19930516 Ver 1_Complete File_19930722

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS;
P.O. BOX 1890 y
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO July 22, 1993
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199302883 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. L. J. Ward
Planning & Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference is made to your letter of June 10, 1993, regarding your plans to
discharge dredged/fill material into the waters/wetlands of the Fisher River,
associated with the replacement of Bridge No. S.R. 2233, located north of
Crutchfield, Surry County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-2169. Plans included
with your letter showed that you propose to replace the aforementioned bridge
with a new bridge at the site of the existing bridge. Reference is also made
to Mr. Joe Mickey's letter of June 23, 1993, in which the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission expressed no objections to the planned road
improvements provided that:
a. No heavy equipment is operated in the live streams in order to
minimize sedimentation and prevent introduction of other pollutants, and
b. Erosion control measures should be implemented where soil is disturbed
and maintained until project completion.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the Federal
Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits. Authorization,
pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has-determined,
pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the activity, work or discharge
is categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and the
Office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.

-2-
Special regional conditions of this nationwide permit state that before
discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the United States
occurring within the 25 mountain counties of North Carolina that contain trout
waters, the applicant will obtain a letter of approval from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resource Commission. Review of the information you have provided,
and the comments submitted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, reveals that your proposed work, is authorized by nationwide
permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed
conditions and the recommendations set forth by the Wildlife Resources
Commission. This nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility
to obtain any required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify,
suspend, or revoke the authorization.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Regulatory Field office, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory
Enclosure

-3-
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Dr. Charles Bruton
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Planning and Research Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Doug Miller
Land Quality Section
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
8025 North Point Boulevard
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of Environment
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mir. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Stephanie Goudreau
Habitat Conservation
North Carolina wildlife Resources
Commission
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Joe Mickey, Jr.
Division of Boating & Inland Fisheries
Route 2 Box 278
State Road, North Carolina 28676
Regional Office Manager
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
8025 North Point Boulevard
Suite 100
Winston-Salem,-North Carolina 27106
r -
J 4
4'0i (sSI.I !-
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
q`3?ic? _
?,. STA7t'o lJ V l?? PI ?... .....
fits s
WS P
STATE OF NOIZTH CAROLINA WATER QUTAD TY S?ECT10 1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 10, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Surry County - Replacement of Bridge No. 164 on
SR 2233 over Fisher Rive:. ; T. I . P . No. B-21691
State Project No. 3.2741001
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes
to replace the above-reverenced structure on existing
location. Traffic will be detoured onto other secondary
roads in the vicinity during construction of the new bridge.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
planning report for the proposed work. This project is being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
Categorical Exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore; we expect to proceed with this project under a
Nati? wide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A
(B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the U.S. Army Corps of
in rS. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A
(C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction
of this project.
We anticipate that the concurrence of the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) will be required prior to
authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this
letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests review by WRC.

BRIDGE SURVEY & HYDRAULIC DESIGN REPORT
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HYDRAULICS. UNIT
RALEIGH. N. C
°
I.D. No -Z/6` Project No. ____ __8._ZZ4 [ 001 Proj_ Station I.7 ±53 °-
_ __ ______. ----•_ ----••-.____.___? -
SURRY FISHER RIVER _ Bridgclnv. No. 164-
CountY ................................. Bridge Over ................
SR ZZ33 US GOO ......... and .SR....2221 ............................
On Highway ......... Between ...........................
.5-= ...... Z @ 60? _ I .e. . 1 La. GO'
.D .... C...ON.C. G.1 K DER.
.ESSE.
.......................................... ........... ..•- ......_....... .
Recommended Structure 4-5."... PRE STR.
.
.............................................•---........_.........._..........•••_.__--•......................._.......---•-...._.
P o
Recommended Width of Roadway .............. Z¢ ........................................ Skew ....9Q .........................................
...
ST 1 N G..... CROSS.I N G.............. ....................
.................
Location is (Up, At, Down Stream from Existing Crossing) AT EX I . ..
Nearest Shipping Point.__CRUTGN1r.ELD ....... SOOTI-15RN--_•.--•__•__.-____-... R.R., Miles From Bridge
______________
Bench Mark is R/R SPIKE W BASE OF 18" WHITE OAK -L- STA.. I I•?50; 4ZI R
.........................................•------_....._......................__...................._-••-.............._....
...................................................•----................... Elev. 909.3 I Datum: ._N G V D._.........
Temporary Crossing .... NOT....REQ.U I_RED ................................••---•---..................-•----•---•--••-....._...._...............
J. • ?*?'1! ? Y } ,r-?. i.. .,.may ?fi,, t r ..?. ?? ?{ r ?'
Eva
Yx _` Lam- ??iv - ,.
r
? ? ??1ftlft}*.
. 6- I - q3 ????•?ESS 0?
SEAL
1 Designed by: ...... P.•._FISHER_--•.................................. B = 16746
Project Engineer. •--- -M:•••CLAwSoN ..__..___•- -?9?••FKGINE?
'••.......
s/a '?.tiyQC L ??

