20110023_More Info Received_20100628

JUN-29-2010 17:24 PEP
2022191139 P.02
pno United States Department of the Interior kr?l I
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY „1V._
Washington, DC 20240 TAKE RI
w/?MEER1C.CA
JUN 2 8 2010 00;x.1
PEP/NRM
ER 10/460
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
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments on the Federal
Environmental Assessment (EA) for North Carolina Route 12 (NC: 12)
Replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner 'Bridge, TIP Project No. 13-2500, dated
May 7, 2010. The Department of the Interior (Department) offers tho following
comments and recommendations fur your consideration.
General Comments
The Department finds the EA deficient in a variety of categories. We do not believe it
adequately addresses alternatives and environmental impacts as required by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and fails to satisfy standards set
forth in the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations (40 CFR
1500-1508). We do not believe the EA and Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) on which it is based fully evaluated all reasonable and practical alternatives.
The described purpose of the EA (p. 1-1) is to docurent the decision to add a new
detailed study alternative, the Parallel Bridge Corridor with NC 12 Transportation
Management Plan (PB/TMP), to the September 2008 FEIS and select it as the new
Preferred Alternative based on new information obtained since the publication of
the FEIS. The findings contained in the EA and subsequent public review of the
document are to determine whether or not these changes or circumstances would
result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the FEIS; and whether
a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) is needed. If the
agency conclusion is that these changes or circumstances would result in
JUN-29-2010 17:24 PEP
2022191139 P.03
significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the FEIS, then a SFEIS will be
prepared.
The new PB/TMP alternative Gallo, f,)r construction of a new bridge over Oreyo . Inlet
(Phase 1), followed by construction of later phases tha! .v uid corn^' to proj?ut to southern terrninus at Rodanthe, and whose details would be determined as conditionsls
warrant. The EA provides no additional information about these future phases, except
to say that they may include bridging, road relocation, beach nourishment, and/u. "nev;
solutions" which may be identified in the future. Decisions regarding these future
phases would be guided by the Transportation Management Plan (TMP). The TMP
includes an outline for a monitoring program (the information from which would be used
to determine when planning for the next phase should begin), and refers to a process
for conducting future planning. The EA provides very little detail or analysis of these
components of the PB/TMP alternative. As such, the new preferred alternative avoids
resolving the most critical, complex, operationally significant, and environmentally
sensitive portion of the project, which is the lack of a compatible and sustainable road
corridor through Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (the Refuge). As described in the
EA, the "solution" to that most critical issue is a TMP that is yet to be developed and has
not been adequately described or analyzed for its potential environmental impacts.
The description of the PB/TMB alternative provided in the EA is not materially different
from that provided in'the Revised Final Section 4(f) Evaluation previously. prepared by 1.
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT). The EA provides no new information or analysis that alters
the comments provided by the Department regarding the PB/TN1P alternative in our
letters of December. 3, 2009, and April 21, 2010. It continues to be the Department's
view that the analysis presented to date is insufficientto provide a reasonable
understanding of the environmental consequences of the proposed action, or, to support
a determination that the preferred'alternative is consistent with Federal law, including
the National Wildlife Refuge System improvement Act of i 997 (Refuge Improvement
Act). Underlying this position is our firm belief, based upon our re-examination of the
acquisition history of the Refuge, that NCDOT does not possess 7a right to relocate NC
12. But, if the road is to be relocated within the Refuge, NCDOT must still obtain a
right-of-way from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in compliance with the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(d)(1)(B) and its
implementing regulations in 50 CFR Part 29.
As the Department has previously stated, it is unlikely that any of the parallel bridge
corridor alternatives described in the FEIS, or the PB/TMP alternative, or any
combination thereof are likely to be found compatible with the purposes for which the
Refuge was established. By eliminating the Pamlico Sound and other potential
alternatives (such as ferries) from further consideration or analysis, the FHWA and
NCDOT have confined the analysis to a narrow range of options, all of which would
result in large-scale and long-term adverse impacts to the Refuge and its resources
and, as such, could not be authorized pursuant to the Refuge Improvement Act.

IN-29-2010 17:25 PEP
2022191139 P.04
The TMP is built on the assumptions that changes in conditions within the project area
(such as shoreline position) will be detected by the monitoring program, that data
collected will provide sufficient resolution to determine when certain (vaguely defined)
thresholds are reached, and that change will happen slowly enough to allow several
years of planning and construction of future project phases. The Department questions
the validity of these assumptions. The EA identifies the proposed monitoring program in
general terms and without sufficient detail to allow the reviewer to det :rmine what
exactly would be monitored, iiow data would be collected and analyzed, or how the
results of data analysis would factor into decision-making. The EA also provides no
detail with respect to how decisions regarding future phases would be made, other than
to say that the existing merger process would be used for planning and coordination. It
is impossible to discern, based on the information provided in the EA or FEIS, what
might happen with respect to project implementation, when it might happen, or how
much it might cost. Because the TMP is not adequately described, it is impossible to
conclude that the environmental effects have been appropriately assessed.
