20110023_Information Letter_20100629

V
,?,.EO srrF ?D
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 219
11"W1 REGION 4 q,?,'?Yq ?Q?Q O
o = ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
o 61 FORSYTH STREET f444 q
aeoleo ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
Date: June 28, 2010
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment (EA) for B-2500, NC 12 Replacement
of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge over Oregon Inlet, Dare County, N.C.
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the subject'
document; and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) are proposing to replace the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge across
Oregon Inlet in Dare County. The bridge is part of the NC 12 transportation corridor and
provides the only highway connection between Hatteras Island and Bodie Island.
The purpose of the EA as described on Page 1-1 includes: the decision to add a
new study alternative (i.e., Parallel Bridge Corridor with NC 12 Transportation
Management Plan) and select it as the Preferred Alternative, the elimination of the
Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor alternatives as detailed study alternatives, an assessment
of impacts for the new detailed study alternatives, refinements made to the detailed study
alternatives, and new information since the publication of the 2008 Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS). Based upon the aforementioned significant issues, EPA
believes that preparation of a Supplement FEIS might be appropriate. EPA understands
that the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan beyond the Phase I replacement of
Bonner Bridge has not yet been defined. NCDOT and FHWA are also proposing a
coastal monitoring program, but the timing and details are also not addressed. EPA has
provided detailed comments concerning this issue and other relevant project
environmental impact issues identified in this EA in an attachment to this letter (See
Attachment A).
Internet Address (URL) a httpt//w .apa.gov
Racy cled/Recyclable • Pnnled wdh Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 306 Poslconsumer)
II
EPA continues to have substantial environmental concerns for Phases II,
lp-,' and IV for the NC 12 corridor and recommend that very serious and objective
consideration be given to non-highway transportation alternatives such as transition to a
permanent ferry service be evaluated in the Supplemental FEIS for the long-term
solutions for Hatteras Island. EPA has previously identified its environmental concerns
for adding new and very costly infrastructure on fragile and dynamic barrier islands. For
very similar reasons, EPA concurs with FHWA and NCDOT on the elimination of the
Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor alternatives previously developed during the NEPA
process. EPA recommends that the Phased Approach/All Bridge and the Road
North/Bridge South alternatives also be eliminated from further consideration in future
phases due to the significant environmental impacts and potential permitting constraints.
There remain unresolved environmental issues for Phase I as well, including the
development and approval of a detailed compensatory mitigation plan for the
jurisdictional impacts to "Aquatic Resources of National Importance" (ARNI). NCDOT
and FH WA's previous proposal of `out-of-kind' and out of the same hydrologic
cataloguing unit (HUC) was not generally acceptable to any of the resource or permitting
agencies. EPA has not been provided any compensatory mitigation proposal for Phase 1
jurisdictional impacts as was indicated during the last Merger informational meeting..
EPA understands that there is a requirement to provide for mitigation in Dare County and. -,
that this issue has not been resolved.
Please feel free to contact Mr. Christopher A. Militscher of my staff at 919-856-
4206 should you have specific questions concerning these comments. Mr. Militscher
plans to continue to stay involved with the proposed project through the NEPA/Section
404 Merger process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
I ?1)?L ?-)
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
Region 4 NEPA Program Office
Cc: J. Sullivan, FHWA
S. McClendon, USACE
P. Benjamin, USFWS
Attachment A
B-2500 Bonner Bridge Environmental Assessment
Dare County
Detailed Review Comments
General Comments
EPA considers the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) requirements under
40 CFR Section 1506.1 potentially relevant to the transportation decision-makers for the
proposed project. EPA has expressed its opinion at Merger team meetings that there is
,an allowance for segmentation' if an action is too speculative to allow productive
evaluation in the current assessment and there has been a full analysis conducted for the
entire project study area and an accurate assessment of a full range of alternatives. EPA
was specifically referring to future phases beyond the replacement of the Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge under Phase 1. However, it is also important for transportation planners
and decision-makers to fully understand that the proposed action will not limit the choice
of reasonable alternatives and that the action has independent utility and can be , .
independently justified. :The EA should have highlighted these issues and discussed them .: .: u
in detail with supporting documentation. Page 2-13 of the EA iterates EPA's past position: .. .... .
