20001182 Ver 1_Complete File_20000912

001182
STATE or Nowri I CAROLINA
DI :I'n IZ"I,M EN"I' OF 'I'IZANS f'OR"1'n'I'ION
.IAvtrs B. I IUNT JR. 11.0. RU\ 25201. RAI. RI1I. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
05 September 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road. Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmever
NCDOT Coordinator
D,\vm McCUY
SECRLrnRY
SUBJECT: Surry County, Replace Bridge No. 55 over Fisher River with a new
structure 50 feet south of the existing alignment, TIP No. B-3248, State
Project No. 8.274140 1, Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1331(2).
Application for Nationwide Permits 23 and 33.
Dear Sir:
The attached Categorical Exclusion prepared for the referenced project is provided for
your review. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
replace Bridge No. 55 over the Fisher River on SR 1331 in Surry County 50 feet south of
the existing location. The replacement structure will be a 160 foot long bridge with a
clear roadway width of 28 feet.
The Fisher River is the only jurisdictional water resource occurring within the project
area. Anticipated impacts to jurisdictional surface waters from the recommended
alternative based on Right of Way limits is 80 linear feet, or 0.08 acres. However,
because the Fisher River will be bridged, permanent fill into the river is not anticipated
with the bridge construction. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
NCDOT proposes to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 61 Federal
Register 65874, 65916 (December 13, 1996).
The bridge replacement will require the use of two temporary rock causeways to
complete construction. The construction of these causeways will result in approximately
0.025 acres of fill into the Fisher River. The fill material will consist of a total of 71y3
(58 y3 of for pier removal and 1 struction of new pier) of Class B rip rap
obtained from a quarry determined by the contractor. Prior to construction, reference
elevations will be taken in both temporary fill areas before the causeway is built.
Following construction, all temporary fill will be removcd. The areas will then be
restored to original contours and rough st?rfacc texture based on the reference elevations.
These areas are expected to recover naturally, since the topsoil and seed source will not
he rcmovcd. No additional plarnting is proposed. Construction of these Causeways arc
detailed in the attached drawings.
The causeways are expected to be in place for approximately 2 months each. Both
causeways will not be in place at the same time. It is anticipated that the above mentioned
activities associated with causeway construction will be authorized under Section 404
Nationwide Permit 33 ("Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering).
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2734 (Categorical
Exclusion) and No. 31 14 will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CF,
to the North Carolina Departmcnt oT Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), for their review. The NCDOT will adhere to the general
conditions of the 401 Water Quality Certification; therefore, written authorization from
the DWQ is not required.
Surry County is one of 25 counties designated as having trout waters, which requires
consent from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) certifying that
the proposed action will not adversely impact these resources is required for issuance of
the Nationwide permit. A copy of the referenced CE is being provided to the WRC for
their review. Impacts to trout waters will not result from project construction, however
NCDOT will adopt an "in-stream" construction moratorium from 1 May to June 30 to
avoid impacts during the spawning season of'smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Tim Savidge at [phone], ext. 313.
Sincerely,
v
??...William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACOE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR-DWQ
Mr. Joe Mickey, NCWRC
Mr. Calvin W. Leggett, P.E., Programming and TIP Branch
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Engineer
Mr. David R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tim V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. R.C. McCann, P.E., Division I 1 Engineer
4
SR-13>.
Surrv County
Bridue No. over Fisher River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1331(2)
State Project No. 8.2741401
T.I.P. No. 13-3248

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPR
William D. Gilmore, P.E' Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
l 2
MAT
? t it
c- L
'C'
cholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
DATE
SR-1331
Surry County
Bridge No. 53 over Fisher River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1331(2)
State Project No. 8.2741401
T.I.P. No. B-3248
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January, 1999
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
eo??- Z4&4_
L. J. ard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
O.A. Bissett, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Nancy C panella
Project Planning Engineer
''°°?"N• n•"epee.
•°° Y1 CAR eeee
S141
1
L 4661
F E? .
.
04 101
SR-1331
Surry County
Bridge No. 53 over Fisher River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1331(2)
State Project No. 8.2741401
T.I.P. No. B-3248
Bridge No. 53 is included in the NCDOT 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project
is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. Construction activities within the stream will be prohibited during the spawning season for
smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish from May 1 through June 30.
