are
expected to "cause any adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat or EFH species". We believe that
Alternative 2 would impact EFH.
4. Water Quality
Impacts of Alternatives
Page 72, paragraph 5. This section correctly identifies Alternative 2 as potentially affecting water
quality by the re-suspension of sediments at the borrow and disposal sites. Limited information is
currently available regarding the sediment composition of the proposed borrow site. Furthermore,
we have a poor understanding of the impacts of the disposal of dredged material on early life history
stages of fishes. Therefore, we disagree with the conclusion that these impacts are minimal.
9. Cumulative Effects
Page 75, paragranh3. We disagree with the conclusion that the impacts of Alterative 2 are
insignificant and do not add to the cumulative impacts of beach nourishment. Limited data is
available to support a conclusion that the effects of beach nourishment on surf zone fishes are
minimal, therefore, it is premature to discount these potential impacts. In addition, the summary
of beach disposal activities in North Carolina found on page 76 does not include the work proposed
by the Corps of Engineers (COE) as a part of the Wilmington Harbor Improvement Project or the
beach nourishment projects proposed by the U.S. Marine Corps at Onslow Beach and by Carteret
County at Bogue Banks.
Essential Fish Habitat Comments
Transmittal of the EA initiated coordination procedures for EFH consultation pursuant to the
MSFCMA. Based on our review of the EA, we have determined that the EFH assessment does not
adequately address the project- related impacts to the following EFH types: Surf Zone (a subcategory
of marine water column) and Marine Water Column. The NMFS is convinced that dredging
3 A-
,r.
r
offshore for borrow material and the disposal of dredged material on the Dare County beaches would
adversely impact EFH. Furthermore, insufficient information is available to reach a conclusion on
the impacts of dredged material on early life history stages of Federally managed species. Therefore,
we do not concur with your conclusion that EFH impacts are minimal.
Red drum, managed by the SAFMC, and summer flounder and bluefish, managed by the MAFMC
use the surf zone in the project area as EFH. According to the EA approximately two miles of
beaches, incorporating about 76 acres of surf zone, will be periodically impacted by a total of 7.46-
million cubic yards of dredged material during the ten-year life of the project. This incremental
addition to the currently impacted shoreline is significant and adds to the cumulative area of North
Carolina shoreline impacted by beach nourishment on an annual basis. However the EA concludes
that neither the initial construction or the maintenance of the project for ten years will result in
significant impact. Information provided in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),
Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Dare County Beaches (Bodie Island Portion), Dare
County, North Carolina, Volumel, June 2000 indicates that up to 24 percent of the North Carolina
coastline undergoes beach nourishment on an annual basis. In this DEIS, the COE recognizes that
limited information is available regarding the impacts of beach nourishment on early life history
stages of fishes. Studies recently funded by the COE will examine the impacts ofbeach nourishment
on early life history stages of fishes as a part of the Wilmington Harbor Improvement Project. Also,
the COE's Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC), possibly in cooperation with
the National Ocean Service, Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, will soon conduct
studies of the effects of various levels of turbidity on larval fishes at the ERDC Field Research
Facility at Duck in Currituck County, North Carolina. These studies may clarify the impacts of the
disposal of dredged material in the surf zone. Therefore, we believe that any consideration of
Alternative 2 should be deferred until these studies are completed and the results evaluated.
We are also concerned that the proposed borrow site is located in an important overwintering area
for juvenile and adult summer flounder and spiny dogfish, species managed by the MAFMC. Over
the ten-year life of the project, up to 500 acres of habitat that supports these species would be altered.
As noted under General Comments, suspended sediments levels may be greater than predicted. If
elevated turbidity levels in the proposed borrow site result in avoidance of prime overwintering
habitat or a reduction in feeding efficiency, the EFH value of the area for summer flounder and spiny
dogfish would be reduced. The EA therefore underestimates the potential impact of dredging the
borrow site on overwintering habitat for migratory fish populations that represent the primary brood
stock for these species.
In view of the above, the NMFS offers the following EFH recommendations.
EFH Recommendations
Further consideration of Alternative 2 should be delayed pending completion of the studies
being funded by the Wilmington District and the ERDC. Completion of these studies will
provide new information on the impact of beach nourishment in nearshore areas on early life
history stages of Federally managed species.
4
A-9
2. To minimize the direct and indirect impact of turbidity, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation should ensure that the project does not use any sediment which consists of
more than ten percent silt or clay particles.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
cc: FWS, ATLA, GA
FWS, Raleigh, NC
EPA, ATLA, GA
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC
NCDENR, Morehead City, NC
SAFMC, Charleston, SC
MAFMC, Dover, DE
F/SER4 .
Sincerely,
Assistant Regional
Habitat Conservation Division

ER-00/626
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Washington, D.C. 20240
Ms. Julie A. Hunkins, P.E.
Assistant State Highway Administrator
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1536 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1536
Dear Ms. Hunkins:
0934]0.0000
OCT 10 2000
r 1 ??4
()CJ Is 20
Sjg? ADM NS?T? DA
This is in response to your request for the Department of the Interior's comments
on the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the NC 12
interim improvements for protection between Buxton and Avon, Dare County, North
Carolina.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION COMMENTS
We concur with the summary of potential impacts to Cape Hatteras National Seashore,
as presented in Table 14. The National Park Service (NPS) is required by deed from
the State of North Carolina to allow a public road on its property. Therefore, there is
no prudent or feasible interim alternative except to use parkland for this purpose. The
State is working towards a long-term transportation solution that is expected to
relocate the highway on a bridge in Pamlico Sound off parkland. Completion of the
long-term solution is expected in 7-10 years. At that time, the State should no longer
need to maintain a public road across this section of parkland.
We do not object to a combination of Alternatives 1, 5 and 6 for the proposed
project and would concur that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the
project if project objectives are to be met. We would encourage the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to develop mitigating measures to protect,
to the extent possible, parkland. The Department of the Interior has no objection to
Section 4(f) approval of this project by the Department of Transportation.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The NPS participated in the NEPA/404 Merger Project Team that prepared the range
of alternatives that are presented in the draft Environmental Assessment (EA). The