SITE DATA
USES ToPo
Drninag¢ Area Source SELECTEM SITES »BooK Character .RURA.L.! ROLLING •__
...»_»_?..»_ ..». » ...........-----•-----.....___....
JST SQ l`?1-
PAVED IMBER' DEC Ohl STYE BE S '"? f?nl TRUSS. Ot`6 !ll N
Data. orr Existing Structures -•-•--- qM..---.. ---•---' L- •--....."......_. M....._
SPA14" re 31 `- C e Zg'-1o";. re too` r re Z9z:-M Re 3c"
»»..-•------•»»».»»......T ----•--.».»..»» ..... ....... ....»....._.- --•-.»...._.»......»_:»...»»».».»»»__».._._.»_»....»»».__».__.»-
Data on Structures Up and Down Stream UPSTREAM STRuGTuR?-_ I.. 3G.. PRESTRESSED GorJC:__G IR..
----- - No .DOWNSTRffAM•-- 5TRt.l oTuR? :...................••-
1 0 501-5"- G 5,0,- 1 (2 -To'-s"
.... .. .... .. 2.................... ._
FISNEK R. r1R. C I'ELAtJJD
Gage Station No. O-•11300000 ..................................
....Z-... .............r................_....
................... Period of Records 142.. 1991
..
Max. Discharge ... ._... 3 4-.1. ZO() .......................... c.f.s. Date ........ ..19.19..................... Frequency ZOO `(F..................................
Historical Flood Info.: LON6, -T1rlG

+
877

3093 SEVERAL.

REgtpEfSTS
S

Freq.
Est Period of
RESIDENTS
25-YR..... Knowledge ........ .................
......... Date
Elev. ource
MR . Period of txN6r-TIME

Elev. .fBZ $........ Date
... .
Source .STEVENS •-
Est. Freq.
100-R Knowledge ..R..(?S!P.N? ........
Period of
Elev. ...... _... Date Source .. Est. Freq . .................. Knowledge ............................
31t BEWN
Historical Scour Info.: Channel MINOR ............ Contraction .. ..MINOR .. ...._...... Pier/Abut. 7? or FooT1r
............
Channel Slope 0 Rio % - Source US.G.5 MAP. ... Normal Water Surface Elev. •Q.......
•• --..... .........
Manning's n: left O.B. Channel • __--... Right O.B. .2:11 ..... Source .............
Flood Study/Status .... NOT 1N•_• DETgI LED__.,STUDY ............. ........................ Floodway Established? ... /A........
Flood Study 100 yr. Discharge ....N?A ................ c.f.s.: W.S. Elev.: With Floodway ..N../A........ Without Floodway .....NIA ......
DESIGN DATA
Hydrological Method ••.,USGS REGRESSION EQUATIONS
Hydraulic Design Method W 5j!.9.9 @ PP RO A GN
Floods Evaluated: Freq. Q Elev. Backwater Bridge Opening Velocity
. - K)

.....--•- I 1 000 cis

.. ,................. . 8-75.4-

........................... ..0 0 .......... .......
... 5- 7---ie: --------.
Z5
.................... 15,000 cis
........................ . g7 7.9
........................... 0.0
............• .--_..
.....
- 6 ;0 ..........
so
.................... 19, 000 C;s
........................ . 880.0
........................... ....- 0 :?
..._......_. ... -6 -3 fPs .........
100

.................... 23,000 cis

...••••........... 88Z.2

.__..........•---.......... -
?_...
...... ---...._.
6:8 fi's------•--
. .. ....
.
OT
.................... 28,600 Cfs
........................ . 535.4
........................... ..._.N?A ........--- ...... 9._ ........
-------------------- ------------------------
(1o-YR)
AverageA ..............
Velocity ...............................
Computed Scour. General N/A
....................•-...... ........................ ................................
(lo=1R)
Average Overbonk Velocity .......Z:Z...??'S.... -• ...... ..............
t
............... Local ....................................
Contraction ........0 . 4r
f ?
i
is
TI
INFORMATION. TO BE SHOWN ON PLANS

Design:
Discharge.
........... _ .. _ _ ef.s.
fSt000 Frequency 2S-Yi?_
--- - Elav. _5?T-g _•----...
Baso, Flood: Discharger »?3i?0.C.F.s. Frequency .._»-_.I Elev. .»$SZ:Z..._--.••

Overtopping:
Discharge
ZS GOO a... •-------------------- cf.s.
Frequency
....2?0...... Y..-. 84...

8
.........
Elev. .................
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTATIONS
........
„-.__--u5C?5 fZEGREssION FLowS (TABLE Z, REFbRT 67-4o9(a) :
................................ ............................. ......
...............
.QJ,..=..9600 cfs ..............Q:.s..=...I2,800 ...................
.............................
!.- ...cf? . .................Q
................................... ....... ...............
...........................................................................................................................................................................
F. W .....P..RflKATF .....FR?M.....Lt e ...STATa!?1 ?Ftsi ER...RIYER....NEAR.... CoPELANO? .....
Q,o . 12,?co cis pis = 17,400 cs ©S.o.°- Z1?600 cis
.....................................................
.............
©lon = 24.,560 G?S Qsoo - 4.0,7 .... s..............................................
..............................................................•--•......................... .........-----.....
............................................................................................................................................................................
wE I.?SNT.ED....Fl o4.... D..SCHARF ES.:......?REPOR.. 87 -4096... ,.. E0 4..7) ...............................
.............................. .......
Q?o..=....!!.e0oo cfs Q.;S...... /5.00.. efs Qso = 19,000 efs
Q,? = Z3,000 cos QS0. = 34,000 cfS
........................... ............................................................................
............................. ..............................................................................................................................................
................•----............................---.............---..........................................................---...................•---...............--...
a
N
Surry County
SR 2233
Bridge No. 164 over Fisher River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-2233(1)
State Project 8.2741001
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2169
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
r 111)3
-DATE . Ward, .E., Ma ger
''`Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
G
DATE Ni h s Graf, P.E.
,PO'A Division Administrator, FHWA
r
Surry County
SR 2233
Bridge No. 164 over Fisher River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-2233(1)
State Project 8.2741001
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2169
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
October, 1992
Documentation Prepared by Wang Engineering Company:
J?xbe? M. GredAhillL P. E.
1jroject Manage
For North garolina Department of Transportation
Ron Elmore, P. ., Unit 'Read
Consultant Engineering Unit
CAR
F '9
SEAL
i 12979
• i
y, •F??GI Nt
%.S ??. GR
h Cobb
ectVUManager