3. The existing bridge and approaches will be removed to pre-construction contour and
revegetated with native tree species.
4. Tree removal will be minimized during construction and easements will be replanted with
native tree species.
5. The design of the bridge will be coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer and
the Surry County Historic Society.
6. An Archeological survey of the project area will be completed prior to right-of-way
acquisition.
7. HQW guidelines (Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds) will be strictly enforced during
the project.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 53 will be replaced immediately south of its existing location with a bridge. Traffic will
be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $930,225. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the NCDOT 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program, is $468,000 including
$43,000 for right-of-way and $425,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR-1331 crosses over Fisher River in the northwestern rural area of Surry County south of NC 89
and west of I-77. Land use is primarily rural residential, agricultural, and forest land in the study
area. The historic Edwards-Franklin House is located on the north side of SR 1331 just west of
Bridge No. 53 (see Figure 4). SR-1331 is classified as a local road in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Near the bridge, SR 1331 has a 17.5-foot wide pavement width with 5-foot wide shoulders. The
roadway approaches narrow to 11 feet at the bridge. The roadway approaches slope down toward
the bridge. The horizontal alignment is tangent on the bridge with 8 degree curves approximately 100
feet from the bridge on each approach. The roadway is situated approximately 20 feet above the
river bed.
The traffic volumes were 600 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1996 and projected to be 1100 vpd for the
design year 2020. The volumes include 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 1% dual-tired
vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted but is assumed to be 55 mph at the bridge.
The existing one-lane bridge was built in 1928(see Figure 3). The superstructure consists of two
spans of steel 1-beams supported by concrete piers on concrete footings and three spans of creosote
timbers on creosote piles. Each end bent is a creosote abutment. The bridge has a creosote timber
deck.
Bridge No. 53 has overall length of 130 feet and a clear roadway width of 11 feet. The posted weight
limit is 17 tons for a single vehicle and 24 tons for a truck-tractor semi-trailer. The bridge has a
sufficiency rating of 38.6, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from October 1, 1993 to
September 30, 1996.
Overhead telephone and electric lines are located on the south side of the bridge.
Two school buses cross this bridge two times per day during the school year.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 53. Each alternative consists of replacing
the existing bridge with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 28 feet and a length of' 160
feet. The approach roadway will consist of a 22-foot wide roadway and 6-foot wide grassed
shoulders.
The alternate alignments studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follow:
Alternate A with on-site detour: involves replacing the bridge in its existing location. The roadway
grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. A
design speed of 40 mph would be provided. Traffic would be maintained with a temporary, on-site
detour located south of the existing bridge (Temporary Detour 1).
Alternate A with off-site detour: involves replacing the bridge in its existing location. The roadway
grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. A
design speed of 40 mph would be provided. Traffic would be detoured on SR 1338, SR 1407, NC
89 and SR 1406 during construction, for a distance of 8.6 miles (see Figure 1). See discussion in
Section VII.
Alternate B (Recommended): involves replacing the bridge approximately 50 feet south of its
existing location. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The
roadway grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge
grade. A design speed of 40 mph would be provided.
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternate was also considered but would eventually necessitate closure
of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to the traffic service provided by SR 1331.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
VII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
It is anticipated that a design exception for design speed will be required. The recommended
alternate (Alternate B) provides a design speed of 40 miles per hour. Due to the existing horizontal
alignment, both within and outside the project area, a major relocation of SR 1331 would be required
to improve the design speed to 55 miles per hour. Since the alignment of the recommended alternate
is compatible with the alignment of the remainder of SR 1331 and projected 2020 traffic volumes
are low (I 100 vpd), the additional costs are not justified.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are shown in the following
table:
Alternate A
With on-site
detour Alternate A
with off-site
detour Alternate B
Structure Removal $10,395.00 $10,395.00 $10,395.00
Structure $313,600.00 $313,600.00 $313,600.00
Roadway Approaches $254,080.00 $254,080.00 $292,431.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $146,835.00 $146,835.00 $158,469.00
Engineering and Contingencies $90,000.00 $90,000.00 $105,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easements / Util. $49,490.00 $29,140.00 $50,330.00
SUBTOTAL $864,400.00 $844,050.00 $930,225.00
Temporary On-Site Detour $325,000.00 NA NA
TOTAL $1,189,400.00 $844,050.00 $930,225.00
The above estimates are not based on detailed design plans; therefore, 30 % has been included for
miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 % for engineering and contingencies.