A-11

Y
EA is thorough and well presented, and discusses the major concerns and
environmental impacts that the NPS must consider. The document presents a
range of alternatives identified by the NEPA/404 Merger Team, and NCDOT has
made a good conscientious effort to solicit public comments in compliance with
NEPA.
Although the NPS must allow a public road on this section of park property deeded
by the State of North Carolina, it must also manage the parklands in a manner
consistent with NPS policy and applicable laws. As stewards of public parkland,
the NPS must protect the park resources and values, as well as meet the needs of
visitors. Therefore, the NPS will support an alternative that has low or minimal
impact on park property, resources, and values, while still providing a level of
protection for the public road.
2
We have reviewed the alternatives in light of the project's purpose and need
statement. The following are comments from the NPS on each of the alternatives.
The numbers below correspond to the alternatives as listed in the EA.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. No-build. This alternative is acceptable to the NPS. Although it may not fully
meet the project's purpose and need statement, the success of this alternative is
based in part upon the severity of storms, tolerance of the public to withstand
temporary road closures and washouts, and the capability of NCDOT to respond to
post-storm sand removal from the road. This alternative has the least impact, least
cost, and requires no permits.
2. Beach nourishment. This alternative is not acceptable to the NPS. NPS
Management Policies (1988) state: "The National Park Service will manage the
natural resources of the National Park System to maintain, rehabilitate, and
perpetuate their inherent integrity. In natural zones, natural shoreline processes
(erosion, deposition, dune formation, inlet formation and shoreline migration) that
are not influenced by human actions will be allowed to continue without abatement
except where control measures are required by law. The National Park Service will
comply with provisions of State coastal zone management plans prepared under the
Coastal Zone Management Act when such provisions are more environmentally
restrictive than NPS management zoning." (Chapter 4:20) In addition, the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore's 1937 enabling legislation states that, "Except for
certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational
uses,...the said area shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and no
development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be
undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora
and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing in this area ...." Artificial
nourishment of a natural beach is contrary to the park's legislation and NPS policy.
2
A-12 ,
3
This alternative has the greatest environmental impact offshore and onshore of all
the alternatives in the EA. It is our belief that because of the potentially significant
environmental impacts and public controversy surrounding beach nourishment, an
EIS would be required. Furthermore, other identified alternatives meet the purpose
and need statement, but with far less impacts. (See comments under Alternative
#5 below.)
5. Road relocation. This alternative is acceptable to the NPS. This could be a
very low environmental impact alternative that provides an additional level of
protection over the no-build Alternative 1. Relocating the road further west from
the ocean would create a wider "beach" to break the wave energy. However, we
question whether the entire proposed 2.1 miles of roadway need to be relocated,
given the dune system in place at the northern end of the project area. Reducing
the relocation length would reduce the amount of disturbance to park property even
more.
6. Road relocation with a dune. This alternative is acceptable to the NPS if it is
reduced in scope. The concern with this alternative is associated with the massive
nature of the proposed dune line. If fully implemented over the proposed 2.1 miles,
it would cover and disturb over 52 acres of parkland. We estimate the total land
area associated with the project to be 162 acres. One-third of the total area will be
disturbed, including alteration to the park's natural terrain, disturbance to existing
vegetation and stabilized protective dunes, and impeding the view shed for visitors.
We suggest running the vulnerability models again to determine whether the entire
length of roadway needs to be relocated and/or whether the 15-foot dune line
needs to extend the entire distance.
7. Road relocation with subsurface sandbags and a dune. This alternative is not
acceptable to the NPS. It has similar impacts as described under Alternative 6 in
the EA, but has additional impacts resulting from the removal of the sandbags at a
later time. A permit(s) from the NC Coastal Resources Management Division for
placing the sandbags would also be required by the NIPS.
8. Road relocation with sheet piling and a dune. This alternative is not acceptable
to the NPS. It has similar impacts as described under Alternative 6 in the EA, but
has additional impacts resulting from the removal of the sheet piling at a later time.
We also have concern over the safety of visitors whose vehicles might swerve off
of the roadway into exposed sheet piling. And, as with Alternative 7, a permit(s)
from the NC Coastal Resources Management Division to construct the hardened
structure (sheet piling) in the coastal zone would also be required by the NPS.
3
A-13
4
9. Road relocation with surface sandbags and a sand covering. This alternative is
also not acceptable to the NPS. It has similar impacts as described under
Alternative 7 in the EA, but has additional impacts resulting from the removal of the
sandbags also at a later time. The unnatural, manmade character of sandbags is
contrary to the NPS mandate to preserve natural features and to allow natural
processes to continue. In addition, a permit(s) from the NC Coastal Resources
Management Division to place the sandbags would also be required by the NPS.
We encourage the NEPA/404 Merger Team to seriously consider a combination of
Alternative Numbers 1, 5, and 6. This combination may be considered a modified
version of road relocation with dunes. The modification would be to relocate only
that portion of the existing roadway that is most seriously threatened by loss over
the next 7-10 years, and then build the minimum size and length of dune line
necessary to fulfill the purpose and need statement, given the existing primary
dunes and the distance of the road from the ocean. This modification will assure
that both the park resources and NC 12 are protected to the maximum extent
possible, without undue impacts of one to the other. It is possible that selection of
other alternatives could require initiation of the EIS process.
The NPS appreciates the opportunity to participate as a member of the NEPA/404
Merger Team, and commend NCDOT for its genuine effort to comply with both the
letter and the spirit of NEPA. The NPS will continue to work with the NCDOT in
order to provide transportation access across park property. The efforts of the
NCDOT to move ahead with a long-range transportation solution for this and other
sections of NC 12 are also welcomed by the NPS.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has determined that Alternatives 1 (no build), 5
(road relocation), and 6 (road relocation with phased construction of a dune) are the
only alternatives that are not likely to adversely affect federally-listed species in the
project area.
On page 4 of the EA, however, Alternative 8 incorrectly states that the sheet piling
seawall option is not likely to adversely affect sea turtles. Table 1 C on page 80
correctly states that this alternative is likely to adversely affect sea turtles and
piping plovers (Charadrius meiodus). The EA should be revised to be consistent in
its determination that Alternative 8 is likely to adversely affect federally-listed
species.
The FWS is unclear on the technical justification for relocating the proposed lengths
of roadway and dune lines. No details are given in the descriptions of the
alternatives as to how these lengths were determined. Whether the combined
volume of the existing and proposed dunes would over-engineer the project designs
for Alternatives 2, 6, 7 and 8, for the design storm scenario is not provided either.
It may be possible that the design volume for the additional dunes, and thus their
4
A-14
5
footprints and zones of impacts, may be reduced if the existing dunes are
incorporated into the storm protection evaluations for the various alternatives.
The cumulative impacts section is the most comprehensive to date for any beach
construction project in North Carolina, but it does not include local and private
beach nourishment activities (e.g., Figure Eight Island, Onslow Beach) or potential
projects on Bogue Banks and Topsail Island.
As a participant in the NEPA/404 Merger Project Team, the Fish and Wildlife
Service would at this time only concur with the selection of a preferred alternative
that is not likely to adversely affect federally-listed species (i.e., Alternatives 1, 5
and 6). The "no-build" option (Alternative 1) would generate no new environmental
impacts above the existing situation. Relocating the road (Alternative 5) would
minimize impacts to terrestrial resources within the new roadway footprint, but
restore the natural habitat found in the existing roadway corridor. Relocating the
road and constructing a new dune line (Alternative 6) outside of the sea turtle
nesting season and concurrent with the abandonment of maintaining the existing
dune line would reduce the current restriction on coastal processes by allowing the
beach to widen and restore associated fish and wildlife habitats.
The remaining alternatives (2, 7, 8 and 9) would unnecessarily adversely affect fish
and wildlife resources since less damaging alternatives that meet the purpose and
need are available. If Alternatives 2, 7, 8 and 9 were selected as the preferred
alternative, formal Section 7 consultation and a Biological Opinion would be
required.
On matters pertaining to fish and wildlife resources, please contact Tracy Rice, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, P. 0. Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-
3726, phone: [phone], ext. 692. For further information on matters
pertaining to National Park Service issues, please contact Kay Garner, National Park
Service, 1924 Building, 100 Alabama Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303, phone:
404/562-3124.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments, and apologize for the
lateness of them.
Sincere[ ,
c
Willie R. Taylor
Director, Office of Environmental Policy
and Compliance
5 A-15
QtM NT F "F United States Department of the
O? yT
y ' FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
_ Post Office Box 99726
MARCH s +e?? Raleigh, North Carolina 27696.9726
August 29, 2000
Ms. Julie A. Hunkins, P.E.
Assistant State Highway Administrator
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1536 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1536
Dear Julie:
Interior
asy Z3
Q0? 31! M
STATE HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATOR
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides the following comments regarding the
July 28, 2000 Environmental Assessment (EA) for the NC 12, Interim Improvements For
Protection Between Buxton and Avon, Dare County, TIP Project R-3116C, Federal Aid Project
NHF-12(7), State Project No. 8.1052301.
The proposed project aims to minimize the vulnerability of the NC 12 roadway between Avon
and Buxton from natural coastal processes and stone events for a five to ten year period until
long-term improvements are pursued and constructed. Minor loss of pavement and burial of the
road with overwash sand and water is acceptable to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NC DOT). Closures of the road for longer than a few days, or lengthy delays in
repairing damaged sections of asphalt, are not acceptable conditions. A breach is defined by NC
DOT as any cut of the island that allows free exchange of water between the sound and ocean at
high tide, and is an unacceptable condition.
The EA contains seven alternatives that have been identified by the NEPA/404 Merger Project
Team for this proposed action. Three other alternatives have already been eliminated by the team
as not meeting the purpose and need of the project. The remaining alternatives are (I.) a "no
build" option, (2) beach nourishment, (5) roadway relocation, (6) roadway relocation with dune
construction, (7) roadway relocation with subsurface sandbags and dune construction, (8)
roadway relocation with a sheet piling seawall and dune construction, and (9) roadway relocation
with surface sandbags.
Overall, the EA is thorough, complete and easy to read. Table 12, a matrix of the impacts of each
alternative, is particularly useful and allows easy comparison of the alternatives. Table 14 outlines
the potential impacts to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and its management resulting from
the various alternatives. This is the first time in recent memory that the Service has seen such a
commendable consideration of natural resources managed by the Department of Interior. The
Service has fewer concerns than normally occur for beach construction projects due to our
A-16
?r
participation in the NEPA/404 Merger Project Team process, which allowed our concerns to be
addressed early in the planning stages for the project.
On March 20, 2000, the Service held a meeting with NC DOT and other relevant agencies
regarding the impacts to Federally-listed threatened and endangered species for each of the
alternatives. Alternatives 1 (no build), 5 (road relocation) and 6 (road relocation with phased
construction of a dune) are the only alternatives that are not likely to adversely affect Federally-
listed species in the project area.
On page 4 of the EA, however, Alternative 8 incorrectly states that the sheet piling seawall option
is not likely to adversely affect sea turtles. Table 12C on page 80 correctly states that this
alternative is likely to adversely affect sea turtles and piping plovers (Charadrius melodus). The
EA should be revised to be consistent in its determination that Alternative 8 is likely to adversely
affect Federally-listed species.
The Service is unclear on the technical justification for relocating the proposed lengths of
roadway and dune lines. No details are given in the descriptions of the alternatives as to how
these lengths were determined. Whether the combined volume of the existing and proposed
dunes would over-engineer the project designs for Alternatives 2, 6, 7, and 8 for the design storm
scenario is not provided either. It may be possible that the design volumes for the additional
dunes, and thus their footprints and zones of impacts, may be reduced if the existing dunes are
incorporated into the storm protection evaluations for the various alternatives.
The cumulative impacts section is the most comprehensive to date for any beach construction
project in North Carolina, but it does not include local and private beach nourishment activities
(e.g., Figure Eight Island, Onslow Beach) or potential projects on Bogue Banks and Topsail
Island. Dune construction and maintenance activities for NC 12 and private structures are not
addressed and are relevant to the dune building and the no build alternatives. Finally, no estimate
of the cumulative impacts of sandbag distribution throughout the state are considered.
As a participant in the NEPA/404 Merger Project Team, the Service would at this time only
concur with the selection of a preferred alternative that is not likely to adversely affect Federally-
listed species (i.e., Alternatives 1, 5 and 6). The "no-build" option (Alternative 1) would generate
no new environmental impacts above the existing situation. Relocating the road (Alternative 5)
would minimize impacts to terrestrial resources within the new roadway footprint, but restore the
natural habitat found in the existing roadway corridor. Relocating the road and constructing a
new dune line (Alternative 6), outside of the sea turtle nesting season and concurrent with the
abandonment of maintaining the existing dune line, would reduce the current restriction on coastal
processes by allowing the beach to widen and restore associated fish and wildlife habitats.
The remaining alternatives (numbers 2, 7, 8, and 9) would unnecessarily adversely affect fish and
wildlife resources since less damaging alternatives that meet the purpose and need are available.
If Alternative 2, 7, 8 or 9 were selected as the preferred alternative, formal Section 7 consultation
2
A-17
?N
and a Biological Opinion would be required. Furthermore, the Service would recommend that an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be completed for any of those four alternatives due to the
significance of the impacts, which would not be consistent with an associated Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions, please
contact Tracy Rice of my staff at [phone], extension 12, or electronically at
Tracy Riceafws.gv_.
Sincerely,
C;? lle,,?.,( X °' 41.4?
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (Scott McClendon)
COE, Wilmington, NC (Bill Adams)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
Federal Highways Administration, Raleigh, NC (John Wadsworth)
NMFS, Beaufort, NC (Ron Sechler)
NPS, Manteo, NC (Chris Bernthal)
NC DCM, Morehead City, NC (Charles Jones)
NC DCM, Raleigh, NC (Cathy Brittingham)
NC DMF, Elizabeth City, NC (Sara Winslow)
NC DMF, Morehead City, NC (Mike Street)
NC DWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NC WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
NC WRC, Marshallberg, NC (Ruth Boettcher)
NC WRC, Trenton, NC (David Allen)
FWS/R4:TMRice:TMR:8/28/00:919/856-4520 extension 12:\EA_comments.wpd
3
A-18

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MEMORANDUM
RE EIVIM
TO: Chrys Baggett
. "'
State Clearinghouse SLEP 12 2000'
FROM: Melba McGee ?; G STATE GLEARiyGHCUSE
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 01-E-0080 EA for NC 12 Interim Improvements between
Buxton and Avon, Dare County
DATE: September 8, 2000
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has
reviewed the state Environmental Assessment for the proposed
improvements to NC 12. The range of alternatives that have been
evaluated to meet the purpose and need of this project were selected by
state and federal agencies that participated in the NEPA/404 Merger
Meeting. Although there were agency consensus on which alternatives
would be considered and examined, not all alternatives minimize the
potential impacts to the extent of a FONSI.
The department recognizes the benefits of the existing corridor to the
residence in that area. We also have to recognize the value of the wetlands
and wildlife habitat and the role they play in the beach ecosytem. As you
review the attached comments you will find our divisions continue to raise
ecological issues with a number of the alternatives proposed, as well as, the
over-all use of sandbags and sheet pile/concrete barriers. Impacts to
sensitive terrestrial habitats could affect species identified as threatened and
endangered. Habitat for sea turtles and beach nesting birds could also be
affected. The issues raised, as a result of this review should be used as a
guide in selecting the most practical and least environmentally damaging
alternative.
The department supports continued coordination of this project among
state, federal and local agencies. While the department has not determined
the best alternative available, it is felt that alternatives 5 and 6 could
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIOH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.ENR.STATE.NC. US/ENR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - EO% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
A-19

u
eliminate the potential for significant impacts. The ability of DENR to sign
off on the use of an environmental assessment and FONSI will depend
upon the adequacy of the Department of Transportation to fully address
the concerns expressed and evaluate the issues in regards to minimization
of these impacts. It is imperative that the Department of Transportation
coordinate satisfactory solutions with the agencies prior to finalizing
project plans and circulating the FONSI. This will help avoid delays during
the review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project and we look
forward to working with you on the resolution of the expressed concerns.
Attachments
2
A-20

.

SEP-05-2000
9a '
?:'1'MYNT.rR, ','
NOR „

05:06 FM DON-DMF E. CITY
r
TO:
1:
THROUGH: C
FROM : L
SUBJECT : F
DATE :
FAX NO, 252 264 3723 P. 01
NORTH CAROLINA DErARTMENY Or
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL. RESOURCES
. Julie A. Hunkin.,tP.Se?AsstsCtaOMVAte MANAGEMENT
,hway Administrator
trles S. Jones
finis W. Hawthorn
lerat Environmental Assessment for NC 12,
!rim Improvements for Protection NHF-12(7,
re Project 81052301, TIP No. R-3116C
tember 5, 2000
S
The subject Environmental i
alternatives for an interim solut:
and Avon, in Darc County. (
alternatives have been narrowe
Team. The alternatives arc [I] a
relocation, [6] roadway relocat
with subsurface sandbags and d
pile seawall and dune conrtr
sandbags.
sessment concerns an analysis and review of
a for the protection of NC Hwy 12 between Buxton
iginally, ten alternatives were selected but these
down to seven by the NEPA/404 Merger Project
D build option, [2) beach nourishment, [5] roadway
n with dune construction, [71 roadway relocation
c construction, [8] roadway relocation with a sheet
Lion, and [9] roadway relocation with surface
The Department of Transportat i n has provided and incorporated much information
into this document. It appears th it a thorough discussion of the issues involved with
each alternative has been inco rated into this EA. Unfortunately, several items of
particular interest to the Divisive of Coastal Management (DCM) were not discussed
or identified which would be b neficial in our review of these alternatives. These
items include: the location of tie first line of stable natural vegetation along the
project area, the identification o the long-terra annual erosion Tate(s) in the area and
the location of V-7.ones as iden ified in the federal insurance rate maps (the High
Hazard Flood Area of E,nviron ental Concern). This information is needed in order
for DCM to determine if severa of the alternatives that involve road relocation arc
consistent with the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) rules for large structure
setbacks (ie. the road). If the ro cannot be relocated to meet the mandatory setback,
a variance is needed from the CRC.
Several of the other Alternativ
AItemative 8 violates the C
Alternative 7 and 9 involve the
CRC Rules. While sandbags cr
the proposed location and si
inconsistent with CRC Rules.
(7, 8 and 9)) are directly inconsistent CRC Rules.
?'s ban on hardened erosion control structures.
laccment of sandbags that arc also inconsistent with
be considered a temporary erosion control measure,
presented in Alternatives 7 and 9 make them