Surry County
SR 2233
Bridge No. 164 over Fisher River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-2233(1)
State Project 8.2741001
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2169
Bridge No. 164 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. The
project is not expected to have a significant impact on the human
environment and has been classified by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 164 should be replaced on its existing location
as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 2.
The recommended width of the new bridge is 24 feet. The
cross section on the structure will consist of a 20-foot travel-
way with 2-foot shoulders.
Approximately 450 feet of new roadway approaches will be
required. The approach roadway should consist of a 20-foot
pavement with 4-foot shoulders.
Preliminary hydraulic studies indicate that a bridge 235
feet in length should be provided. The waterway opening should
be equal to that of the existing bridge. The elevation of the new
structure should be approximately the same as the floor elevation
of the existing bridge.
During the construction period, traffic will be detoured on
existing routes. (See Figure 1.)
The current estimated cost of construction, based on recent
prices, is $475,000, including right of way and utility reloca-
tion costs.
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1993-1999
Transportation Improvement Program, is $446,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique
environmental commitments are necessary. "Best Management
Practices" (33 CFR 330.6) will be utilized to minimize any
possible impacts.
Since the project is located in a designated "trout" county,
approval must be obtained from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. Further coordination will be done during
the permit application phase.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has determined that
a comprehensive archaeological survey is needed for this project.
This survey will be completed prior to construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 2233 is classified as a rural local route in the
Statewide Functional Classification System and is part of the
Federal-Aid System (BRZ-2233).
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 2233 has a 20-foot
pavement with 4-foot shoulders on the west approach and a 24-foot
unpaved travelway on the east approach (see Figure 3).
Currently, there are no immediate plans to pave either SR 2233 or
SR 2234 east of the studied bridge. However, both routes have
been prioritized for paving in the future subject to available
funding. Vertical alignment is generally rolling with substandard
sag vertical curves on each approach to the bridge. The existing
horizontal alignment of SR 2233 is winding with several sharp 20
to 25 mph curves. Horizontal alignment of the structure is
tangent with an approximate 20 degree curve near each approach.
The structure is located 22 feet above the stream bed.
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is
primarily scattered rural-residential and agricultural.
Known utilities in the vicinity of the bridge include above-
ground electric lines located adjacent to the east approach.
There was no posted speed limit observed along this route in
the vicinity of the studied bridge.
The projected traffic volume of 300 vehicles per day (VPD)
for the 1995 anticipated year of construction is expected to
increase to approximately 500 VPD by the year 2015. The
projected volumes include 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST)
and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
The existing bridge (Figure 3) was constructed in 1921. The
5-span superstructure consists of a paved timber deck on steel
beams with a pony truss supporting the 100-foot center span. The
substructure is composed of reinforced concrete abutments and
piers. Overall length of the bridge is approximately 222 feet.
Clear roadway width is 11.3 feet. The posted weight limit is 8
tons for single vehicles and 12 tons for trucks with trailers.
Bridge No. 164 has a sufficiency rating of 17.4 compared to
a rating of 100 for a new structure.
No accidents were reported on or near Bridge No. 164 during
the three year period from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1991.
One school bus crosses the studied bridge four times daily
with no students on board.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternative methods of replacing Bridge No. 164 were
studied. In each alternative, a bridge 235 feet long with a deck
width of 24 feet would be provided. This structure will
accommodate two 10-foot lanes with 2-foot shoulders. The
approaches should consist of a 20-foot pavement with 4-foot
shoulders. On both alternatives, the proposed bridge elevation
should be approximately the same as the existing elevation.
Based on field observations, it appears that the existing bridge
deck is well above the 25-year design storm frequency.
The alternatives studied are as follows (see Figure 2):
Alternative 1 - involves replacement of the bridge on new
location immediately south (downstream) of the existing
structure. Improvements to the alignment of the bridge
approaches include approximately 1100 feet of new pavement.
The existing structure would be used for maintenance of
traffic during the construction period.
Alternative 2 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the
structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Improvement to alignment of the bridge approaches includes
approximately 450 feet of new pavement. During the
construction period, traffic would be maintained on existing
routes with a road closure at the construction site.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic
service provided by SR 2233.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to
its age and deteriorated condition.
Alternatives discussed in this section and shown on Figure 2
are based on functional plans prepared on an uncontrolled photo
map. All distances and directions are approximate. Final
construction plans will be based on detailed survey information
and may slightly vary from the alternatives presented here.
3

