* * *
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Clyde Sorenson wrote:
>
> I'm a little puzzled by all the concern that Pea Island won't be
> accessible if they build the long bridge. Best I can figure, the
> existing road will be there for a while, and once its gone or overwashed
> in places to the point it is no longer passable, you should still be
> able to walk. I imagine the FWS will maintain some roads in order to
> facilitate management (i.e. water level management, vegetation
> management, etc.), and they may use some of these roads as part of a
> "Wildlife Drive" as is found on many refuges.
My impression was that one of the non-environmental reasons why plan 4
(the 17-mile, bypass-PI plan) was a good idea was that it would end the
really, really expensive dredging and maintenance of Oregon Inlet,
required for the continued safe use of Bonner Bridge. Of course, we're
talking geological processes here; the bridge could remain safe for auto
traffic until we're all dead and gone, and for foot traffic even longer
than that. So my pondering about a ferry or other access to PI was looking
ahead to that point in time. I mean, after all, our great-grandkids might
be birders too, right? And I kinda imagine that keeping that bridge safe
must cost a heck of a lot more than your average NWR wildlife drive,
because building the alternative is sure going to! Optimist that I am, I
can't convince myself that NCDOT would consider a bypass if it weren't at
least in the same price-tag ballpark as maintaining the current
configuration...
GOod birding,
Josh
Joshua S. Rose
Duke University