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /
<LISANET11 CIT• REGIONAL OFFICE
12G7 UL 17 6EUTH, C1.1249ETH CITY, NC 27909
PHONE- 292-2G4-2001 FA1(1282-264-1722
Iva ACTION EMPLOYER - 30% IIaCYCL6D / 10% POST-CONCVMaR PAPER
DENO TOLL FOR NOTLINa! 1.677.622-674¦
A-21
1SEP-05-2000 TU 05:07 PM DCM-DMF E. CITY FAX NO, 252 264 3723 P. 02
i Ms. Julic A. Hunk-ins P, E., September S 2000 Assistant State Hi¢hway Administrator
1
i
i
i Pa$e 2 ,
I The -no-build", beach nouris en t and dune construction alternatives do not appear
to be inconsistent with CRC Rules. In the case of beach nourishment and dune
construction, a LAMA perm will be required and 1 determination of consistency
will be made during the perm sting process- The beach n0uri5lunent alternative will
also require a Uredec and Fill Permit tQ be issued. The repair of the roadway within
I the existing tights-of-way generally exempt frotn tho CAMA1 er
requirements. p mittin?
? Thank-
I you for the opportttn ty to review tltcse alternatives. If you have any
questions, please contact me my Elizabeth City office at (252) 264_3901.
I