V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
Total $575,000 $475,000
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Engineering &
Contingencies
Right of Way &
Utilities
Alternate 1
$270,720
204,280
75,000
25,000
(Recommended)
Alternate 2
$270,720
109,280
70,000
25,000
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured
on existing roads during the construction period as shown in
Figure 1. The average vehicle would be required to travel an
additional 6.2 miles. A six month construction period is
anticipated.
A road user analysis (based on 300 VPD, 30 cents per vehicle
mile, and an average of 6.2 miles of indirectional travel)
indicates the the cost of additional travel would be
approximately $100,440 during the six month construction period.
The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is $210,000,
resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 0.48. This ratio indicates
that detouring traffic along secondary roads is justifiable.
Provision of an on-site detour is not justifiable due to the
cost, volume of traffic, and the availability of a suitable off-
site detour route. The existing roadway and bridges of the
proposed detour route are adequate to accommodate the affected
traffic during the construction period. No bridges on the
proposed detour routes are scheduled for replacement in the
current Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.).
With regard to school bus traffic, the Surry County Board of
Education, Transportation Supervisor indicates closure of SR 2233
is acceptable.
VII. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 164 should be replaced at its present location as
shown by Alternate No. 2 in Figure 2.
4
The recommended improvements will include about 450 feet of
new roadway approaches. This includes 200 feet on east approach
and 250 feet on the west approach. The existing substandard sag
vertical curves on each approach would be upgraded. A 20-foot
wide pavement with 4-foot shoulders should be provided on each
approach. A 24-foot clear roadway width is recommended on the
replacement structure. The cross section on the structure will
consist of a 20-foot travelway with 2-foot shoulders. This
project will be constructed entirely on tangent and will be
compatible with any future upgrading of SR 2233. No design
criteria exceptions are anticipated.
During the construction period, traffic will be maintained
on existing routes, as shown on Figure 1, with a road closure at
the bridge site. No construction phasing is anticipated.
Based on preliminary hydraulic studies, the new bridge
should have a length of approximately 235 feet and a waterway
opening equivalent to that of the existing bridge. The elevation
of the new bridge should be approximately the same as the
existing bridge. It appears the existing bridge deck is well
above the 25-year design storm frequency. The length and height
may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak
flows as determined by future hydraulic studies.
Alternate No. 1 was not favored due to cost considerations.
Also, this alternative would cross a very deep ravine on the west
side of the crossing requiring construction of a high fill and
realignment of a small unnamed stream which would require a large
cut into the adjacent hillside. Both of these construction
features will result in negative impacts to the environment, such
as, siltation and habitat loss.
The Division Engineer concurs with the recommendation that
Bridge No. 164 be replaced on its existing alignment (Alternate
2) and that traffic be maintained on existing routes during
construction with a road closure at the bridge site. (See letter
in Appendix.)
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical
exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a significant adverse
effect on the quality of the human or natural environment with
use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
5
The project is not in conflict with any existing or planned
land use and/or zoning regulations.
No adverse impacts on families or communities is anticipated
and no families or businesses will require relocation.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is
expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect
social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
This project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local
significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is located north of Crutchfield in Surry County
in the uplands of the Piedmont Province of the Appalachian
Highlands. The study area is located in a rural setting of farm
fields and scattered residential sites. Farming is a major
industry in this predominantly rural county.
NOISE & AIR QUALITY
The project is located within the Northern Piedmont Air
Quality Control Region. The ambient air quality for Surry County
has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area
where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any
transportation control measures, the conformity procedures of
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 do not
apply to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction
but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning,
all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Part 770 and 772 and no additional reports are required.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Plant Life
Much of the area surrounding this bridge site has
experienced previous disturbances by man. Therefore, only
remnants of mature natural communities have survived.
Neither of the proposed alternates will have more than a
minimal impact on the areas north of the present roadway and
bridge. A recently flooded cultivated field occupies the 225'
wide floodplain west of the river, north of SR 2233. A fringe of
6
mature river birch (Betula ni ra) trees remain along the river.
Higher ground occurs east of the river on the north side of the
road and is largely occupied by an abandoned field. A 75 to 100,
strip of mature alluvial forest dominated by river birch, yellow
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) lies between the field and
the river. Otherwise, only early successional tree saplings,
shrubs, vines, and tall weedy herbs occur north of SR 2233.
Land south (downstream) of SR 2233 is generally lower and
wetter than the north, except for a cultivated upland field of
the river. A 100' to 150' wide terraced wooded floodplain lies
between this field and the river. The plant community on this
floodplain is river birch -mixed floodplain hardwoods / ironwood
/ tall mixed herbs community. The area had recently been scoured
by high water.
A small unnamed stream and its related floodplain lie along
the base of the SR 2233 road embankment west of the river. The
mixed alluvial hardwoods/mixed shrubs/mixed herbs community
include: ironwood, black walnut (Juglans. ni ra), basswood
(Tilia heterophylla), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), hazelnut
(Corylus americana), green dragon (Arisaema dracontium), and
mixed ferns.
Animal Life
A variety of wildlife habitats exist in this study area. A
local resident reported seeing a wild turkey cross the road
recently. Various song birds would feed and nest in the general
area. Birds actually seen were: bluebirds, black-capped chicka-
dees, mourning doves, and various warblers.
Mammals likely to be found in the study area include: Wood-
chucks, Eastern cottontails, raccoons, gray foxes, and striped
skunks.
While most of the birds and mammals are able to move away
from construction disturbances, the aquatic organisms could not
withstand increased siltation or degradation of water quality.
The Fisher River is not a designated trout stream but does
support a small-mouth bass population. Local residents also fish
for catfish here. Fish species collected during a sampling by
N.C. Wildlife Fisheries Biologists are included in the appendix.
Other than the aquatic species, the proposed construction
should have little effect on wildlife in general. No further
fragmentation of habitats or destruction of unique habitats will
occur.
7
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soils
According to 1991 soil surveys supplied by the Surry County
Soil Conservation Service office, the following soils are found
in the vicinity likely to be impacted by this bridge replacement
are as follows:
Masada fine sandy loam, 2-8% slopes:
Typic hapludults, clayey, mixed, thermic soils are very deep
well-drained soils on terraces.
Toccoa and Riverview soils, 0-4% slopes:
Toccoa soils are typic udifluvents, coarse loamy, mixed,
non-acid thermic soils. The Toccoa series consists of well-
drained to moderately well-drained, moderately coarse textured,
non-acid soils on floodplains.
Riverview soils are fluventic dystrochrepts, fine loamy,
mixed, thermic soils. These are very deep, well-drained,
moderately permeable soils on level to nearly level floodplains
or natural levees along rivers or large creeks.
Wateree-Rion-Rock outcrop complex, 45-95% slopes:
Wateree soils are typic dystrochrepts, coarse-loamy, mixed,
thermic soils. These are moderately deep, moderately rapidly
permeable soils of the piedmont uplands.
Rion soils are typic hapludults, fine loamy, mixed, thermic
soils. These are very deep, moderately permeable soils of
piedmont uplands.
Pacolet-Bethlehem Complex, 15-25% slopes:
Pacolet soils are typic kanhapludults, clayey, kaolinitic,
thermic soils. These are very deep, moderately permeable soils
of the piedmont uplands.
Bethlehem soils are typic, kanhapludults, clayey,
kaolinitic, thermic soils. These are well-drained, moderately
deep soils on ridgetops and side-slopes in the piedmont.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impacts to prime or important farmland soils by all land
acquisition and construction projects. Prime or important
farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS). The SCS was asked to determine whether the proposed
project will impact farmland soils and to complete Form-1006,
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. The completed form is
included in the Appendix.
8
According to the SCS, the proposed project will not impact
any prime or important farmland soils.
Water Resources
The Fisher River is a tributary to the Yadkin River at river
mile 172. At the site of Bridge 0164 the river is approximately
100' wide. It has moderately abundant pools and riffles;
turbidity is normally clear; the flow is over 75 cfs. The bottom
varies from bedrock to boulders to gravel to sand. The current
stream classification for the Fisher River is Class C. This
classification indicates a stream suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and agriculture.
The Fisher River is not rated as trout water nor does it
flow into a designated trout stream. No information for this
river was available from the Benthic Macro-invertebrate Data Base
(BMDB). However, a Fisher River sampling report was obtained
from the local N.C. Fisheries Biologist, Joe Mickey. A copy of
this report may be found in the appendix.
At the time of this field investigation in early May of
1992, the area had recently been flooded and the silt load in the
