The Virginian-Pilot
8.5.06
Support extended for long Bonner Bridge replacement
Catherine Kozak
The latest twist in the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge replacement project has prompted environmental groups to reinforce their support for the proposed 17.5-mile bridge.
Last month, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne said he supported building a short bridge parallel to the existing span, a reversal of the department's consistent support for the long alternative.
The long bridge was the alternative that was signed off on several years ago by a team of agencies involved in the project, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Michelle Duval, a scientist with the Raleigh office of Environmental Defense, said in a Friday teleconference.
"In effect, this action sets up a future collision between the road and the refuge," Duval said.
Curving out in the Pamlico Sound to the west of treacherous Oregon Inlet, the 17.5-mile proposal is designed to bypass Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge and problem-plagued N.C. 12. Proponents say the long option would eliminate the high costs and environmental effects of maintaining the road to Rodanthe and would preserve the migratory bird refuge.
After state transportation officials said they were going to pursue the long bridge, state and county officials, along with members of the North Carolina Congressional delegation, said the short bridge was preferable because it maintained access to Pea Island and it was safer in evacuations. Also, without factoring in road maintenance costs, it could be built faster and cheaper.
The 43-year-old bridge, the sole link to Hatteras Island, is in poor condition and is long past its expected life span.
In light of safety and cost concerns, Kempthorne said, he favored separating the construction of the short bridge from maintenance of the road.
That decision is just another illustration of how politics has interfered in the planning process, said Noah Matson, director of public lands for Defenders of Wildlife.
"What they're playing is a giant shell game," he said. "They're playing on our fears about the bridge."
Derb Carter, director of North Carolina's Southern Environmental Law Center, said the $191 million estimate for the short bridge, versus the $424 million estimate for the long bridge, is misleading because it would cost hundreds of millions more to keep N.C. 12 open for the 50-year life of the short span.
Carter said he has not been able to substantiate a later estimate of as much as $1.2 billion for the long bridge made by the state Department of Transportation. Much of those potential costs, he said, appear to be for things not directly connected to construction of the bridge, such as removal of the terminal groin on the south side of the inlet.
Whatever the final cost, the money does not have to be obtained all at one time, said Trish White, director of the habitat and highways program for the Defenders of Wildlife, addressing fears that the larger price tag for the long bridge would not be affordable.
"There's a misconception that the state DOT would need all the money required up front, day one," she said.
Safety concerns about the long span were largely answered in a June engineering report done for DOT, Carter said.
"Bridges, including long bridges, are generally safer than roads," he said. "Access points generally cause the most accidents."
Because the county evacuates Hatteras Island before winds reach gale force of 39 mph, high winds should not be an issue, he said.
Pea Island is one of the premier bird-watching areas in the country, and continued access to the refuge is definitely important, said Chis Canfield, executive director of Audubon North Carolina.
No details have been specified so far on how visitors would be able to use the refuge if the road is no longer available.
"We can accommodate changes to access if we know in the long term that the refuge will be preserved," Canfield said.
Despite the interior secretary's blessing for the short bridge, Canfield cautioned that there will be many more "hoops to jump through." It is still not known the effect Kempthorne's announcement will have on the planning process.
The short version would require a permit from the Fish and Wildlife service, which has said it would not be compatible with the agency's mission. Fish and Wildlife, however, falls under the U.S. Department of the Interior.
No one's talking about taking any legal action, Duval said.
"That has not figured into the thought process at this point," she said.