i

j I
?
I
I

i

2

A=-22
,Y.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director
SEP 14M DMF-HABITAT
,•? AA
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Julie A. Hunkins, P.E. Assistant State Highway Administrator
THROUGH: Mike Stree , Chief Habitat Section
FROM: Sara E. Winslow, Biologist Supervisor
SUBJECT: NC 12 Interim Improvements for Protection - Buxton and Avon - Federal
Aid Project No. NHF-12(7) State Project No. 8. 1052301, TIP No. R-3116C
Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation
DATE: September 11, 2000
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has reviewed the EA and submits
the following comments.
The NCDOT proposes to provide temporary protection to NC Hwy 12 on Hatteras
Island for a period of five to ten years until a long-term solution is implemented. The
project location is vulnerable due to frequent overwash and flooding from the Atlantic
Ocean.
Originally ten alternatives were proposed to provide temporary protection. After
analysis, the project team reduced the number to seven.
After the review of the seven alternatives the Division would recommend that
Alternative 6 - Roadway Relocation with a dune be pursued as the Preferred
Alternative. The construction of the dune would provide protection of the roadway.
The dune could be constructed outside the moratorium for sea turtles and nesting
birds.
The Division appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the
project proposal. If you have any questions please contact me.
A-23
P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-cdnsumer paper
?u Luuu 1 ,?, nu t' HA NU. t'. UJ/L
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba, McGee
Through: ohn DorneyCV1<
From: rJohn Henness ? .
v
NCDENR
September 7, 2000
Subject: Comments on the EA for the interim improvements to NC12 from Avon to Buxton in
Darc County, Fcdenl Aid Project No. NHF.12(7), State Project No. 8.1052301, TIP
Project No. R-3116C, DANR Project Number OIE-0080.
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Watcr Quality (DWO) Is responsible
for [lie issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification fc,r activities that impact Waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands. It is our understanding that the some of the proposed alternativus, as presented in the
FA, mny result in Impacti to jurisdictional wetlands or waters. The DWQ offers the following comments
based on review ol'the aforementioned document:
A) We are concerned that proposed "Interim" measures for the proposed project remain temporary in
nature. We look t'orward to working with the Department of Transportation on developing a more
permanent resolution to the problems associated with the roadway.
R) The Division of Water Quality is not in tavor of any alternative that includes the use of sheet piling
or sandbags.
Q Analysis of alternative 2 needs to eonAder the full impact of disturbing the natural sand transport
roechanlsms. The analysis should consider the cff'ects on the natural sand transport proeesscti
rcl:itive to the proposed burrow site as well is die fate of the deposited nand. The analysis should
consider the potential for deleterious effects to the environmental as a result of disturbing the
nntural process.
D) Review of the regulations indicate that nn applicable ripirian buffer rules apply to this project.
L) alas DOT considered the effects of sound side flooding from the prescribed storm event.
Relocation of the road away from the occan-side hydraulic forces has the effect of decreasing the
distance from the road to the sound, thus increasing the potential for sound-side flooding onto the
road. Regardless of the source of flooding, a floudcd road is unusable. Do the road relocation
alttrnativcs meet the proposed functioning of the road as prescribed in the project purpose and
need?
F) After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an is,;uance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification Ol'it is requiNd), the NCDo'f is respectfully reminded that they will need to
1 C\
1821 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
Jcr-Up-rJUU rKi 1U:Ui hil PHA NU. r. U4/ U4
Mr. William D. Gilman: mono
09/oaloo
Pa£u 2
demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum
extent practical. Based on the bnpacbi described in the document, wetland mitigation may not be
rquired for this project, Should the impacts in jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation
may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 214.0500 (h)(2)1.
G) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 211.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost fiinctionv
and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the
Wetland Rosturadon Program may be available for use ac stream mitigation.
II) Seditltent and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
i) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to
wetlands in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compematury mitigation.
There shnpld be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impactc if mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigntion plan with the
crivironlttentsl documentation. While the NCDWQ rcatizes that this may not always be practical,
it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be
required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
K) Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed wetlarxl and stream
impacts with correspondin` mapping (if applicable).
T,) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may nor require nn applicu6nn to the Coups of Engincem and corresponding 401 Water
Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no
wcaland or stream uses arc lost. Final permit authorization will require the submitlai of a formal
application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be awaru that any
approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream
impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
matlagernent plan, and the inclusion orappropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any addiUnnal information, please contact ]ohn Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Scott McClendon, Corps of Lngineca-s
Tom McCartney, USMS
David Cox, NCWRC
Deborah Sawyer, NCDWQ Regional Office
Personal Files
Central Hl s
Pile Copy
COnvoInINT1P R-311ftrimnicnalR-3116 RA eommenm.cloc
A-25
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Franklin T. McBride, Manager Tito
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 31, 2000
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for NC 12 Interim Improvements between Buxton and Avon,
Dare County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-3116C, SCH Project No. 01-E-0080.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed
the subject EA 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)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to provide temporary protection to NC 12 between Buxton and Avon on
Hatteras Island for a period of 5 to 10 years until a long-term solution is implemented. The total
project length is approximately 2.3 miles. Minimal impacts to wetlands are expected and may be
avoided. Impacts to sensitive terrestrial habitats that provide nesting and foraging areas for
threatened and endangered wildlife are possible.
The NCWRC is a member of the NEPA/404 Merger Team for this project. We have
concurred with the purpose and need (Concurrence Point 1) and studied alternatives
(Concurrence Point 2). We are concerned over the anticipated impacts to the sensitive terrestrial
habitats from several of the proposed improvements. We are particularly interested in
minimizing impacts to the Beach/Sand and Dune Grass communities. These communities are
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] exc. 281 - Fax: [phone]'
A
NC 12 EA 2 August 31, 2000
important habitats for sea turtles and beach nesting birds (colonial nesting waterbirds and shore
birds).
Sea Turtles
Although sea turtles nest on a variety of beach types, there are several requirements a beach
must meet in order to be considered a suitable nesting area. A beach must offer easy
accessibility from the sea, have a platform high enough that it is not inundated during every high
tide cycle or flooded by the water table from below, be able to facilitate gas diffusion, contain
sufficient moisture to allow for the construction of a nest cavity and water uptake by incubating
eggs, and have low compaction/shear resistance for cavity excavation and hatchling emergences
(Mortimer 1995, Ackerman 1996).
Coastal development on otherwise suitable nesting beaches, poses numerous threats to
nesting females, nests, and hatchlings. The greatest threat is artificial beachfront lighting, which
may deter females from coming ashore to nest and causes disorientation among emergent
hatchlings, which often results in very high hatchling mortality (Witherington and Martin 1996).
Hatchlings are attracted to artificial lights that are brighter than the natural glow of the ocean.
Instead of entering the water, they head towards and congregate under lights where they may fall
victim to predators or die of dehydration.
Beachfront homes, businesses and associated structures such as swimming pools, walkways,
seawalls, sand bags and sand fencing can significantly reduce the amount of suitable nesting
habitat on a beach. If they are located in front of or at the seaward base of the primary dune
where turtles typically nest, they can impede nesting attempts and entrap nesting females and/or
emergent hatchlings. These types of structures may also impede the natural movement of
beaches and accelerate erosion (Pilkey et al. 1998), which leads to additional reduction in
available nesting habitat.
Beachfront development is often accompanied by roadways that are well-lit by broad
spectrum luminaries. This increases the amount of ambient light that is visible on the beach
causing even greater disorientation among hatchlings. Furthermore, roadways themselves are
dangerous to turtles if there is no barrier such as a dune or a fence, to keep turtles from entering
the roadway. In North Carolina alone, at least four nesting female loggerheads have been killed
by oncoming vehicles on roads located immediately adjacent to the beach. Additionally,
numerous hatchlings have been run over by automobiles while attempting to reach lights located
on the other side of the road.
Loggerhead, green, leatherback and Kemp's ridley turtles are the four known nesting species
in North Carolina. The loggerhead is North Carolina's only regular nesting species laying an
average of 600 nests annually. Several green turtle nests are reported during most years and to
date there have been only seven leatherback nests, four of which were laid on Hatteras Island,
and one Kemp's ridley nest (located on Oak Island, Brunswick County) that have been recorded
in the state. Since 1990, yearly nest totals reported on Hatteras Island ranged from 31-103 (all
species combined) and comprised 4% - 11 % of the respective statewide annual totals. This
A-27
NC 12 EA
r
August 31, 2000
suggests that Hatteras Island is an important nesting area for sea turtles. As such, it is vital that
efforts are made to minimize the impacts of development, including all measures carried out to
protect Highway 12, on nesting sea turtles and the beach ecosystem.
Avian Species
Many beach nesting birds depend on washovers and sand flats for nesting and sometimes
foraging habitat. The habitat is ephemeral, and as old washovers succeed into vegetated dunes,
new ones must be able to arise if these birds are to persist. This habitat has been drastically
depleted in recent years, primarily because of road maintenance and beachfront development. As
a result, most of our beach nesting birds have sharply declined in numbers in the past 22 years
(common terns 4,885 nests in 1977 to 888 in 1999, black skimmers 1,925 nests in 1977 to 679 in
1999, gull-billed tern 621 nests in 1977 to 154 in 1999). We do not have as much data on piping
plovers, Wilson's plovers and American oystercatchers, but these three species are also in sharp
decline as well. North Carolina is not the only state where we are seeing these disturbing trends.
Most other states along the Atlantic coast are experiencing similar declines.
The best solution for the health of the beach and all of its natural inhabitants would be to
remove all existing structures and supporting infrastructure, turn Hwy. 12 into a low maintenance
gravel road and allow natural coastal processes to take place. However, given the extent of
existing development and the number of human residents on the island, the NEPA/404 Merger
Process Team did not consider this to be a feasible alternative. All alternatives presented in the
EA directly or indirectly impact the beach ecosystem and surrounding wetlands and waters. For
reasons listed in Table 1, alternatives 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 are particularly detrimental to sea turtles.
If one of these alternatives were chosen, we recommend that NCDOT prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. We feel that an EA followed by a Finding of No
Significant Impact would be in appropriate for a project that could significantly affect listed
species.
Road relocation with a dune (Alternative 6) will in all likelihood have few direct effects on
nesting turtles during the 5 - 10 year interim, provided that all construction activities take place
outside of the turtle (and bird) nesting seasons and the sand used to construct the dune matches
the existing sand's color and grain size. Furthermore, the construction of a dune 21 ft. in height
may keep nesting females and hatchlings from entering the roadway and to a small extent, help
shield highway traffic headlights and other sources of artificial lighting from the beach. It should
be noted, however, that the construction of an artificial dune will impede the natural movement
of the beach, eliminate future bird nesting habitat, and destroy the dune grass habitat that
currently exists in the area where the new dune will be constructed. Moreover, the dune may
require periodic maintenance (i.e., beach bull-dozing or replenishment) to ensure its survival
during the next 10 years, which can also negatively affect the beach. Because of the significant
impacts associated with alternative 6, road relocation alone (alternative 5) appears to be the best
choice because it will have the least effect on the beach ecosystem as a whole. However, we
strongly recommend that some type of fencing be erected parallel to the road and within the
highway's east right-of-way to keep nesting sea turtles and hatchlings from entering the roadway.
Additionally, we strongly encourage the Towns of Buxton and Avon to develop and enact
lighting ordinances to reduce the amount of artificial glow emanating from both townships.
A-28
3
NC 12 EA
4
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA.
assistance please call me at [phone].
attachment
cc: Tracy Rice, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
John Hennessy, DWQ, Raleigh
Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Literature Cited
August 31, 2000
If we can be of any further
Ackerman, R.A. 1996. The nest environment and the embryonic development of sea
turtles. Pp. 83-106 in The Biology of Sea Turtles (Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds.). Boca
Raton, FL, CRC Press.
Mortimer, J.A. 1995. Factors influencing beach selection by nesting sea turtles. Pp. 45 -
51 in Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles (Bjorndal, K.A., ed.). Washington D.C.,
Smithsonian Institution Press, revised edition.
Pilkey, O.H., W.J. Neal, S.R. Riggs, C.A. Webb, D.M. Bush, D.F. Pilkey, J. Bullock and
B.A. Cowan. 1998. The North Carolina Shore and Its Barrier Islands Restless Ribbons of Sand.
Durham, NC and London, England, Duke University Press.
Witherington, B.E. and R.E. Martin. 1996. Understanding, assessing, and resolving light-
pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical
Report TR-2. 73 p.
4 A-29
Table 1. Impacts of interim protection measures of NC 12 between Buxton and Avon on nesting
sea turtles and hatchlings.
Alternatives Impacts
1- No build - NC 12's close proximity to the beach may allow nesting turtles and
hatchlings to enter the roadway and get struck by oncoming vehicles.
- Highway traffic headlights may disorient nesting females and hatchlings.
- Periodic maintenance (i.e., rebuilding dunes, repaving washouts) during the
nesting season may disrupt nesting activity and impact nesting habitat.
2 - Beach renourishment - May significantly alter the incubation environment.
- May increase the beach's level of compaction or shear resistance.
- May disrupt local nesting activity, crush existing nests, and disorient nesting
females and hatchlings if construction extends into the nesting season.
- Periodic maintenance disposal turns the above impacts into long-term
concerns.
7 -Road relocation with subsurface - May accelerate erosion in front of and on either side of the sandbags should
sandbags and a dune they become exposed, which would result in the loss of turtle nesting habitat.
- May disrupt nesting activity, crush existing nests, and disorient nesting
females and hatchlings if construction extends into the nesting season.
- Maintenance to storm damaged areas during the nesting season may also
disrupt nesting activity, crush existing nests, and disorient nesting females and
hatchlings.
- May alter incubation environment if dune is constructed with sand that does
not match the existing sand's color and grain size.
8 - Road relocation with sheet piling - May accelerate erosion in front of and on either side of the sheet piling should
and a dune it become exposed, which would result in the loss of turtle nesting habitat.
- May disrupt nesting activity, crush existing nests, and disorient nesting
females and hatchlings if construction extends into the nesting season.
- Maintenance to storm damaged areas during the nesting season may also
disrupt nesting activity, crush existing nests, and disorient nesting females and
hatchlings.
- May alter incubation environment if dune is constructed with sand that does
not match the existing sand's color and grain size.
9 - Road relocation with surface - Will eliminate nesting habitat within the sandbag's footprint.
sandbags and a sand covering - May accelerate erosion in front of and on either side of the sand bags,
which would result in the loss of turtle nesting habitat.
- May disrupt nesting activity, crush existing nests, and disorient nesting
females and hatchlings if construction extends into the nesting season.
- Maintenance to storm damaged areas during the nesting season may also
disrupt nesting activity, crush existing nests, and disorient nesting females and
hatchlings.
- May alter incubation environment if the sand covering does not match the
existing sand's color and grain size.
A-30
7RSITY
LEGAL
FOUNDATION
September 6, 2000
Ms. Julie Hunkins
Assistant State Highway Administrator
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
D pJavq
SEP 18 2000
STATE HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATOR
Re: EA and 4F Statement, Highway 12 Between Buxton and Avon
t1
Dear Ms. Hunkins:
The BLF submits the following comments in response to the Environmental Assessment ("EA")
and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, NC 12, Interim Improvements For Protection Between Buxton
And Avon, Dare County, Federal Aid Project. No. NHF-12(7), State Project No. 8.1052301, TIP
No. R-3116C. We also incorporate by reference our scoping comments, dated February 10, 2000.
The comments are listed in response to the page and paragraph of the document.
Of the alternatives reviewed in the EA, alternative 5 (with a 70-foot right of way) satisfies the
project purpose while being the lowest cost and least environmentally damaging option.
However, the EA does not make a convincing case that the proposed project length for this
alternative (or the others) is necessary. Thus, the project may be able to be reduced in length,
which would lessen impacts and costs. In addition, we object to alternatives 2 and 6-9, for the
reasons discussed below. If the North Carolina Department of Transportation ("DOT") were to
proceed with alternatives 2 or 7-9, we believe that DOT clearly would be required to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS"); an EIS may also be required for alternative 6,
depending on the source of the sand and other environmental impacts. We request that DOT
revise the EA to respond to the issues raised below.
Page 1, ¶ 3. If DOT prepares an EA, the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") requires
DOT to include a proposed alternative. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9. We are concerned that the EA was
finalized before a draft EA was distributed to the public; before the public had an opportunity to
comment on a draft (which should include a proposed alternative); and before DOT reviewed,
and responded to, the comments on a draft. Due to the significant impacts associated with
alternatives 2 and 6-9, if DOT were to choose one of those alternatives, we would have serious
questions regarding the procedures that DOT utilized to arrive at the proposed action.
Page 1, ¶ 4. We strongly disagree that no "significant" impacts will result from any of the
alternatives, for the reasons set forth below. '
P.O. BOX 1359 BUXTON, NC 27920
(2:52) 99.5-:3;31 2
A-31
y }
1
Y
`U
Pages 1-4. To avoid repetition, we will address issues raised by these pages in response to the
place in the EA that the issue is discussed in more detail.
Page 5, 14 - page 6, ¶ 4. We agree that NC-12 is subject to overwash. However, by implying that
"protection" can be achieved only in a location that is at or very near the existing NC-12 location,
DOT phrases the "Need" section in a manner that eliminates from full consideration in the EA
other alternatives that could provide transportation access between Buxton and Avon, including a
bridge or the use of a ferry. It is appropriate for DOT to consider, and then reject, an alternative
for a specific substantive reason. However, DOT should not draft the "Need" section in a manner
that unduly precludes the consideration of alternatives.
We are not simply requesting that DOT undertake a useless "make work" exercise. Rather, we are
concerned that the phrasing of this document could set an important precedent for transportation
issues in the future, and lock DOT into a particular course of action for this or other locations
along NC-12. In addition, we are concerned that it could take longer for a "long term solution" to
be implemented than DOT's estimate of five to ten years. This would cause the short-term project
to have a much longer life span, and result in the magnification of accompanying financial costs
and adverse ecological effects (e.g., under alternative 2, there would be multiple instances of
mining sand from the ocean and depositing it on the beach).
In addition, the paragraphs assume that the opening of an inlet would not be desirable. DOT may
wish to make a substantive decision that an inlet should be prevented, but DOT is still under an
obligation to discuss all the direct and indirect effects of that goal, as well as the cumulative
impacts. Moreover, as noted in the BLF scoping letter, there would be several positive aspects
that would accompany such an inlet (e.g., dramatically shorter times for commercial and
recreational fishing boats from Avon and Buxton to access the Gulf Stream). NEPA requires
DOT to acknowledge these effects; we refer DOT to.our scoping letter and request that these
effects be disclosed.
In addition, these paragraphs (e.g., "NC-12 provides the only vehicular link to the mainland") do
not acknowledge other possible transportation alternatives that would allow access if the road
were washed out. Residents and visitors currently can utilize the existing ferry system to leave
Hatteras Island via the Ocracoke and Swan Quarter or Cedar Island ferries. In addition, DOT is in
the process of working on an emergency ferry plan that eventually would allow residents to
bypass any inlet that opened up in this area. Thus, other alternatives do, and could, exist to use of
the existing road. We suggest that DOT substitute "transportation corridor" for "roadway" in the
purpose and need statement, and revise the alternatives in response to the modification.
Page 6, % 4. Because of the placement of the clause "between Buxton and Avon," it sounds like
DOT's purpose and need statement is attempting to address only a storm that occurs between
those two villages, but the road could be affected by storms that are much further away.
Moreover, such storms could interrupt the viability of NC-12 in other locations that are not
addressed by the Buxton to Avon modifications. We suggest that DOT move "between Buxton
and Avon" to modify the appropriate noun: "Maintain the integrity and viability of the
transportation corridor between Buxton and Avon with minimal interruption of traffic...."
Page 6, 115. The Ash Wednesday storm was not "moderate;" it was a Class 5 storm (Extreme) on
the Dolan/Davis northeasters ranking. Until the Halloween storm in 1991, the Ash Wednesday
storm was the storm of record for the area. This issue is not simply academic; if the modeling
efforts to design the alternatives are based on the road surviving this - or the Halloween - storm,
A-32
I
DOT is designing alternatives to address a worst case scenario, rather than a "moderate" storm. In
turn, this would cause DOT to undertake an excessive effort and overbuild any proposed action.
Page 6, ¶ 6. While the hurricane washed out a section of the dune, DOT moved the road further
west in the washover area, and just this month, completed reconstruction of a large artificial dune
in front of the new section of road. Thus, in the Buxton to Avon segment, the statement that the
dunes are "eliminated" is not accurate.
Page 7, ¶ 6. The statement that loss of the highway would create a "severe emotional... hardship"
on residents overstates the impact. Many, if not most, of the residents realize that life on a barrier
island includes risks regarding the reliability of the transportation. Likewise, as to the economic
disruptions, while there would be short-term economic disruptions caused by loss of the road, we
believe that ferry service could alleviate such impacts. And, Ocracoke has prospered; yet, it is
accessible only by boat or ferry. DOT must remember that providing quick, easy access to this
area has many different consequences. Some may view those consequences in a positive fashion;
others will be much more concerned about the adverse indirect effects that accompany easier
access. Many people live here precisely because they are spared the overcrowding and excessive
crime that plague many other coastal areas. While there are different reasons this area has so
many good qualities, one factor is that compared to other coastal areas, it takes more effort to
travel here.
Page 8, Page 6, ¶ 1. NC 12 is not the "only link to the mainland," for the reasons noted above
Page 10, ¶ 1. The conclusion that overwash is a "dangerous condition" is not supported by
information that is presented in the EA. During Hurricane Dennis, the island was under an
evacuation order, and those who chose to remain were inside their houses, riding out the storm.
No one died during Hurricane Dennis trying to drive through the overwash section. However,
since the road has been moved westward and re-paved, two people have died driving in cars on
that section of road. Which is more "dangerous"? Also, while loss of the road could pose some
medical risk, a helicopter is available for true medical emergencies and is utilized when time is a
factor in transportation to amedical facility.
Page 10, ¶ 5. This paragraph ("coastal considerations"), and others in the document, consistently
take a biased, unscientific view in describing the results of ocean overwash. Without question,
overwash can make road maintenance work difficult, and we fully acknowledge such
considerations. However, overwash is also very important from geological and biological
perspectives. First, overwash is critical to maintaining the width of narrow barrier island sections.
This was specifically pointed out to DOT in the BLF's scoping comments. In support, we attach
to this letter the photographs from a study of overwash areas on the Outer Banks (Godfrey, n.d.:
24-25); note the significant growth that has occurred on the sound side of the barrier island due to
movement of sand from overwash. By trying to reduce overwash events, DOT is threatening the
very island they are trying to protect. By failing to disclose the effects of this effort, DOT is
violating NEPA and not providing the public with a critical piece of information that allows an
accurate review of the issues. In addition, DOT does not mention, in this section, the critical role
that overwash areas play in providing habitat for numerous shorebirds and other species that
utilize beach habitats.
Page 11, ¶ 4. Based on duration and wave heights, the Halloween Storm is now the "storm of
record" for this area; and a Class 5 storm ("extreme") on the Dolan/Davis ranking. Thus, the
conclusion that this storm was "moderate" is not supported by existing data.
A-33
y.
Page 11, ¶ 6 - page 12, ¶ 6. We request that the EA include additional elaboration on the inputs of
the SBEACH modeling runs; such information could easily be included in an appendix.
Disclosure of all of the inputs is helpful in understanding the assumptions that underlie the
modeling conclusions and evaluating the statements in the EA regarding the results.
Page 12, ¶ 7- page 13, 15. We request that the EA be revised to include a risk analysis for the
"results" conclusions. How likely is it that this paragraph's conclusions will be accurate?
Page 14, 12. We agree that DOT needs to consider the NC-12 corridor between Buxton and
Oregon Inlet "as a single system;" if anything, the statement should be amended to read from
Oregon Inlet to Ocracoke village. We would note that this paragraph and the proceeding two
paragraphs sharply undercut the implied message of the EA that if the Avon to Buxton section of
NC-12 is modified, everything will be okay during the interim period. We believe that it is
prudent for DOT to honestly acknowledge that even if the Avon to Buxton section is modified,
those efforts could be easily frustrated by overwash events, or even a new inlet, in other locations
to the north or south. Failure to acknowledge such a reality could lead to stringent criticism of
DOT when (not if) an inlet opens up. As discussed in the BLF scoping letter, inlets are an
expected part of coastal geology; it is just not realistic to suggest otherwise.
Page 19, ¶ 2. If sand were mined from the "Hollowell" site, DOT would have to consider, and
disclose in the EA, the effects of that action.
Page 20, ¶ 6. While a transportation corridor is helpful to maintaining the economic prosperity of
the area, we strongly question the use of the word "sustainability." Many of the aspects of
development on the Outer Banks certainly are not ecologically "sustainable" under any
reasonable definition of the term.
Page 21, ¶ 2. Please disclose the calculations and assumptions behind the conclusion that the
traffic on NC-12 is estimated to be 15,300 vpd in 2020.
Page 22, paragraph title, "Beach Nourishment," and subsequent paragraphs. "Nourish" means:
"1. To provide with food or other substances necessary for life and growth; feed. 2. To foster the
development of; promote; `Athens was an imperial city, nourished by the tribute subjects' (V.
Gordon Childe). 3) To keep alive, maintain: nourish a hope" (Soukhanov , 1992: 1239).
Alternative two - dumping dredged sand on the beach - does not "nourish" the beach; from the
standpoint of coastal geology, the beach itself would do just fine without our intervention. Indeed,
as the EA acknowledges, this alternative would result in many adverse ecological impacts to
species that depend on or utilize beach habitats. It is inaccurate to suggest that such an action is
"nourishing" the beach. We request that this alternative be called: "ocean sand mining and beach
disposal."
Page 22, ¶ 7. The EA does not make a convincing - or even a strong - case that the proposed
11,050 foot project length (plus transition areas) for this alternative is necessary. Thus, DOT may
be able to reduce the length of the project area, which would lessen impacts and costs. We
emphasize that this concern also applies to alternatives 5-9. How was the project size picked?
Could DOT reduce the length of the project while still meeting the purpose? Given the impacts of
the alternatives, this issue should be addressed for all alternatives.
Page 23, ¶ 3. DOT concludes that the sand from the borrow site "has been determined to be
compatible with the existing beach." However, earlier in the EA (page 19), DOT states that only
"minimal sampling" has been done; that "preliminary analyses indicate that this material is likely
4 A-34
f,
to be suitable for beach fill; and that if this alternative is selected, "additional analyses will be
performed to assess its compatibility." The statements on these two pages are very different.
"Preliminary" is not the same as being sure. In addition, according to Plate P-8, two vibracores
were done for the entire 220 acre borrow site. Is this sufficient sampling to draw conclusions
about compatibility for the entire area? The number appears to be below the number of vibracores
done for the Dare Beaches (Bodie Island Portion) sand mining and beach disposal project; for
example for the 2,352,237 cy N2 site (smaller than the amount of sand that would be needed for
the Avon-Buxton initial replenishment), 11 vibracores were done (Corps 2000, E-12). Why is
there less here? If the sand is not compatible, where will it come from? What will the ecological
impacts be? Without a reasoned determination that the sand is compatible, it would be premature
for the Corps to select this alternative.
Page 23, ¶ 4. If DOT were to choose this alternative, we would strongly object to sand being
deposited on the beach between April 1 through November 15 because of the resulting significant
adverse effects on shorebirds and listed sea turtles.
Page 24, ¶ 2. The DOT does not provide sufficient information to support the proposed 100 foot
width for the roadway right of way. DOT admits on the next page that for a 7 foot elevation, 70
feet would be needed; for an 8 foot elevation, 80 feet would be needed. We object to providing a
right of way that is any wider than absolutely necessary to locate the road and shoulder, and we
urge DOT to utilize a 70 foot right of way.
Page 26, ¶ 6. The EA concludes that the dune would be "adequate to keep ocean flooding and
overwash off the highway but would not stop sound-side flooding." What assumptions were
utilized to arrive at this conclusion? What are the confidence intervals for this conclusion? How
accurate is this conclusion if one assumes a storm that produces first strong onshore winds, and
then, as the storm passes, strong off shore winds? The EA appears to focus on ocean overwash
events, but many inlets were formed by water from the sound pushing over the dunes and into the
ocean. Also, how accurate is the conclusion in the context of two storms striking this area with
only a short interval between the storms?
Page 28, ¶ 4. The statement that "maintenance" of the sandbag alternative is "expected to be
minor, depending on storm frequency and severity," requires elaboration. What frequency and
severity? We are concerned that a severe storm, or multiple smaller storms in short frequency,
could expose the sandbags; in turn, the sandbags could become destabilized and shift.
Page 29, ¶ 1. The EA states that the sheet pile was based on the assumption that erosion seaward
of the wall would extend down to elevation -2 feet. Why was this level picked? What would be
the effects if erosion exceeded that level? We are very concerned that one large storm, or several
smaller storms placed closely together, could cause the sheet pile to function as a seawall, with all
the problems that entails. We also do not believe that a sheet pile alternative is consistent with
either state coastal armoring prohibitions or the federal statutes governing management of the
seashore.
Page 30, JJ 2. We strongly question the conclusion that "[a]1] sheet pile would be removed once a
long-term solution is in place." This is inconsistent with the judgement of coastal geologists who
have reviewed the history of numerous similar structures across the country: "hard stabilization is
irreversible. Removal of groins, jetties, seawalls, and the like almost never occurs. Coastal
engineering structures are often altered or replaced but seldom taken away" (Pilkey and Dixon
1996: 52).
A 5