river was abnormally high.
A small unnamed stream flows into the Fisher River 10' south
of SR 2233 from the west. This stream would have to be rerouted
and channeled if Alternate No. 1 is constructed resulting in
increased impacts to the environment.
According to Dennis Stewart, Manager of the Habitat
Conservation Program for the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), his office has no special concerns for this site.
However, Mr. Stewart emphasized that, "the NCWRC expects NCDOT to
routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources
in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install
and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life
of the project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water
flowing in or into these streams."
Possible stream impacts will be restricted to some limited
sediment debris during construction and after project completion.
Likely adverse impacts can be minimized through the employment of
silt basins, berms, silt curtains, and other erosion control
measures required of the contractor and specified in the State
approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. "Best
Management Practices" (33 CFR 330.6) will also be implemented to
minimize adverse effects of construction activities.
With proper implementation of the Department's sediment and
erosion control measures and "Best Management Practices", overall
environmental stream impacts are expected to be negligible as a
result of this project.
9
Surry County is not a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program; however, the approximate 100-year
floodplain in the vicinity of this project has been shown on
Figure 4.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the flood-
plain area. Any shift in alignment would result in a crossing of
about the same magnitude. The floodplain in the adjacent area of
the crossing is rural/wooded and agricultural. The amount of
floodplain and floodway to be affected is not considered to be
significant and no modification of the floodway is anticipated.
All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any possible
harm.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Wetlands
Although a few of the plants found in the lowest areas are
facultative wetland plants, the hydrology, soils, or general
vegetation of this project area do not fit the criteria for
jurisdictional wetlands.
Protected Species
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were contacted to obtain
current lists of protected species known to inhabit Surry County.
Due to the relatively small area to be investigated, an on-site
survey was conducted by carefully walking over the entire area to
search for species of concern. Special attention was given if
suitable habitat for a protected species was found.
Federally Protected Species:
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered
(E) and Threatened (T) are protected under provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Federal Candidate (C)
species have also been listed, but are not provided protection
under this Act. No survey was conducted to determine the
presence of candidate species.
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) - (E)
A crow-sized bird 15-21" long with a 40" wingspread. Adults
slate-gray above and pale below, with fine bars and spots of
black; narrow tail; long pointed wings; conspicuous black
"mustaches". Young birds darker below and browner.
Range: Formerly bred from Alaska to Greenland south to
Georgia and Baja California, but now restricted to the northern
parts of its range in the East. Winters north to British
Columbia and Massachusetts. Also breeds in southern South
America and in Eurasia, Africa, and Australia.
Habitat: Open country, especially along rivers, also near
lakes, and the coast. Migrates chiefly along the coast. Nests
10
on cliffs or windowsills and ledges of buildings in large cities.
Peregrine falcons have been introduced at several sites in
the western mountains of North Carolina where cliffs exist to
provide nesting sites. However, this project area does not
contain cliffs or other suitable nesting sites for this bird.
During two visits to the site, no falcons were seen in the area.
The NCNHP has no record of this falcon being found in the
vicinity of SR 2233. This project will not impact on the
Peregrine falcon.
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) - (E)
Terrestrial herb with long, slender, filamentous roots and 5
- 6 verticillate, drooping leaves inserted at the top of the
slender, low, fistulose stem. Inflorescence composed of 1
(rarely 2) sessile or subsessile just above the leaves; sepals
less than 3 cm long, light green. Flowers pale yellowish green
and purple. Fruit a capsule with loculicidal dehiscence, erect,
ellipsoid - cylindrical, 1.7-3 cm long, on a short pedicel to 1.5
cm long, values hygroscopic. Flowers May to July; fruits, June;
vegetative, May to July.
Range: Small scattered populations from Canada south to
Georgia, west to Michigan and Illinois. Rare throughout.
Habitat: Open, dry deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous woods,
or along stream banks. Merkroff (1980) states that all sites are
second-growth deciduous or deciduous-coniferous forest, with an
open canopy and shrub layer and a sparse herb layer. He also
lists various situations in which the species occurs: old fields
or pastures, windthrow areas, cutover forests, old orchards, near
semipermanent canopy breaks, such as streams, highways, old
logging roads, lakes, or cliffs. Site conditions, e.g., soils,
aspects, topography, vary a great deal.
This study was conducted during the growing season for this
plant. The wooded areas at this site have closed canopies, not
open, and cleared areas are dense thickets of vines and weedy
species or cultivated fields. However, because of the wide range
of habitats reported for this species, all areas within 75 feet
of any proposed construction was carefully searched by walking
transects through the area at 5-foot intervals. No whorled
pogonias were found. The NCNHP has no records of the small
whorled pogonia in the vicinity of SR 2233. Therefore, this
project will not impact on this species.
Brook floater clam (Alasmidonta varicosa) - (C)
A fairly small sized naiad with a rhomboidal or
subelliptical shape, the thin shell can reach a length of 65 to
70 mm long, with a height of 35-40 mm and a width of 25-30 mm.
The anterior end is evenly rounded, but the posterior end is
biangulate below and flatly curved above. The ventral margin can
be straight, but is frequently arcuate, especially in older
individuals. The posterior ridge is broad, somewhat inflated and
round. There is a second faint ridge above and together the
posterior ridges end in a biangulate margin. The posterior slope
is flat to slightly concave, usually with numerous short, low
corrugations radiating toward the posterior margin. The umbos are
large, a little inflated, projecting little above the anterior
margin and are direct anteriorly. The periostracum is yellowish
11
or brownish with numerous dark green or black rays. Each valve
has one small, thin, triangular pseudocardinal tooth. Lateral
teeth are vestigal or lacking. The nacre is glossy, bluish white,
and grades into a pale orange in the umbo cavity.
Range: The brook floater is found mainly along the Atlantic
Coast from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick south to South Carolina.
It has also been found in the Greenbriar River (Ohio-Mississippi
River drainage) of West Virginia. In general the brook floater is
rare south of Virginia.
In North Carolina, A. varicosa has been collected from the
Linville and Catawba Rivers (Cooper-Santee River System), the
Uwharrie River (Yadkin River System), Brown Creek and Little
River (Pee Dee River system), and the Haw River, Bear Creek and
Rocky River (Cape Fear River system). The NCNHP has a record of
the brook floater clam being found 1/2 mile downstream from this
project site on the Fisher River.
Habitat: The brook floater is characteristically found on
sand bottoms or gravel riffles of small, upland, rapidly flowing,
oxygen-rich streams in upper portions of river systems in 1 to 3
feet of water.
The NCNHP has a record of the brook floater clam being found
1/2 mile downstream of bridge #164. However, the Fisher River
carries a relatively heavy load of silt at times due to
agricultural and forestry activities north of this bridge, and
the brook floater is known to be sensitive to sediment.
Therefore, even though suitable habitat may occur at this site,
the clam may not survive in this portion of the Fisher River. No
survey was made during this study. The NCWRC listed no special
concern for this site.
"Best Management Practices" (33 CFR 330.6) and measures
specified in the State approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Program will be utilized to minimize adverse effects of
construction activities.
State Protected Species:
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) are granted protection by
the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the NC Department of
Agriculture.
Brook floater clam (Alasmidonta varicosa) - (T)
(See description, range, and habitat for this species in
previous section).
PERMITS
It is anticipated that an individual permit will not be
required from the Corps of Engineers since the Nationwide Section
404 permit provisions are applicable and the provisions of
330.5(b) and 330.6 will be followed.
12
Since this project is located in one of the 25 westernmost
North Carolina counties that contain Mountain Trout Waters, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation is required to obtain
approval from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and to fulfill its Section 404 permit obligations. The final
permit decision rests with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. A
Section 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources is required for any activity which may result in a
discharge and for which a federal permit is required.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The "Area of Potential Effect" of this project on cultural
resources has been delineated and is shown on Figure 2.
There are no historic architectural resources in the
vicinity of the project that are eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. The existing bridge is not
historically significant. The State Historic Preservation
Officer was consulted and concurred with the above statement.
(See letter in Appendix.)
The State Historic Preservation Officer has recommended that
a comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted to identify
the presence and significance of archaeological remains that may
be destroyed by the proposed project. This survey will be
accomplished prior to construction.
VIII. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that,
with proper implementation of the Department's erosion and
sediment control measures and "Best Management Practices", no
serious adverse environmental effects will result from the
implementation of this project.
13