Additionally, the Department is concerned about the likelihood that the PB/TMP could
meet the stated project purposes. The FEIS states three project purposes: 1) provide a'.
new means of access from Bodie Island to Hatterasrlsland for its residents, businesses,
services and tourists prior to the end of the Bonner Bridge's service life; 2) provide a
replacement crossing that takes into account natural channel migration expected
through year 2.050, arid provides the flexibility to let the channel move; and 3) provide a
replacement crossing that will not be endangered by shoreline movement through year
2050. We know from experience that the shoreline of Pea Island will not recede in the
orderly and predictable way that would be required for the PB/TMP alternative to have a '
successful outcome. Instead, the shoreline will change rapidly in response to storm
events. For any plan to meet the stated project purposes via phased irnplernentation it
must account for this reality - the PB/TMP alternative does not. Under the proposed
PB/TMP alternative, planning would begin after a storm has severely damaged or'
destroyed NC 12. This is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of NC 12 was
destroyed last November, and yet to our knowledge no planning as been initiated with
respect to this phase of the project. Once planning does commence, it would be
coordinated through the same process that has failed to produce a workable solution
thus far. Barring some "new solution," alternatives would be confined to a very few thus
far considered - - none of which are likely to be compatible with the Refuge
Improvement Act. There will likely be prolonged delays and significant disruption to the
transportation system, and there may be considerable risk to the residents of Hatteras
Island and the resources of the Refuge. Under this approach, access between Bodie
Island and Hatteras Island will be subject to constant disruption and the transportation
system will be under constant threat from shoreline movement through 205b. "In
summary, of the three stated project purposes, the PBITMP Alternative cannot'be
reasonably expected to fulfill the two project purposes that address the need for a safe
and reliable means of transportation between Bodie Island and Hatteras Island.
By selecting.the PBITMP as the Preferred Alternative, the NCDOT and FHWA are
deferring decision-making and analysis of the most contentious, expensive, and
3
JUN-29-2010 17:25 PEP
2022191139 ' P.05potentially environmentally damaging part of the project (NC 12) to some later date,

without providing any clear sense that those future phases can he implemented in light
of known logistical, financial and legal constraints. The Department is concerned that
this is riot do appropriate basis for Federal action. Specifically, we reiterate our
previous coriceni that the NEPA documentation provided to date is not adequate to
support decisions the Department must make regarding whether, or under what
conditions, to issue necessary Denar"lmr?nt_11 BrlthpnZ lt!Ons. t!ah decision's Include
issuance of perrnits for construction of Phase I and authorization of retention of the
terminal groin. A letter dated March 22, 2010, from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Southeast Regional Director to the FHWA Division Administrator, staled that the
analysis of impacts in all previous documents do not adequately address the effects of
the terminal groin on the natural resources of the Refuge. Further, it stated that before
the USFWS can evaluate a permit request for the terminal groin, we believe additional
environmental evaluation, in the form of an EA and/or an EfS, is required to enable the
USFWS to make a sound decision. Therefore, a decision by the FHWA to issue a
Record of Decision based on the NEPA documentation prepared to date will leave
many substantive issues unresolved, and will likely necessitate additional lengthy
investigations and documentation prior to issuance of any Departmental authorizations._ .
As such, the Department is concerned that the EA description and analysis for the new
PB/TMP alternative is inadequate and. an SFEIS is warranted.
Specific.Curnmants
Bodie Island side of Oregon Inlet: -
The EA indicates that the conceptual alignment at the Bodie Island terminus of the
project for Phase I remains unchanged from that presented in the FE15. National Park
Service (NP) concerns about the FEIS have been responded to in Appendix D of the.
EA: Response to.Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (pp, D-15 to
D-18). Of those previouslyexpressed concerns, NPS understands that impacts to the
Oregon Inlet Fishing Center (OIFC) will be limited to the potential relocation of its septic .
field; minimal or no disruption of access (and associated economic impacts) is
anticipated for the OIFC, Ramp 4 or the Oregon Inlet Carnpgrourid' and NCDOT will
continue to coordinate with NPS on these issues as the project moves into the final
design and permitting stage. The NCDOT will investigate whether it is possible to
reduce the impacts of Phase I to OIFC's use of the "crack" navigation channel. The
NPS also understands that Ramp 4 and the Oregon Inlet Campground driveway will be
connected to NC 12 at their current location: As a point of clarification, in its comments.
on the FEIS,. NPS was concerned that the transport of construction materials would
negatively impact; the section of NC.12 from Whalebone Junction (the intersection with
US-64/US-264 and mile 0.0) south to mile 5.28, which is maintained by the NPS (not
NCDOT); however, we understand from the response to FEIS comments in the EA (p,
D-16) that "virtually all materials used in the bridge construction will be transported to
the site by barge and not over the area's highway system." We concur with that
approach.