This observation makes it even more likely that another problem would occur that the EA fails to
disclose: if the sheet pile were exposed, this would cause the structure to act in a manner that is
similar to a groin or jetty. As Bush et al. note, one of the disadvantages of hard shoreline
stabilization - including a seawall - is that it "[i]ncreases erosion at ends of wall and/or
downdrift" (Bush et al. 1996: 73). In.turn, this would result in increased erosion at the northeast
end of the village of Buxton.
Page 41, ¶ 2. The statement that "[b]ecause of the severe erosion being exhibited in this area,
little of the beach/sand community remains" is not supported by principles of coastal geology.
The limited beach/sand area is because people have intentionally constructed a massive, artificial
dune. This, in turn, reduces overwash events during small and moderate storms, and somewhat
limits the westward movement of the beach area. This rollover type motion, in turn, would
continue to maintain the beach. This is illustrated by the area that experienced overwash during
hurricane Dennis. A year or two ago, a fake dune was constructed in that location, but this dune -
which had been constructed virtually at the edge of the water - was breached during the storm,
and the sand pushed westward: During the last month or so, a much larger dune has been
constructed in the same location on the north/south axis, but further west (closer to the moved
section of the road). Now, there is a much larger area of beach between the artificial dune and the
ocean than there was before the storm - perhaps the largest area of beach in the study area - and
it is due to the effects of the storm. By trying to lock in the location of the road with large dunes,
DOT is exacerbating the effects of coastal erosion. By minimizing the geologically positive
effects of washover fans, DOT is facilitating sound side erosion by robbing these areas of
additional sand.
We understand, of course, that a decision was made to build the artificial dunes to reduce
overwash events and reduce the likelihood that the paved road would be made impassible due to
large amounts of sand being washed onto the road. However, paradoxically, that approach also
results in a narrowing of the island that would not otherwise occur. DOT may wish to make that
substantive judgement, and NEPA would not preclude such a judgement. However, that does not
relieve DOT of the legal responsibility to fully disclose the direct and indirect effects of a
particular proposal.'
Page 41, ¶ 4. We thank DOT for acknowledging some of the adverse effects of the ocean sand
mining and beach disposal alternative (alternative 2). We agree that the area would be subject to
higher rates of erosion and decreased shorebird use. The DOT should disclose, however, that the
deposition of large volumes of sand on the beach could result in over compaction, which would
adversely affect sea turtle nesting success, as noted below.
Page 42, 15. We commend DOT for acknowledging the adverse effects on invertebrates from
deposition of sand on the beach.
Page 43, $ 6. DOT should disclose that the large, artificial dunes result in several significant
ecological effects. First, this adversely affects shorebird species that are adapted to, and
dependent on, natural beach/dune habitats, which exhibit breaks in the dune from "blowout"
areas. For example, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service notes, in the Revised Recovery Plan for
the threatened piping plover (Service 1996: 35, citations omitted):
' Interestingly enough, in the "Dune Grass Community" section (page 43, ¶ 6), DOT does
acknowledge that "Overwash prevention may also cause sound side erosion because saltmarsh
buffers grow at overwash edges." However, this short mention does not provide the reader with a
full disclosure of the effects.
A-3 6
c
`K
much of Hatteras Island in North Carolina remains "undeveloped," but
approximately 56 miles of continuous dune line is maintained to protect State
Highway 12, which runs the length of the island, through Cape Hatteras National
Seashore and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. Piping Plovers nest only on
the roadless spits at Cape Point and Hatteras Inlet, no longer nesting on Pea
Island, where they once occurred. On unroaded Cape Lookout National Seashore,
by contrast, piping plover nesting areas in 1990 included not only the.spits at the
current inlets, but several former inlets and large moist sand flats.
Shorebird species that breed on Hatteras Island that have been adversely impacted by the artificial
dunes include the piping plover, least tem, royal tern, common tern, sandwich tern, oystercatcher,
and black skimmer. In addition, migratory species that would have been able, under natural
conditions, to use this area during migration (roseate tern) or for wintering habitat (piping plover)
also have been adversely affected by the loss of habitat.
Second, the artificial dunes can modify vegetation patterns. This is hinted at on page 44, ¶ 1, but
the EA does not acknowledge the role that the dune building program played in causing this
effect. The large, artificial dune causes the area behind the dune to be more stable (until a larger
storm breaches the dune). Grassland species that are more tolerant of overwash events are
replaced by shrubs and trees that are not as able to handle overwash events (e.g., Godfrey and
Godfrey 1973). While this particular effect may not be occurring in the relatively narrow project
area, it has occurred in other, wider areas of Hatteras Island (e.g., to the south of Salvo).
We also note that in areas where the artificial dunes have been broken up by storms, and the
dunes reconstructed by the DOT further west (the locations being south of the visitor center on
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, and north of the southern boundary of the refuge),
shorebirds have returned and commenced breeding activity. This raises the question whether the
DOT intentionally should break up the existing dune field and move the dune west. Moving the
dune would still provide protection for Highway 12, while restoring shorebird breeding habitat.
This should be reviewed by the DOT in the final EA.
Page 44, ¶ 3. For the reasons noted above, we strongly disagree with the statement that
constructing a new, large, artificial dune to the west of the existing artificial dune would cause the
existing artificial dune to "increase in habitat value." It may benefit certain species - such as red-
winged black birds - but for those most in decline and at risk, the effect surely would be negative,
as noted above.
Page 55, ¶ 2. We believe that all alternatives, with the possible exception of alternative 1, would
adversely affect the piping plover, for the reasons noted above.
Page 55, ¶T 1-3. The roseate tern has been seen a few times every year in the vicinity of Cape
Point (including by the author). Thus, it is a rare or occasional (depending on the month of year)
visitor to the area during migration. Because of the reduction in habitat due to the artificial dune
line, we believe that the tern would be adversely affected by all alternatives except for 1.
Page 55, ¶ 5. The statement that loggerhead turtles use beaches "as far north as Ocracoke Inlet" is
in error; the species has been recorded nesting in the project area and further north (as
acknowledged by DOT on page 57, $ 2.
A-37
t
Page 58, ¶ 2. We are concerned that the discussion of ocean sand mining and beach disposal
(alternative 2) does not fully acknowledge the impacts to listed sea turtles. The National Marine
Fisheries Service and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service note (1993: 6):
Sand sources may be dissimilar from native beach sediments and can affect nest
site selection, digging behavior, incubation temperature (and hence sex ratios),
gas exchange parameters within incubating nests, hydric environment of the nest,
hatching success and hatchling emergence success (Mann, 1977; Ackerman,
1980; Mortimer, 1982; Raymond, 1984a). Beach nourishment can result in
severe compaction or concretion of the beach. Trucking of sand onto project
beaches may increase the level of compaction.
Significant reductions in nesting successes have been documented on severely
compacted nourished beaches (Raymond, 1984a). Nelson and Dickerson (1988)
evaluated compaction levels at ten renourished east coast Florida beaches and
concluded that 50 percent were hard enough to inhibit nest digging, 30 percent
were questionable as to whether their hardness affected nest digging and 20
percent were probably not hard enough to affect nest digging. They further
concluded that, in general, beaches nourished from offshore borrow sites are
harder than natural beaches, and, while some may soften over time through
erosion and accretion of sand, others remain hard for 10 years or more.
Nourished beaches often result in severe escarpments along the mid-beach and
can hamper or prevent access to nesting sites.
We request that these impacts be disclosed for the sea turtle species that have been documented to
nest in or near the project area (loggerhead, green, and leatherback).
Page 65, ¶ 2. We do not question the negative survey conclusions for the seabeach amaranth in
the project area. However, by maintaining the artificial dune, and diminishing natural washover
events, we believe that the alternatives will adversely affect this species by reducing the creation
of suitable habitat.
Page 76, 77. While we commend DOT for including in the discussion of cumulative effects the
other coastal engineering activities in North Carolina, we believe that a full review of cumulative
effects should include a listing of similar projects on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Many of the
sensitive and listed species will be adversely affected not only by North Carolina projects, but
projects in these other states. Some, such as the piping plover, are under threat from coastal
engineering projects on the breeding, migratory, and wintering grounds, and thus, never get a
break from the adverse effects of such activities.
Page 77, ¶ 4. We do not believe that the activities can be passed off as "relatively insignificant in
scope," given the effects noted above. We believe that the sheet pile (alternative 8), sand bag
(alternatives 7 and 9), and sand mining and beach deposition (alternative 2) alternatives would
require an EIS, as such alternatives would be a major federal action significantly affecting the
human environment.
Page 88, ¶ 1. For the reasons set forth above, we strongly disagree with the conclusion that all the
alternatives would not substantially impair the activities, features, or attributes of the Seashore.
Of the alternatives reviewed in the EA, alternative 5 (with a 70-foot right of way) would most
minimize ecological harm to the Seashore.
A-38
1 ?
i .
a
In addition, we question the consistency of alternatives 2 and 6-9 with the legal mandates that
govern management of the Seashore. The Organic Act directs the NPS to "regulate the use" of the
Seashore "by such means, and measures that conform to the fundamental purpose of said parks,
monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve natural and historical objects and the
wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of same in such manner and by such means as
will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations" (16 U.S.C § 1). In addition
to this general mandate, the enabling legislation contains a very restrictive limitation on the
management of the lands (16 U.S.C. § 459a-2):
Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for
recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other
recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as
needed, the said area shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and
no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be
undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique
flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing in this area...
As discussed in this letter, the alternatives would cause severe adverse ecological impacts to the
Seashore. They will not leave the Park Service lands "unimpaired" for future generations, nor
will they conserve wildlife. In addition, the alternatives are the antithesis of "wilderness."
Page 89, ¶ 3. The "no impacts" to wetlands conclusion is clearly incorrect; the EA, in another
section, explicitly notes impacts to wetlands depending on the width of the right of way.
Page 89, ¶ 4. The "minimal effects" determination to shorebirds is incorrect, for the reasons noted
above.
Page 89, $ 5. In the event DOT intends to proceed with alternatives 2, 7, 8, or 9, we would
strongly disagree with the implied conclusion that an informal consultation is adequate to comply
with the requirements of the ESA. Clearly, for those alternatives, formal consultation, including
preparation of a biological opinions is required. Failure to enter into consultation would leave
DOT subject to liability for violations of the take prohibition.
Page 92-93. We request that DOT comprehensively evaluate the bridge and ferry options, not
only as part of the 4(f) statement, but also as part of the EA. Realistically, we believe that one, or
both, will be implemented within the next 10 to 15 years; in addition, ferry use may be necessary
even sooner, depending on the intensity and number of storms that occur in the future. As hinted
at by the brief 4(f) discussion, there are positive aspects to both alternatives that are not discussed
in the EA.
Please place us on the mailing list to receive a final copy of the NEPA compliance document.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sinc r y,
Sidney Maddock
Environ ental Analyst
A-39
?. r
Y
Enclosure (1)
Copy: Francis Peltier, CHNS
Garland Pardue, FWS
Bush, D. M., O. H. Pilkey, Jr. and W. J. Neal. 1996. Living by the Rules of the Sea. Duke
University Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Code of Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9.
Godfrey, P. J. n.d. Oceanic overwash in its ecological implications on the Outer Banks of North
Carolina. Office of Natural Science Studies, National Park Service, Washington D.C.
Godfrey, P. J. and M. M. Godfrey. 1973. Comparison of ecological and geomorphic interactions
between altered and unaltered barrier island systems in North Carolina, in D. R. Coates, ed.,
Coastal geomorphology. State University of New York, Binghamton, New York.
Soukhanov, A. H., ed. 1992. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3`d ed.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321.
National Mari ne Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery Plan for U.S.
Population of Loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington,
D.C.
Pilkey, O.H. and K. L. Dixon. 1996. The Corps and the shore. Island Press, Washington, D.C
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps], 2000. Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental
Impact Statement on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control, Dare County Beaches,
Bodie Island Portion, Dare County, North Carolina. Wilmington District, Wilmington, North
Carolina.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service [Service], 1996. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic
Coast Population, Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts.
10
A-40