on this issue f-onrthe May 21, 2009, meeting. The NEPA requirements for tiering under. + . . i,
40 CFR Section 1508.28 are also issues to be considered and may be appropriate in
documented' cases where it helps the lead agency to focus on the issues that are ripe for :e.r'. ;, .;..••+ i;
decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe. The `
- potential impacts with the Road North/Bridge South, All Bridge, and Phased
Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternatives are future phases beyond Phase 1 and are not ;r. ;•;.iii t°',t•;a
believed to'be'ripe for-decision.. Furthermore; it is made very clear during Merger
meetings and iii the'Review Board's decision that all alternatives•would be considered for
future phases beyond Phase 1. From comments by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
others, EPA understood this to mean that even preliminary study alternatives that had
been eliminated would be re-evaluated in a future NC-PA document for future phases. The
EA presents the same alternatives for future phases that were evaluated in the 2008 FEIS
with slight bridge and alignment design modifications near Rodanthe.
FH WA and NCDOT have issued several Environmental Impact Statements for
the proposed project beginning in 1993 with the DEIS. For purposes of consistency and
full disclosure with the public and resource and permitting agencies, a Supplemental
FEIS might be the appropriate NEPA documentation since the issuance of the 2008 FEIS. ,
Future phases for the NC 12 corridor are still not very well defined under a proposed NC
12 Transportation Management Plan and this uncertainty should be evaluated fully and
objectively in a Supplemental FEIS. Non-highway options should be included in future
evaluations.
2009 Updates to Parallel Bridge Corridor Alternatives
Section 2.1 of the EA includes updates to the Parallel Bridge Corridor
Alternatives. As stated on page 2-1, "These alignment revisions can be incorporated into
I?
1
the Preferred Alternative (See Section 2.3) when a future phase is constructed in
Rodanthe in the vicinity of these historic resources". From EPA's perspective, this
continued evaluation for future phases of bridges on Hatteras Island is potentially pre-
decisional and not consistent with the Merger Review Board's decision on the selection
of the Least Environmentally Damaging Preferred Alternative (LEDPA).
Constructing another bridge and other highway infrastructure (i.e., Interchange) in
the vicinity of Rodanthe would limit future feasible alternatives following the completion
of Phase 1. With massive bridges on either end of the Pea Island National Wildlife
Refuge (PINWR), the only `reasonable' alternatives that NCDOT and FHWA would
potentially consider along NC 12 would be additional bridges at the hot spots and
locations where there were breaches formed or bridging the entire 17-mile NC 12
'III corridor under the Phased'Approach/All Bridge alternative. The Phase 11 Rodanthe
Bridge Alternative would commit potentially hundreds of millions of dollars into
additional infrastructure south of PINWR and represent a continued transportation
investment on a fragile and dynamic barrier island system. EPA has questioned the
rationale for constructing additional bridges along the `wave front' without a full analysis .
'I; "of how"'stich structures would fair during storm'events', what contingencies would be
! available' should the.bridge riot be long enough following a major storm, what
maintenance issues and costs might be associated with this alternative, etc. i
Page 2-6 of the EA describes that additional homes have been built in the ll
l "Rodanthe portion of the'project study area and ihat'rclocations, both residential and '
- business; have'increased: Forthe'Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge (PA/RB)
- `ahema'tfve 3 resiilenttal and`l liusiness'relocations were presented in the _008 FEIS
-" Residential relocations-nicreased fob residential (double) and 7-business relocations
?'(rimore th5n (riplc).''In Table 2'1; b'oih tlie'PA413'and Road North/Bridge South'aiid'All'
Bridge (RN/BS and AB) alternatives indicate an `Adverse Effect' because the elevation
of the bridge as it passes through [tic Refuge (PINWR). Refuge access in the southern
portion of the Refuge would also be reduced tinder PA/RB, RN/BS and AB alternatives.
For RN/BS'and AB alternatives, jurisdictional wetland impacts would also be increased
from 1.2 acres includcd'in'thi 2008 FEIS'to 2.0 acres (0.8 acres). Under protected species
adversely affected under PA/RB, RN/BS and AB', Table 2-2 indicates "None likely".
These potential `future Phase' impacts are'believe'd by EPA to be'potentially significant
and may nee `to be addressed` in a Supplemental FEIS.