h
Q. 114 11n Lre¢k 7^ 4r5 4200 v ?.
. 11.10 .1 1.0 f 115 3227 1227
1947 260 ,`''? 244 7 2727 it
•0
Fairview ±;? ??` * 4 il') 7771 123 ?- Copeland
*5 Crossroads ? 1 '? ,
Llear 2126 1325. ?2Z?5 ,1` ??
+' O ? 2365.. r ? •' t? Z,°,
.6 212
11 /`-. 1142 .7 ,
Iri Stony r b
3 X33, , Knott i 72jY Q?
111 4 111 .4 h
273401 P
---'\1204? 19 `i 1.0 2236
?f2221
1114 Z23
2117 1.0 {' n
/ P
?T 1116 1115 4 . 1 326- 2232
Burdl ??' 730
o F re 4 ti 223 1 1 18 rutcfl "' 1 431 `1 ?? `?
tf
1 ! lv_ field 123 `' 1
410 s?
RAIL WA
Rockford
365 /YADKIN CO.
(T 1363 1
J0 1'?
III
11 l H
I
Ir
Lo+ Gall 5
Mount
ne'Toast
` c
Bottom Ridge
' ? trite Plain y'
.,Lane 5 Ury R
Mountain 7
\;.g Mon Park Dobson,
I ,
..Al t
/ , 89 1
nnerlown W.
e sz ?
/
-}--Q- STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHIVAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SR 2233, BRIDGE NO. 164
OVER FISHER RIVER
SURRY COUNTY
B-2169
mile 1 1? FIG. 1
WEST APPROACH
(FROM BRIDGE)
EAST APPROACH
(FROM BRIDGE)
DOWNSTREAM SIDE VIEW
,im,
B-2169
BRIDGE NO. 164
SURRY COUNTY
FIGURE 3
I' i
APPENDIX
. STATE o
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. 0. Box 250 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
North Wilkesboro, NC 28659
August 26, 1992
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: B-2076, B-1013, B-2169, B-2116, & B-2524
Request for Concurrence in Preliminary Draft
Categorical Exclusion Documents
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. L. J. Ward, PE
Manager of Planning and Environmental
Branch
ATTN: Leigh Cobb
FROM: W. E. Hoke, PE
Division Engineer - Division 11
As requested by letter to me from Mr. Jeff Williams of Wang
Engineering (the firm), we have the following comments
relative to design concepts selected by the.firm:
B-2076
Division concurs with the firm in Alternate 2, which improves
the alignment of SR 1580 in the vicinity of the bridge.
B-1013 It is agreed that construction of the proposed
structure must be in existing location. There appears to be
no feasible alternative.
Relative to handling of through traffic, no final
conclusion has been previously been reached by this office,
pending further research by the firm. There are negatives
associated with every alternative.
Although SR 1155 has been paved since project scoping
recommendation was made by this office for an on-site detour,
alignment and profile of SR 1155 are poor. A poor sight
distance exists at the intersection of SR 1155 with NC 113.
Therefore, preliminary conclusions are to avoid the use of
SR 1155 for a temporary detour during construction. It has
not been determined by this office if school buses would have
to utilize SR 1155 or how fire protection and emergency
services might be affected.
n.. C...-I nnnnrtiin ity/AfflrmntiVP Art ion EmDIOVer
Mr. L. J. Ward, PE -2-
August 26, 1992
We agree in the selection of the on-site detour as described
in alternate No. 1; however, we do have concerns. Can
satisfactory alignment be achieved in the transition from NC
113 to the on-site detour without excessive right of way and
construction costs and associated irreversible proximity
damage to the residence in the northwest quadrant?
The property owner expressed his concern to the Location
party that he did not want a road going through his garden;
it should be noted, however, that garden topsoil can be
otockpiled but the loss of buffer, noise barrier, aesthetics,
and stability of the rock cut is not reversible.
It should be noted that NC 113 traffic, if not required to
stop on the on-site detour, which would be very dangerous,
will necessitate moving stop signs on SR 1152 and SR 1157. A
stop ahead sign does not say "The stop sign has been moved
toward you XX feet and there is high speed traffic between
you and where the stop sign-was before it was moved."
These concerns should be considered during design with
improvements in sight distance and additional signing as
necessary.
-> B-2169
Division concurs with the firm in Alternate 2, which
recommends closing of SR 2233 and replacement of the bridge
in existing location.
B-2116
The firm concurs with Division that SR 1142 should not be
closed during construction. Division previously recommended
Alternative 1 on the assumption that use of existing
structure to handle traffic during construction would be more
economical than construction of a temporary structure. In
consideration of the cost studies we concur in Alternative 2.
B-2524
The firm concurs with Division recommendation in memorandum
to you dated April 3, 1990.
Please advise if you need additional information.
REP/bp
cc: Jeff Williams, PE
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation R?ques ?.,
/171.2 j / -?-
Name f Pro'ec Federal Agency I v ved C
Proposed Land Use County And Stgtev1?_> /z k