Figure 10. The Atlantic Coast Gard Station on Core Banks
as it looked in 1963• At this time, several years after
abandonment,, the sound waters still ran up to the sea wall
just behind the station. A mooring post is shown by the
arrow.

Figure 11. The same area in Figure 10 as it looked on
January 22, 1970. (The station burned in 1968.) The
sound behind the sea wall has filled in and salt marsh
has developed on the natural fill. The old sea wall
is still visible, and the arrow shows the same mooring
post in Figure 10. The overwash fan shown in the lower
right corner of Figure 10 increased in size, as seen here,
and is now developing into salt marsh. Vegetative cover
both in terms of marsh grass and the higher elevation.
grasslands has increased more than 100%. The base on
which the marsh is developing has been derived primarily
from overwash deposition, and in this manner salt marsh
will expand behind the barrier island. An experimental
grass planting was made near the mooring post shown by
the arrow.(Figures 12 and 13).
24
A-41

' rri'? y Jt nx?w ?.?
4 hrk i ,e,4 .y?.,J
die .rL?+?.• ? _r+ r . _...? ..._ .
25
?i.
r ^_?I
y
A-42

G
?END\
4 ?r
o ? w
\k'I L U 1'?4
National Headquarters
1101 Fourteenth Street, NW
Suite 1400
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
http://www.defender5.org
September 7, 2000
Julie A. Hunkins, P.E.
Assistant State Highway Administrator
N.C. Division of Highways
1536 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1536
Isadvq
SEP 11 2opp
STATEF?GHWAY
?1UMINfSTHATOR
RE: Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 12 between Buxton and
Avon, Interim Improvements for Protection NHF-12(7), State Project
8.1052301, TIP No. R-3116C
Dear Ms. Hunkins,
On behalf of our 400,000 members and supporters, 8,000 of whom live in North
Carolina, Defenders of Wildlife submits the following comments on the draft
Environmental Assessment for the NC 12 Interim Improvements for Protection
between Buxton and Avon. Defenders is a national, nonprofit conservation
organization committed to preserving the integrity and diversity of natural
ecosystems, preventing the decline of native species and restoration of threatened
habitats and wildlife populations.
North Carolina's Outer Banks are the stage for magnificent and dynamic natural
processes. Exposure to severe annual storm evenis, coupled with background
wave and wind action continually erode and deposit sediments, in effect causing
these barrier islands to migrate. Any permanent infrastructure on these islands,
including NC 12, will continually have to battle the forces of nature. This is why
we strongly recommend long-range, comprehensive planning of the
transportation system of the Outter Banks that takes coastal dynamics and
the needs of wildlife into account. The current effort to conduct small-scale
environmental assessments for individual "hot spots" along NC 12, while
necessary, should not inhibit, exclude, or prevent any potential alternatives
developed during long-range, comprehensive planning. Nor should these small-
scale, short-term, "band-aid" projects detract from the urgent need for long-range,
comprehensive planning.
The Outer Banks, including the study area, are also home to a diverse complement
of species, including federally protected sea turtles and piping plover. Certainly,
alternatives 7 and 9, which include construction that "is likely to adversely affect
sea turtles", are unacceptable and should be rejected. All of the alternatives
potentially affect piping plover and should be re-analyzed accounting for the
recent piping plover critical habitat designation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Federal Register 41781-41812). The FWS critical habitat designation
recognizes the importance of the "physical features necessary for maintaining the
natural processes that support these habitat components" (Federal Register
41784). Habitat components for the piping plover "are found in geologically
dynamic coastal areas" (Federal Register 41784).
Printed on Recycled Papcr I
A-43
The FWS further highlight the importance of washover areas for piping plovers
defined as "broad, unvegetated zones with little or no topographic relief, that are
formed and maintained by the action of hurricanes, storm surge, or other
extreme wave action" (Federal Register 41784). These important geologic
events are exactly what the proposed project is trying to prevent, so clearly all of
the alternatives except the "no build" alternative will have impacts on piping
plover. These impacts should be analyzed and new alternatives that avoid these
impacts or measures to mitigate these impacts should be developed.
Defenders of Wildlife looks forward to working with the NC Division of
Highways and other government partners on finding solutions that meet the needs
of the people of North Carolina while protecting our precious natural heritage.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments in making this
decision.
Sincerely,
nloJA,
Noah Matson
fuge Program anager/Science Analyst
Patricia e
Transportation Associate
2
A-44
Appendix B
Comments Received at the Public Hearing
Summary of Public Comments for R-3116C
Interim Improvements for the Protection of NC 12 between Buxton and Avon
Dare County
For beach nourishment
• most ecologically acceptable
• beach nourishment from 1960s and 1970s is still working
• should also include all hot spots
• wouldn't need to renourish for at least 20 years, rather than every 3 years
• worked in New Jersey
For road relocation
• less expensive
• less impact acreage
• would last longer than beach nourishment
Against beach nourishment
• waste of taxpayers' money
• could turn into long-term solution
• studies show increased loss of sand
• too expensive
• more impact acreage
For lone-term bridge/causeway
• works with the natural forces of islands - allows overwash
Other comments/suggestions
• Alternatives - dos
• Keep road open (temporarily) in least expensive way possible
• Plant grass on dunes
• Straighten road for safety
• Work to protect all the hot spots
• Tolls on ferries or bridges could be used to help pay for beach nourishment
Alternatives - don'ts
• Proposed solutions are minimal and may last only until next storm
• 5-10 year time frame too little, too late
• Shouldn't spend time and money on alternative that will have to be removed in a few
years (Alts 7-9)
• Shouldn't build seawalls - fights against natural island movement
• None of the alternatives protect against Category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane
• Road too close to sound - can't move far enough back to protect from ocean
Long-term comments
• Elevated road or bridge would not work if an inlet is cut
• Conduct same type of public involvement for long-term project (no less than 1/yr) - first
meeting no later than December 2000 and include Hatteras Island Commissioners
• Speed up process for interim and long-term solutions
Miscellaneous
• Utilize remnants of old NC 12 for parking/beach access as much as possible instead of
grinding up
• Seven-year delay in Bonner Bridge replacement risks closure of bridge due to
deterioration
Appendix C
Public Hearing Notices and Handouts
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
FOR PROPOSED INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF NC 12
BETWEEN BUXTON AND AVON
Project 8.1052301 R-3116C Dare County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above public
hearing on August 21, 2000 at the following hours at the Cape Hatteras School on NC
12 in Buxton.
A prehearing open house will be held between the hours of 4:OOPM and 6:00
PM. Interested individuals may drop by at their convenience. Representatives from the
Department of Transportation and other agencies will be available to present
information and answer questions in an informal session.
A formal public hearing will convene at 7:00 PM.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of proposed locations, designs, right of
way procedures and the State-Federal relationship. The hearing will be open to those
present for statements, questions, comments, and/or submittal of material pertaining to
the proposed project. Additional materials may be submitted for a period of 10 days
from the date of the hearing to: C. B. Goode, Jr., P.E. at P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC
27611.
Under this project, several alternative proposals will be presented to provide
temporary protection to NC 12 until a more permanent solution can be developed.
These improvements are projected to provide protection of the roadway for
approximately five to ten years. Comments are solicited to aid in the selection of the
alternative.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr., P.E. at
P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or phone [phone]. Additional information
about this project and other planning activities for NC 12 on Hatteras and Ocracoke
Islands may also be found at www.obtf.org.
A copy of the Environmental Assessment is available for public review at the
Hatteras Island Public Library, the Dare County Public Library in Manteo, the Ocracoke
Island Public Library, and at the Hatteras Island Ferry Terminal.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in the hearing to comply with the American Disabilities Act. To receive
special services, please contact Mr. Goode at the above address or phone number or
fax [phone] to provide adequate notice prior to the date of the hearing so that
arrangements can be made.
uuG 10 2000
STATE HIGHWAY
AnMINIgTPATnP
;i
?i
?I
NC 112
I
Between Buxton and Avon
Project No.18.10b2301
P
TIP No. R-31?6C (R-40701
Dare County
Combined Public Hearing ?
Cape Hatteras School
August 21, 2000
Z
90/ZO'd S?:TT 00, 9T 100 '80Zb-OSZ-6T6"Xp3 NOIlddIOI

