Delay in replacement of Bonner Bridge stirs anger

Dueling letters have been sent to the White House in response to the most recent delay in replacing the aging bridge over Oregon Inlet.

In an apparent effort to avoid legal challenges, the Federal Highway Administration unexpectedly decided earlier this year that another environmental review was needed before allowing the project to replace the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge to proceed.

State Sen. Marc Basnight, a Manteo Democrat and Senate leader, sent an appeal in late February to President Barack Obama to help "shake loose" the bureaucratic gridlock. It was followed by a letter

Monday from the Southern Environmental Law Center, an opponent of the proposed design of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge replacement.

The Chapel Hill-based environmental group contends that a 17-mile option designed in 2003 to bypass N.C. 12 through Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge would be a less environmentally damaging and safer alternative.

That option was tabled over concerns about access to the refuge and the estimated $1.3 billion upfront cost.

In his letter, Basnight complained that federal highway attorneys "have slowed down the process yet again," even though two federal agencies had favored the recent plan to build a bridge parallel to the existing bridge and later build a series of smaller bridges over hot spots on N.C. 12 to Rodanthe.

Built in 1963, the Bonner Bridge is in poor condition, although the North Carolina Department of Transportation says numerous repairs have kept it safe to cross. Both letters to Obama agree the new bridge could have been completed years ago, but there is vast disagreement about why it was not.

The 12-mile stretch of road from Oregon Inlet to Rodanthe, much of it along sections of eroded beach, is plagued by ocean overwash and sand on the road. In the November nor'easter alone, NC DOT spent more than $1 million from its emergency fund to move the road and repair or replace about 800 sandbags near Mirlo Beach.

Last year, NC DOT decided to build a parallel bridge and fix the road issues as needed in a plan called "Road North, Bridge South." But just when the long-overdue last step in the planning process, known as the record of decision, was expected in January, it was announced that there had to be an environmental assessment to supplement the draft environmental impact statement - adding about six more months to the process.

Even for a project that has been stalled off and on since planning began 20 years ago, the additional study was unusual.

"Nobody I know has experience with doing an EA on an EIS," said Mike Bryant, Pea Island refuge manager with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Bryant said his agency has the same initial concerns about how NC DOT will be able to maintain the highway within the existing right of way, which is the area belonging to NC DOT on either side of the pavement. If work has to be done outside the right of way, a permit from Fish and Wildlife would be required.

"I'm not in a situation to permit what I envision they're going to have to ask for," Bryant said last week. "I envision that if the ocean gets too close to the highway, it will be threatened, the options will narrow."

Victor Barber, technical services administrator with NCDOT, said officials with the state agency and the highway administration decided during a final review step late last year that an alternative called the "Transportation Management Plan" would better address concerns other agencies had about the road maintenance of N.C. 12 - including the obstruction of historic views - but not lock NCDOT into one solution.

The new alternative, like the last one, provides that the replacement bridge be built first, at the location of the existing bridge. Construction is targeted to start in 2011 and be completed in four years.

The transportation plan, Barber said, then incorporates all the solutions that have already been studied: beach nourishment, road relocation and bridging along N.C. 12. Depending on how much erosion occurred at a particular hot spot, the remedy could be to pump sand on the beach to widen it, patch dunes, move the road away from the beach or pass over the breach with a small bridge.

When the management plan was chosen as the new alternative, Barber said, that kicked in a requirement to do the additional environmental assessment. After the assessment is released, expected in April, there will be a 30-day comment period during which several public meetings will be held.

Much energy has gone into designing a plan that addresses the myriad engineering challenges but will also be bullet-proof legally, said Stan White, who represents Dare County on the state Board of Transportation. There have been so many twists and turns, he said, involving so many agencies and so many permits.

"I have never been involved in anything as messed up as this," White said Friday.

But he said the 17-mile bridge is not a realistic option, despite the insistence of environmental groups.

"If there's a choice between the long bridge or no bridge," White said, "there's going to be no bridge."

Catherine Kozak, (252) 441-1711, cate.kozak@pilotonline.com