Preferred Aliernative'
Section 2J of the EA describes the Preferred Alternative, which is the Parallel
Bridge Corridor with NC'1'2 Transportation Management Plan alternative. The EA'
states: "'Several aspects of this alternative, including the phasing and the coastal
'lnonitoruig program, are similar to the Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Alternative,'
which"wiis selected as'the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS"'. EPA does not concur with
this statement. The Parallel Bridge Corridor with NC 12 Transportation Management
Plan alternative would essentially allow for a re-evaluation of all reasonable and feasible
alternatives, including preliminary study alternatives that were eliminated in earlier

phases of the NEPA process. As stated under bullet item #2 on page 2-13, the alternative
recognizes the completion of Phase I alone would not meet the purpose and need of the
project and represented a commitment by all parties to develop and implement the entire
action from Rodanthe to Bodie Island. Constructing a Phase 11 bridge at Rodanthe also
does not meet the purpose and need of the project. EPA has also expressed substantial
environnteraA concerns for constructing new bridges where the pilings and other support
structures are in the surf wave zone. NCDOT and FHWA were to further investigate
other examples in the U.S. (and potentially Worldwide) where bridges have been
constructed in the surf wave zone. To date, NCDOT and FHWA have not reported
similar bridge structures and have identified only those bridges that are in open water
bays and oceans. These are very different coastal engineering settings and EPA
continues to have environmental concerns for the construction of additional bridges along
a barrier island.
Section 2.3.2 describes the characteristics of the new Preferred Alternative,
Parallel Bridge Corridor with NC 12 Transportation Management' Plan. For Phase 1 of
the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan Altemative the wetland impact is described
as 1.0 acre. The EA describes that is impact is slightly higher than the Phased Approach
alternatives (i.e., 0.6 acres) and slightly less than the RN/BS Alternative of 1.9 acres.
Under the Table 2-3 Impacts between the FEIS and EA, 6.4 acres of new easement would
be required within PIN WR and 4:8 acres of existing right of way would be returned to
PINWR under the RN/BS Alternative and,3.5 acres and 2.7 acres, respectively, for the
NC 12 Transportation Management Plan. Under the category of Cultural Resource
Impacts, there is an Adverse Effect to PiNWR and an Adverse Effect to the former
Oregon'Inlet U.S. Coast Guard Station: Under the NC 12 Transportation Management
Plan, 2.2 acres of aquatic bottom, 0.2 acres of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAVs),
and 3.1 acres of wetlands and SAV would be shaded by Phase 1. Under the category of
Protected Species Impacts in Table 2-4, both the FEIS and EA columns indicate that
there will be likely disturbance to piping plover and sea turtles nesting on the beach, but
not likely to affect in the ocean. EPA does not understand this biological assessment in
the context of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designations of impact (affect)
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
There is a footnote included in Table 2-6 that indicates that the NC 12
Transportation Management Plan Alternative (Preferred) includes impacts under all 5
Parallel Bridge Corridor Alternatives and that this reflects the range of reasonably
foreseeable impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. EPA does not concur and
this analysis is inconsistent with the Merger Review Board decision and is potentially
`pre-decisional' for the future range of reasonable and foreseeable alternatives. There is
no discussion concerning other potential alternatives such as the future transition and use
to ferries. Several of these alternatives, including the All Bridge Alternative (17 miles of
bridging), are not believed by EPA or other agencies to be reasonable alternatives and the
likelihood of being permitted by other agencies or found to be compatible with the
USFWS/PINWR is even more unlikely. EPA does concur with the statements made
concerning- the Merger Review Board amendment on Page 2-30 ofthe EA.

Under Table 2-6, the EA presents impact information for the Phase II, III and IV
alternatives that were shown in the FEIS. Total SAV and wetland impacts are as follows:
Nourishment Alternative (11.65 acres shading and 3.98 acres fill), RN/BS Alternative
(23.23 acres shading and 78.22 acres fill), All Bridge (48.11 acres shading and 13.76
acres fill). Phased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge (14.84 acres shading and 3.01 acres fill)
and Phased Approach/Rodanthe Nourishment (14.81 acres shading and 3.00 acres fill).
NCDOT and FHWA present these alternatives under the NC 12 Transportation
Management Plan Alternative (Preferred). The presentation of this information in the EA
is not consistent with the statement on Page 2-28 conceming the new Preferred
Alternative and that additional solutions (alternatives) need to be further explored and
identified for future phases beyond Phase I.