I.
I
i
I
i
N3ZIlI0
PURPOSE 0
NC 12 is essential to the inhabitants of Ha
as to the economic vitality of the region. W
transportation corridor, it has also long bet
because of overwash, flooding, and road do
proposes a short-term (5.10 yeark solution
Avon until a more permanent solution can
PROJECT
;eras Island and Dare County, as well
ale NC 12 is recognized as an ports
recognized as a threatened roadway
ure as a result of storms. project
or this problem between Buxt n and
e implemented. ,
PURPOSE OF PUiLIC HEARING
Tonight's hearing is one step in the Depa ent of Transportation's pro,
including the public as a part of the project' development process. The
of Transportation is soliciting your views o several alternatives for the
protection of NC 12 between Buxton and A n.
The Department of Transportation's views
Environmental Assessment for this project.
available at the various Dare County librar
Terminal.
We are also holding a prehearing open hoi
informal, will allow interested individuals
get information about the project. Persona
present to provide you with information.
YOUR PARTI
re for
artment
"the above are set forth in the
Copies of this report have been and are
?s and the Hatteras Island Fe-7y
this afternoon. This seakon, which is
e opportunity to ask questio and to
. with knowledge of the projec will be
APATION
Now that the opportunity is here you are urged to participate by making your
comments and/or questions a part of the Official Public Hearing Transcrip . This
may be done by having them recorded here Jonight, writing them on the c ent
sheet and leaving it with a Department of ansporta 'on representative
tone?;pr by submitting them in writing d g the l9jay period following
tonigh hearing to the following address. !
Mr. Carl i
Manager of Citi
P. 0. B
Raleigh,
le, P. E.
Participation
5201
27611
Everyone present is urged to participate in a proceedings. It is importan ,
however, that THE OPINIONS OF ALL I DIVIDUALS BE RESPECTPD
REGARDLESS OF HOW DIVERGENT MY MAY RE FROM YOUR,OWN.
Accordingly, debates, as such, are out of pla a at public hearings. Also, thq public
hearing is not to be used as a POPULAR REFERENDUM to determine thel
alignment by a majority vote of those present.
3
90/0'd a:11 00, 9T 130 180Zb-OSZ-6T6:xed N0I UMI18W N32HI9
WHAT IS DONE VVITH THE INPUT?
A post hearing meeting will be held after thi comment period has ended. kus
meeting will be attended by DOT staff repr seating Planning, Design, Ci ' en
Participation, and others who play a role in the development of a project. ei
appropriate, representatives from local staff';and officials also attend as w as
representatives from the Federal Highway 4dministration.
All spoken and written issues are discussed t this meeting. Most issues e
resolved at the post-hearing meeting. The epartment considers safety, c sts,
service to traffic, social impacts, environme tal impacts, and public comm is in
making decisions. Complex issues may req 're additional study and may e
further reviewed by higher management, B lard of Transportation membe , and
the Secretary of Transportation. Minutes c.. the post hearing meeting are ade and
are available to the public. You may request a copy of these minutes on th13
attached comment sheet. 1 I
PROJECT NEED AND HISTORY
In August, 1991, NCDOT sponsored a research project by North Carolina tats
University to identify critical sections of North Carolina's coastal highway and
options available for maintaining these highway corridors. The sturdy ideed
several areas of NC 12, including the proposed project area between Buxto and
Avon. w
The subject portion of NC 12 has been subject to overwash for many years. Several
hurricanes and storms have created problems for this area in the past. An
Interagency Task Force was developed in 1993 to develop a long-range protection
and maintenance plan for the transportation system on the Outer Banks.
scientific research panel was commissioned y NCDOT in 1999 to study critical
spots of NC 12, including the proposed proje t area,. to give recommendatio s for
short term and interim improvements. This panel consisted of geologists d
engineers from several universities and the '. S. Army Corps of Engineer-
Several of the recommendations of this pan are presented as alternatives for
se are possi ilities
short-term solutions for NC 12 between Avo and Buxton,
T4q
that are deemed feasible to keep NC 12 ope tional for the a 5-10 years We are
seeking public input as one factor for selec ' S the best altern five to use for this
project. zoo,
Tentative Schedule: i
Begin Right of Way Ac uisition - September, 2000
Let to Contract -
i
4
90/b0 'd 91: TT 00, 9T 100 y 80Zb-0SZ-6T6:Xe3 NOI UMIAOd N32HI0
CITIZEN PIRTICIPRTION Fax=919-250-42081 Oct 16 '00 11:36 P.05i06

i
I
1 Q
?In
1

L) C O? b

E E E
c
= C

a C
€
:: E

1 rt ?o
e?y
MH? _
E
ul •E E
? ? ?
40
ti.. L'i. ? C
Ali r
M N
N

E `
rE E E
O
N O
N b
Vi O
N O
IR r
M
N
O
V p?? €

C
W
c
to 7v

U ?j

G ?A
u
V Sw O
_m
O y
y
7
O
g
te
O
W
G ?
m d ?
y
`w V1
cc a
'
c'3

I
?ll
cc Q

o
= C c ; °
B 0?
'E 0? O Y. ?
Y.
EE
0.0
?
c

c

° c c E
o
_

E E E

,

E
2 v C9 Co E E
E
V M N .ri:3•.?i ? M M M

E r D
O r r d
o N ?
p
N m 10 I m N
35
o ' '
?
Q
c
u
n e`a '0

_ E

o e `0 ?? f
40
c g c
E
E.s.' Erm

a z IN
2 g M a
'- $-
E 06 R
•?''
I
p 1 ?E
tr W : h 'af? 1
m
c E •
u
v
m
?
d
i
E
a u
?
n
? a w t
n ? 1

e
. 6
a
32
A
?
01 O O O
.- N w 1p ti b O!
tL
N
IS
w
0
m
M
e
.9 =
? v n
Q 'c
o
I c;
COMMENT, SHEET
P
Between A
Combined Public Hearing
R-3116C Project 8.1052601
August 24 2000
NAME: I
ADDRESS:
COMNMNTS AND\OR QUESTIONS:
Dare
Comments may be mailed to:
C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E. {
Manager of Citizens Participation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611 Phone: [phone] y Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
90/90'd zi:TT 00, 9T 130
6
80Zb-0SZ-616:Xe_d NOIiddI0I121 d N32III0

J0 t11A 1. El- "s y

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
1.. ' 1
'va 722)
NDS GROUN
Y?ATER QUALITY SECTION ,_,,,.,..
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DAVID McCOY
GOVENOR SECRETARY
March 3, 2000
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
ATTN: Mr. Michael F. Bell, PWS
Subject: Proposed Geotechnical test borings in the Pamlico Sound
associated with a proposed bridge from Avon to Buxton in Dare
County, North Carolina, TIP Project R-4070.
Dear Sir,
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is planning to conduct
geotechnical test borings in the Pamlico Sound in Dare County, North Carolina.
Four borings are proposed. The borings will be approximately 4 inches in
diameter and will extend approximately 150± feet below the ground surface or
mud line.
It is anticipated that these activities will be authorized by Nationwide
Permit 06. A vicinity map detailing the proposed location of the borings is
included for reference. The NCDOT would like to begin these test boring
activities during the week of March 27, 2000. Therefore, the Department
requests that these activities be authorized as soon as possible.
P. O. Box 850 Edenton, NC 27932 Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Thank you for your time and consideration. If,,ou have any questions or
would like additional information, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely.
D. R. Conner, PE
Division Engineer
T. Linds iddick. Jr.
Division Eivironmental Officer- Division One
CC: Mr. R. E. Capehart, PE, NCDOT
Mr. Frank Jennings, NCDCM
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Sara Winslow, NCDMF
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM
' -}nf
Loo ou1T er(C)o
a??i rr ?kee
i)oal . Coos im St.
Q.
-nti
V;P
r a 4. ;i
?; ? ?.' is • ? '?2
`.
i
3? I 1 1
I )PA-2 (E)
cn°
i cc (E)
cc
it
49
ZQ ?= Grea U 1
e \,islall p - I
Bald - '
r _ -
on- Lai
Cape
''' •? Cpl
~!? 1? Dili'('111XIor": _?p J •,/'? ?.?u- -- - r,•:?
\? ?? - I : ?, ?'' 1%?- - - L ?11? ? ? _ ?- Tor'-"o•. fr i?'1 Q?
.r... -