Date Request Received By SCS
PART 11 (Zo be compI d by SCS) =
or localamportant farmland? -Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
Does-, a s*kte contaiq prime unique statewide
-
`
,
flfo„the FPPA does'not apply do not complete additional parts:of Phis forrnl ET
;x?
•?' Maiar.Crop(s1 Farmable Land In. Govt. Jurisdiction •. AMount Of r i efined m FPPA
`
;_
Acres % '' S.S-• 1
ry
j
'
°
Acres s
?• •
'
%. 1
Name Of Land Evalu4tl6n System t)scd Name Of,Locaf Site Assessment System Date Land.Evaluation Returned By SCS

Alternative Site Rating
PART III (To be comp! ted by Federal Agency) Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly G
C. Total Acres In Site
PART 'IV:(To ,o e,completed by SCS) Land Edaluation)nformation s --
A' Total Acres Prime.And Unique. Farmland :
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
.C.. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted ?. ° .'D 04 7
D: Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 7 44" 7 C
PART.V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion ,
Relative Value 0f Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of O to l00 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Points

1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assessment From Part Vl above or a local 160
site assessment!
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260
ssessment Used?
A
Was A Local Site
Site Selected: Date Of Selection !
--1
Yes U No ?
Reason For Selection:
Sir ' :rructiors on reverse side!
1 '
?AD-1-" Fisher River (Burry Co.) 8 July 1977. ,=ple length 80 m. Sample
taken belori SR 2233 bridge, approximantoly 4.0 Ian upstream from confluence
with Tadkin River. (ef/ha.6.8)
Comments: Thin section of the Fisher River contains cool vn for with ood