4
IUH-29-2910 17:25 PEP
2022191139 P.06
4 -
As stated previously, a number of proposed NCDOT actions will likely require NPS
permit(s), including the following:
• construction staging;
• construction of a haul ruad, construction and use o` a dredge channel for barging,
or construction of a work bridge to facilitate construction of the north approach
spans;
' relocat:on o' the sopilc 1syStem and Fetus ;tear the Oregon bile! Fishing Center;
• relocation of the Ramp 4 beach access road on 6odie Island;
• dredging and disposition of dredge spoils, including on Green Island; and
• similar actions related subsequent phases relating to other NC 12 construction and
maintenance components on NPS lands.
NPS will continue to work cooperatively with the FHWA and NCDOT to ensure the
development of adequate plans and NEPA documentation for any and all impacts
to NPS resources and values. In order for the NIPS to issue any necessary Special
Use Permit(s) to NCDOT to implement the proposed actions on Park lands, FHWA
and NCDOT will need to provide NEPA.documents that.meet NP:> requirements.
Pea Island Side of Oregon Inlet:

The description for the aiigriment of the bridge making landfall on the Refuge (Section
3.5) does riot include all of the discussion that has occurred regarding that alignment.
Representatives of the FWS informed all present at the referenced meetings that the
compromise alignment could possibly be determined to be a minor modification
provided that: 1) there is agreement that the southern boundary would constitute the
southern boundary for the right-of-way and not the southern limit for (:onslruction; 2) an
acceptable NEPA document would be prepared, and if the FWS finds the
NCDOT/FHWA documentation to be unacceptable, then we would have to prepare a'
separate NEPA document; 3) an acceptable mitigation plan would be developed so as
to result in no net loss in quantity or quality of Refuge land (old road bed or isolated
segments of land would not be sufficient compensation from a qualitative perspective);
4) this process would not be initiated until the FWS receives an official request for n
modification to the existing right-of-way.vith all relevant supportive information. To date
there has not been a formal request for any right-of-way modification; therefore, the
alignment that was discussed does not constitute any official agreement between the
FWS and NCDOT or FHWA. All communications from FWS on this matter should be
characterized as deliberative and pre-decisional. FWS cooperated in numerous
meetings and site visits to review, develop, discuss, and explain potential options, but
no decisions or agreements were made. :. -
Section 4(f) Issues: , .
The EA refers to the October 2009 Revised Final Section 4(f) Evaluation (p. 3-2) and
related comments and responses to comments found in Appendices F and G. Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 prevents a Federal project from
using publicly owned land unless: 1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to
5
JUN-29-2010 17:25 PEP 2022191139 P.07
using that land; and 2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize
harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting
from the use (49 U.S.C. § 303(c)).
in the Sn, tP,rnJ)er 2008 i-In iii =1S U ?'.i`C`:.^. •• ?? .
E' a;i
0n ?i;c I U U12it nit
alternatives would constitute a Section 4(f) "use" of Ref:.ge lands and Park lams vrthin
Cape Hatteras National Seashore because the exisling road would be relocated ,'rom its
I
- ,? he Dep, Ttme i concu:1-i v :[h th,3' finding. However, IT) a revised
October 2009 Final Revised Section 4(f) Evaluation, the FHWA surprisingly reversed
that determination and found that there is "no Section 4(f) use" of the protected property
within the Refuge or Park. In light of your revised determination, we have reconsidered
our initial concurrence that there would be a "Section 4(f) use" of the protected property
within the Refuge or Park. The result of our re-examination of this issue is that the
Department disagrees with your new conclusion that there is "no Section 4(f) use" of the
protected property within the Refuge or Park. The Refuge and Park lands that will be
impacted by the project are Section 4(f) properties as defined in 23 CFR 774.17 and the
project would result in a "use" of those properties, as the FHWA determined in the Final
EIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation. Our view on this subject is not changed by the
information provided in the EA and supporting appendices..
Summary. .
n conclusion, we have worked in yood faith with the riCDO i" and thrr' FHWA For river a
decade in an effort to ensure tlhe citizens of the county, state, and nation have
dependable transportation along North Carolina's Outer Banks., Coastal and climate'".
change experts are informing us that the barrier island, system will be changing at an
accelerating,rate, and the changes will be largely storm driven. To meet the challenge
of maintaining safe, efficient transportation on the Outer Banks in a changing climate,
leadership and careful planning and decision-making is required now, not later. The.
Department remains committed to working with all parties to accommodate
transportation needs within the confines and limits allowable by law, regulation, and
policy governing use of refuge lands.
Thank you for providing us an opportunity to comment. If you need additional
information about comments relevant to Cape Ha'.t;:r<a.„ ?",;t
,, h.,ional S:.u lore, plea;:e
contact Superintendent Mike Murray at [phone], extension 148. For additional
information regarding comments relevant to Pea Island NWR, please contact Mike
Bryant at [phone], extension 222.
Sin rely,
Willie R. Taylor .
Director, Office of Environmental
Policy and Compliance
6
TOTAL P.07