The estimates contained in Tables 2-3 and 2-4 does not correlate to the impacts
presented in Tables 2-5 and 2-6. For example, under NC 12 Transportation Management
Plan, total open water and SAV impacts are shown as 8.77 acres of shading and 2.45
acres of-fill and piles. Total wetland impacts are shown as 2.23 acres for shading and 1.02
acres-for fill arid piles. Total shading impacts are shown as 11.0 acres and total fill a ; •,,. ,
impacts•are:shown as 3.47. acres: Under Section.2:3:3.3, Jurisdictional Issues, impact ,..
changes are described as `.small and notsignificant'. The EA does not address the fact,
I that these jit risdictianal- resources are considered by EPA to be "Aquatic'Resources of
.:r. National.hnportance'=;.(ARNI);?andthat '•relativ,ely.'small increases_injurisdictional,. .. ,,..,? ,t ;.;.• ',
impacts are:potentially significant.
t :.. .?`Jt should-be•notedahat the comment on Page 2-28 conceming the selection,ofthe>.;
LEDPA?astherP,hased Approach/Rodanthe Bridge Altemative is misleading.,:The Merger;. „ -„t, .;. ra
Review Board comprises-NCDOT ?FHWA„US.ACE and NCDWQ!management
O representatives. Not all of the Merger team agencies agreed with the selection of the
LEDPA. EPA had substantial environmental concerns for selecting future phases of the
proposed project beyond Phase 1, the replacententof Bonner Bridge. These concerns
t were detailed in previous EIS comment letters. EPA does concur with the statements that ?
i. are referenced on Page 2-29 made at the -lay 2l, 2009, meeting.
Page 2-32 of the EA discusses the safety and related issues associated with the
existing Bonner Bridge. The EA does not fully disclose the current efforts and the
approximate S40 million rehabilitation contract to extend the life of the existing Bonner
Bridge or other routine or periodic maintenance. It is also important to note the two
additional 'hot spots' along NC.12 on Hatteras Island near Buxton and Hatteras Village
that are south of the Rodanthe terminus.. The entire NC 12 corridor needs to be evaluated
in future NEPA documents for future phasesibeyond Phase I. Page 2-32 cites
`paraphrased' comments made by Mr. Militscher of my staff at past Merger meetings. It
is important to note that these are not direct quotes and should not be given any more
weight than other comments that were made by other Merger team representatives,
including.FHWA, NCDOT, USAGE, USFWS, etc.
EPA does not concur with the footnote statement at Tables 2-7 and 2-8, Pages 2-
34 and 2-35. This may not be the range of reasonable alternatives for future phases and

their respective costs. As previously stated, the Phased Approach/All Bridge and Road
North/Bridge South alternatives may not be `permittable' due to the severity and
magnitude of impacts, the lack of suitable mitigation, etc. EPA does not believe that
these alternatives are reasonable considering the magnitude of impacts and should be
dropped from further consideration for future phases of the proposed project. The EA
also discusses potential breaches along Hatteras Island in the context of single events to
be responded to ou Pages 2-32 and 2-33. In all probability, there is a greater likelihood
that a very severe storm event will cause multiple breaches along the NC 12 corridor.
None of the described `Phased Approach' Parallel Bridge Corridor (11, 111, or IV)
alternatives will address this potential outcome. There are numerous locations along this
thin island that are not currently identified `hot spots' that could be breached under the
'worst conditions'. EPA believes that modeling or performing detailed engineering and
environmental analyses for unpredictable storm event conditions is not realistic. EPA
further suggests greater consideration be given to developing a short-term 'contingency
plan' for temporary ferry service until the NC 12 Transportation Management Plan can
be fully evaluated and detailed in the future. The specific details of the coastal monitoring
program also need to be further discussed in future NEPA documents and with the ..
Merger team agencies (Referring to comment-on Pages 3-4 and 3-5 of the EA).
EPA believes that shoreline and other landscape features will continue to change .
along the ban icr islands, irrespective of potential impacts from sea level rise. The . '
- t research studies that KCDOT and-FHWA have cited onlyrovide further evidence to the
fact that barrier islands are dynamic features and are influenced' by both `normal
shoreline erosion' factors, as well as unpredictable-and periodic storm events. The
barrier islan6 along North Carolina have already dramatically changed in'the last 200
` '.'years and this change will only potentially accelerate due to global `climate change
effects. Planning efforts for future conditions need to recognize that engineered solutions
to address these changes may not be reasonable and effective.