C,
smallmouth bass type habitat. Smallmouth baam are reported to exist in the
river but none vv re collected at this site. Siltation is moderate as the
river flo-•:s through cultivated lands and wood lots. The river is classified
as. :xn.-Almouth bass water. The lower section of the river also offers
some eatfishing.
Recgmmendations: Stock anallrouth baso fingerlings at the rate of 500 per
lvn for a period of three yearn in an attempt to reestablish a population in
these Oatorablo waters. Siltation in the watershed has boon on the decline
and tho water quality is improving. Resurvey four years after initial
stocking.
Chmdcal, and physical data
0
6 - 10 PPU
C
2 5 Plm
H.0.-- alk. - 51.3 Ppm
PH - - 7.0
Turbidity - 23 JTU
Water temp.- 21.1•C
Av. width - 18.3 m
Av. depth • 0.30 a
%pools • 50
% riffles - 50
Flom - 2.1 cros (75 cfs)
Bottom type- sand, gravel,
boulders, bedrock
Fish food organisms
Enhomeroptera - 45
Trichoptera - 18
Plecontera - 10
Colcoptora - 1
Ilintera 2 - 1
Av. No./m o 398.1
Cheep list of fish op3cion
Cara
Redbreast sunfish - 1 116m, Sg
7 ha 0.17 kg/ha
Ilongara
losysido daco
Hidhback chub
'Bluchead chub
Redlip ^hiner
Fieryblack shine
14oxostoma app.
Brown bullhoad
I-'argined madtom
Fantail darter
Piedmont darter
1-ce. 14t cc e /k/
cc /c c L?
• 11, 47- 73mn, 27g
- 8, 55- 65mn, 20g
- 329 50-111mn, 2858
- 5, 50- 63mm, 8g
10, 50- 91mm, 43g
- 3, 345-392mn, 1448g
- 9, 120-375mn, 10388
10 66-120mi. 102A
3 j 63-75 rani 14g
1 666mn,
p?
92 _„
r
626/ha 20.3kg/ha
?C?l?'-'-f ?'?-'?? .Sly ?•C???? ?'C?S
` I1_, AD-1-50 Fisher River (Surry Co.) 22 Juno 1977. Sample length 76 m. Sample
taken below SR 1341 bridge. (cf/ha.10.1)
it

Ccnentai The Finhor River contains favorable smallmouth baso habitat. This
i-n-3 the only sample of throe, in which smallmouth bass ..-ere collected.
Reconmendi.tions: goo previous sample.
Chemical and physical data
2 r
Cv2 - 3 ppm
H. 0. alk. - 51.3 PPM
pH - 6.6
Turbidity - 3 JTU
Av, width - 13 m
Av. depth - 0.26 m
pools - 60
riffles - 40
Flow - 1.6 cros (37 cfa)
Bottom typo- sand, gravel,
rubble, boulders
Fish food organisms
Ephemeroptera - 13
Trichgptera - 7
Coleoptera - 1
Dintera - 1
Av. Ito./m2 - 118.4
Check list of finh species
Gamo
Smallmouth bass - 1 45ann, ftl 10 1:a 0.ha
I1ongama
Bluehead chub
Redlip shiner
Fieryblaek shiner
White sucker
11oxosta= UP".
Margined madtcm
Fantail darter
Piedmont darter
- 11.
- 3, 77-110m,
55- 60rrm, 909
5g
- 4, 50- 75m, 108
r 10 70m0 2g
r 1, 56,=, 5g
- 11, 55-108nan, 809
- 1. 5&n, 2g
- 4. 58- 62=. 6?
3 200g
364/11a 2.0 kg/ha
YAD-1-50 Fisher River (Surry Co.) 26 July 1978. Sample length 117 w. `ample
taken below SR 1331 bridge at Olevins Storo. (cf/ha•8.3)
Comaants: This sample tarps tho uppor limits of c.-allmouth bass habitat.
in this river. The river floras through cultivated lands in this area.
Rooomandations: Sea previous sample.
Chemical and physical data Check list of fish s;,ocies
0 - 4 ppm 0=3
C62 - 13 ppm -0-
1.1. 0. alit. - 17.1 pun
pH - 7.5 Ilongamo
eater temp.- 20°C Rocysido daco - 28 50- 77m, 59
-
? Av. width - 10.3 m Bluahead churl - 339 5o-12ornn.162g
_
(( ?? Av. depth - 0.21 a Rodlip shiner - 29, 45- 55nn, 349
II % Paola - 60 Fioryblaek shiner - Is 70m, 4g
% riffles - 40 White sucker - 1, 137ni?, 26g
I I ?? Flog - 1.2 =3 (41.2 CNN stc.:a spp. - 4, 73-111rwm, 46g
Bottom type- sand, gravol, Piedmont darter - 1. 62mtny 2R
rubble 71 21
0ha
9/ha 2.3
58
Fish fo d o ni s
Trichoptora - 2
Ephe=eroptera - 21
Colooptira - 4
_-' Diptera - 3
Plecoptaq - 2
I-.
n? Av. lfo./m - 293.9
w STATC '

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Ntartin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 16, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 Consultation on Consultant
Bridge Projects
Dear Mr. Graf:
Jut 201992
N1 OF
Gyl'1'AYS
?RFSC.4PG? `?
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1992, concerning twenty-two bridge replacement
projects.
On June 8, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff and project consultants for a meeting concerning the bridge
replacements. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the
meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the
information discussed at the meeting, our preliminary comments regarding these bridge
replacements are attached for each project.
Having provided rEnvirthis onmenotal Asses ment which ard to receipt of either a Categoricai
how NCDOT addressed our
or
Exclusion
concerns.
Our comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,
at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: L. J. Ward 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B. Church
T. Padgett
l
Replace Bridge No. 164 on SR 2233 over Fisher River,
Surry County, B-2169, 8.2741001, ER 92-8546
In terms of historic architectural resources, we feel that the one structure over
fifty years of age in the area of potential effect--Bridge No. 164--is not eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places since it does not possess the
necessary historical or architectural significance.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
July 16, 1992