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 4, 2000
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management y
Elizabeth City District Office w?
1367 U.S. 17 South
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909 WEER IANos
LI,Y S1:C(i,?
ATTENTION: Mr. Frank Jennings, Coastal Field Representative
Dear Mr. Jennings:
Subject: Proposed Aerial Target Platforms in the Pamlico Sound associated with a
potential bridge from Avon to Buxton in Dare County, North Carolina,
TIP Project R-4070.
Dear Sir,
Please reference emergency permit 87-99 issued on 9/4/99 and a subsequent
minor modifications of permit 87-99 on 9/10/99 and 6/2/00 which authorized the
reconstruction/relocation of NC 12, the construction of a protective dune line adjacent to
the relocated section of NC between Buxton and Avon, and the construction of a
secondary dune line adjacent to the relocated NC 12. As you are aware, the NCDOT is
investigating long term solutions for keeping the NC 12 corridor viable. Due to the
recent relocation and associated work necessitated by recent storms, the NCDOT has
decided to move forward with analysis of long term options. To that end the NCDOT is
investigating the potential for a bridge between Avon and Buxton that would span the
Pamlico Sound.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is conducting a preliminary
feasibility study for the construction of the above mentioned highway bridge between
Avon and Buxton on Hatteras Island. In order to map the presence of submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) in the Pamlico Sound the NCDOT is planning aerial surveys for SAV
in the Pamlico Sound in Dare County, North Carolina.
P. O. Box 850 Edenton, NC 27932 Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
As part of the study process, the NCDOT needs to procure high level photography
at an accurate scale, which requires aerial targets. Because of the size of the area the
NCDOT will need to construct six (6) platforms in the Pamlico Sound to use as some of
these targets. The NCDOT has coordinated with the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries (NCDMF). A representative of the NCDMF will assist in locating the exact
positions at which to place the targets to ensure that the platforms are located and
constructed in a manner that will be as sensitive as possible to the environment. Due to
the fact that the aerial photography missions are weather dependent and that water clarity
and tide levels are critical to the success of the project, the targets will remain in place up
to one year depending on timing of favorable conditions.
A vicinity map detailing the proposed location of the targets is included for
reference. Please note that the map depicts the approximate locations of the targets with
the final locations to be determined in conjunction with the NCDMF. The NCDOT
would like to erect the targets immediately. Therefore, the Department requests that
these activities be authorized as a minor modification to Permit 87-99 as soon as possible.
A check in the amount of $100.00 is attached to cover the modification fees.
Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions or would
like additional information, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
D. R. Conner, PE
Division Engineer
T. Lindse dick, Jr.
Division Environmental Officer
CC: Mr. R. E. Capehart, PE, NCDOT/
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Sara Winslow, NCDMF
Mr. David Cox, NCArRC
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMF
Mr. Francis Peltier, NPS
Mr. Doug Huggett, NCDCM
Mr. Charlie Brown, PE, PLS, NCDOT
?i
C'
?I
c
0
v
Lam:
ff!
C
co
?zJ
C Li
CZ,
L
LLJ 7 C C' CL t19,
t + ?_+
i Q)
C O .? I C
6?J ?? ? U G
1 x y Ci C
N ?, r p
X ? U ?r-
N
r b r'1 r
T^
J
C%
LO
rI '? I Ilt
I
O \
`4
- ----- --`--------
------------------
Y.
U
a.
ti
7
3
r?:
s
c 11
r \\1 ?_ 9i, / Yloon_
mod - - - - oas r _
\\ --------V L-- \'\
N t'
•?V•A' NNYI •:? k?11?yO? i ?? - ?, °
? ofd - b v 'J P _--. -'' u? ? .• C '?. r
tcp .''Dt.rv.LS:I'deL•_\ Wr319s9kil=J
)ANY XNYl r^? ' -1.....? ~' E ?\
!'10d71n ?1861.0??/4S1swhn.unj; "\ iF
r"ve ed1C u/C7rC, ° uDv?.•tr?SVQ ?. ?•'? .L Wt Li: c^ c !d
uo:Yn13 ?yyc> Z.9:. T I? e?ool c9.I.Y. \. 0 SItc c
or ?` 1 \ n ` \ o r.Z 4Wr LSt c8'a Jd y -roN
LC G \ \ [ \. ?` t L \ C
1Nh` f •9 " S, vOC?ti1'C?/\. J l I
Iyqs
VgLigg'Z E)
r ,F .sue \? \ .. :?' I? r?•r 8
r L S SL
C. Wr Int sP /-•?
01
5d
F? d? E
I
c` rCL E 1 F c L \\ ._. r•
r i.
..e53bl1YD ISR?tE? ?ne'idl \.` ?x -I. - a
17
C. up^b
Z O Due!s,± seolt wcnc,'k C I i C ?? I ``
r - GIC \
c 1, rll^\c Z ..1 WSJFl`cvn;?F? `??\ G:
r
. 5TA T
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
October 11, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: Scott McLendon, US Army Corps of Engineers
John Wadsworth, Federal Highway Administration
Sara Winslow, NC Division of Marine Fisheries
John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
David Cox, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles Jones, NC Division of Coastal Management
Chris Bernthal, National Park Service
Tracy Rice, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Ted Bisterfeld, Environmental Protection Agency
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries Service
FROM: Julie A. Hunkins, P.E.
Assistant State Highway Administrator
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: NEPA/404 Merger Process Concurrence Point 3 (LEDPA) for NC 12
Interim Improvements Study between Buxton and Avon in Dare County,
TIP Project Number R-4070A (formerly R-3116C), Federal Aid Project
No. NHF-12(7), State Project Number 8.1052401
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Regulatory Branch, U.S. Department of
Transportation-Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and N.C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) have selected Alternative 6 (road relocation with a dune) as the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) for the proposed project. Selection
was made based on the description and information provided in the Environmental Assessment
(EA); however, the length and height of the dunes will be reduced near the termini of the project
in order to minimize impacts to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. This alternative, as
modified, will meet the purpose and need of the project, while minimizing impact to the
surrounding environment.
As a NEPA/404 Project Team member, your concurrence on this proposed alternative, with
minor modifications as noted above, is requested. Your signature below indicates concurrence
with Alternative 6 (road relocation with a dune).
If u ha e any question , please contact Colista Sugg or me at [phone].
'29 C /Jx ")/-z_?/" ?/o 0
Signature - NEPA/404 -, m Agency Name Date
Member
JAH/sm
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE! 919.733-7384 LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX, 919.733-9428 TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1536 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DCH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1536
e,..SWfp?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DAVID McCOY
GOVENOR SECRETARY
August 2, 2000
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P. 0. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000

Gf?O )P
Y <?,_ ? .
ATTN: Mr. Michael F. Bell, PWS
Subject: Proposed Aerial Target Platforms in the Pamlico Sound associated with a
potential bridge from Avon to Buxton in Dare County, North Carolina, TIP
Project R-4070.
Dear Sir,
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is conducting a preliminary
feasibility study for the construction of a highway bridge between Avon and Buxton on
Hatteras Island. In order to map the presence of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
in the Pamlico Sound the NCDOT is planning aerial surveys for SAV in the Pamlico
Sound in Dare County, North Carolina.
As part of the study process, the NCDOT needs to procure high level
photography at an accurate scale, which requires aerial targets. Because of the size of
the area the NCDOT will need to construct six (6) platforms in the Pamlico Sound to
use as some of these targets. The NCDOT has coordinated with the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). A representative of the NCDMF will assist in
locating the exact positions at which to place the targets to ensure that the platforms
are located and constructed in a manner that will be as sensitive as possible to the
environment. Due to the fact that the aerial photography missions are weather
dependent and that water clarity and tide levels are critical to the success of the project,
the targets will remain in place up to one year depending on timing of favorable
conditions.
It is anticipated that these activities will be authorized by Nationwide Permit 05. A
vicinity map detailing the proposed location of the targets is included for reference.
P. O. Box 850 Edenton, NC 27932 (252) -'32-7977 FAX: [phone]
Please note that the map depicts the approximate locations of the targets with
the final locations to be determined in conjunction with the NCDMF. The NCDOT would
like to erect the targets immediately. Therefore, the Department requests that these
activities be authorized as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions or would
like additional information, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
D. R. Conner, PE
Division Engineer
VU4
T. Lindse iddick, Jr.
Division Environmental Officer- Division One
CC: Mr. R. E. Capehart, PE, NCDOT
Mr. Ted Sampson, NCDCM /
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Sara Winslow, NCDMF
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMF

Z
L
V
v
n

--------------------
I axe
1-------------------
i I p\? V
r
.l

1
7
n
T
C
J
'-1

V

I?
i J
i
17
.. • - - - \.?\ p ti
y
ISr .. _ t
16
ar.a Q
13
13 A
\' TANK
\ Rases ?` P f
PIP
x As
- J \
y r ?,. 3
27
10 `` ?' `'`.mil `? - -, ' i ?• 1 \'
PS 2.59 , TR aM 7 _ AM
r? - -3-,? - ds 15.1 aM
? y = 'raw. I -? ( S (? ! -k- c;re
2" 2.5s,i 5rt :w
AP3
2 -19
r
27
Ch,?.nt., a ?' A.ds 1 iR dM' ?\ \? ,r l ?5. 30
eo15CC ?'\` ti6 s 3roo?a Pt r 9 .• 9U:con
FI? is t?R 1M 'd ???';' ?aTnr, ,-:rCA s .. :Z)
a '
1 i' _:F•enia, . t$hlrv98l? .,i?C;eO`. -•. -
\ g ....?.. I - -? -• .. YrnR 2= ?
-` b .wr( .---- -----' lam' -CwEA_
=Ia838R4M'. ?pu 54 Am-1(r
9 _ - O a 4 J.nn.aN S!?!<.YA?K •}a \? :4 . .\,``o
43
"
- C
AS ?; ? ,'\?•
r 's C --- .1 CAPE HATTER
\) i CUPOI.a • ?i?z.. .?
l % Z
------------
F??,N pox
i' _ 3,
ice P,
3/25/96
DEM ID: CORF_ ACTION =D:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTID (PRO',_=DE `dAT=_NW=::E _-RMII' #; : NW 05
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS 0- ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH TL-_ NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SEN- TO THE N.C. C=VISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY !DDRESSES S-EE- . PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC:OT
2. MAILING ADDRESS: ? 0 Box 350
BD=VISION NAME:
CITY: Edenton ST_TE: 2IP CODE: 27932
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCL_-DING S::3DIVISI_N NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE): ?amlic: Sound =_dlacenz to NC 12
Between Avon and Bu::-on, Cz-_e Cour-y, NC
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (H--ME): (WCRK): 252-482-7977
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME DR RES=DNS=BLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER: Dc:: R. Con-:er, P. E.
Di-, ision =zaineer-Division One
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PR--VIDE A. MAP, F=EFERABL- A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERI=_L PHOT=iRAPHY ,dIT = SC LE) :
COUNTY: Dare NEAREST -DWN OR DITY: Buxton
1

SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCL-2DE ROA7 NUMBERS, LAN:MARKS, ETC.):
Pamlico Sound adjacent tc NC 12
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/:.IVE-R:
RIVER BASIN:
Pamlico Sound
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED `TEAR WP.=ER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW , CUTS-ANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR ti-:z-II)? YES [X: NO : ) IF YES, EXPLAIN:
Proiect is in the Pamlic:: Scund
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOC.Z ED WIT-IN A N:RTH CAPJLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENV_RONMENT=_L CONCERN (AE:) ?YES [X] NO[ J
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHA= IS TE-1 LAND -SE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
Transitional/conservatic-
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 434 PERM=TS BEEN PREVI:USLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ; NO :X] IF YES, P=.OVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATI:N (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PE::-',!IT REQ'-'ESTS E,'PECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [X] NO ( ; IF YES, DES--RISE P_`;TICIPATED WORK:
The survevs are incluced in t-e Iona term sudv to continue trans.
Along the NC 12 route. Currently ir.:luded :s the potential for a new
Bridqe in this location
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL N:,BER Or ACRES -N TRAC= OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES :F WETL=_NDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
N/A
2
R
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: E\CAVATICN:
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE =MPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOT:- BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION)
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFT-R: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal h_gh water contours):
N/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: `1/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: temp. placement of target platforms in Pamlico Sound
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION 0: PROPOSED WORv INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO 3E USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY) :
construct Target platfor-.s to a--'d in aerial photography
to identify subme_-ged aquatic veq. Wood, general construction equip.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED :CORK: construct target platforms to aid
in photoaraohv missions to identifv SAV.
3

14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BEL=EVED T :AT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUCE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
rtC L•T4C\ T T; _v2 r11T -aSr ?.a *".RINE ?NHFS\ (SEE TGENGV
SES
E C1 ml
? T'^ T s ,s
?
ta sKrGE aF A?r?. FV T TCTS9 G
r
ST??? a
Z o? ?
ADDR
S
TPnGI9SE9 -.
/
4 LTSr?_
`
Z 7=-,
R
? c
nEGTEC GC] GT]TTTGTT
::HR
LUED
AuI A£ F 1
?
_
..
PI IiE
SIT IIF:.S'LT-
_..IR??T
£
AP?;
AT 'A .
-..S
8Y THE PRGPG8E9 PR0jEGT
Ak'
F
EGTE-
Y BE
-
DATE GG Tm-L --
-
AGgED • __
-
(IT:;;TTS._ . .
_
?
+
ZT_C7L FF..,`4 THESE TGENGTL'C 1
16. Y£?;--A .E C
S
P?7
TTTGN GFFTGL P
P i;E
11 C ^7
C[-
RE QU=RSP T ?GN:;!AG--TH_ s _ ,.
S C
T?
v
s P
SPA T *
/
?
+
n
?
?
?
7?
)
'EENGE; OF 141ST-G IG
E
^
D
P
ES-
SC
GENG:
?
n
T
ZT
n
P G)---(
T
rrn
n
_
F
Al .2
PCC
T
i-SL7'?
- ?
i?T ?P+- ?TO
+7
T
T]
Tt
!
'rZFLZ!iT
? R,
?-p RGpGssy
GH *R
?
BE FF=;
T
E; p
7
?
p r7
?
T
'? S
rT2
_ _ Tr"._
TC
'. _'
C
D
/
. H
7
17. DOES --HE PROJECT IN`,-JLVE A'; EXPENC=TUF.E CE PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC ,STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] __F NO, CO TO :3)
a. IF YES, COES THE PROJECT R_EQU=RE FREFARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIRE'IENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL PCIICY ACT?
YES [ ] NO [X]
b. IF YES, HAS THE COCUMEN7 BEEN REV=EWEI THROUGH THE NORTH
CARCLINA DEPARTME',T 0= AI',IIN=ST=?.TICN SATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [ ] NO 1 J
IF ANSWER =0 17b =S YES, THEN S_3MI-A=PRO_RI.TE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO D-7ISION OF ENV=RONM'ENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH T.-'E_ NORT- CAROL=NA ENV=RONM'EN AL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS =.EGARDI"_G THE STATE C-SAR=NG-OUSE RE-.-IEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TC MS. C-RYS BA'sET'-, =RECTO?. ST TE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF A=',IIN;ST?yTION, :16 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CARO=INA 279-03-300=, T-_-LE=HONE (='_9) 73'-6369.
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
G. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALI WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT ANC PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCA:.ES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUI7ALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAFH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSiLTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
2.
C", (T-a ?z er?
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNAT RE DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5