The construction cost estimate for Alternate A is based on all construction occurring south of the
existing shoulder in the area adjacent to the historic Edwards Franklin property. This results in
only a minor difference between the construction costs estimates for Alternates A and B.
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternative B is recommended. Bridge No. 53 will be replaced 50 feet south of the existing
alignment with a two-lane bridge. The new structure will have a clear roadway width of 28 feet and
a length of 160 feet. The roadway approaches will be widened to 22 feet with 6-foot shoulders. The
bridge grade will be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during construction.
4
Although it is less costly to replace the bridge in its existing location, a temporary, on-site detour
would be necessary. An off-site detour is not reasonable at this location due to its length of 8.6 miles
of additional travel and opposition from local residents. A temporary, on-site detour would increase
the cost of the project to $1,189,400.00 versus $930,225.00 for the recommended alternate.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
An off-site detour route using SR 1338, SR 1407, NC 89 and SR 1406 (see Figurel) was
investigated. This route is 8.6 miles long and consists of two lane, paved roadways with
characteristics similar to SR 1331. The route includes two one-lane bridges and one two-lane bridge
with a legal posted limit of 19 tons for single vehicles and 24 tons for truck- tractor semi-trailers
located on SR 1338. SR 1407 includes a two-lane bridge with a posted legal limit of 35 tons for
single vehicles. A road user analysis was performed based on 600 vpd and an average of 8.6 miles
of additional travel utilizing this detour route. The cost of additional travel would be approximately
$565,000 during the one year construction period. The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour
is $325,000 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.74:1. This ratio indicates justification to maintain
traffic on-site during the construction period.
At the Citizens Information Workshop held on September 8, 1998 and in post meeting comments,
local residents expressed concerns regarding the detouring of traffic during the construction period.
Several of the local residents farm land on both sides of the Fisher River, and they were opposed to
closing the crossing and to detouring traffic. Also it was pointed out that closing the crossing would
significantly increase the response time for the local volunteer fire department. Based on the length
of the detour route; opposition from local residents; and increased response time for fire protection
personnel; an off-site detour is not recommended.
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methods
In support of this investigation, materials and research data have been derived from a number of
sources. These include applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle
topographic mapping (Bottom Quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National
Wetlands Inventory mapping, Natural Resources Conservation Service draft soils mapping (USDA
Unpublished), and recent aerial photography (scale 1:1200).
The site was visited on June 13, 1998. The study corridor was walked and visually surveyed for
significant features. For purposes of this evaluation, the study corridor was assumed to be
approximately 1200 feet by 300 feet. Impact calculations for each alignment are based on right-of-
way width, which is approximately 80 feet for each alignment; actual impacts will be limited to
construction limits and are expected to be less than those shown for right-of-way. Special concerns
evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and water quality
protection in the Fisher River.
The field work for this investigation was conducted by biologist, Dr. Jerry McCrain. Dr. McCrain
has more than 23 years of experience in the environmental field.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat
used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992, Rohde et al. 1994). Water
quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 1997,
DWQ 1998). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Surry
County (May 14, 1998) was obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP
records documenting presence of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing
the field investigation.
Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the Piedmont geological belt at the break between Mountain and
Piedmont physiographic provinces. Topography is characterized by strongly sloping uplands with
defined floodplains along drainages. Elevations in the study corridor are relatively flat within the
wide Fisher River floodplain, averaging approximately 1160 feet above sea level along the river to
approximately 1200 feet at the toe of the slopes along the upland edge of the floodplain (USGS
Bottom quadrangle).
Soils in the study corridor are dominated by Riverview and Toccoa soils (0 to 4 percent slope) in the
Fisher River floodplain, along with pockets of the Chewacla (0 - 2 percent slope) series. Soils of the
Masada (2-15 percent slope) and Dogue (2 - 8 percent slope) series occur along the edge of
floodplain slopes. Riverview (Fluventic Dystrochrepts) and Toccoa (Typic Udifluvents) soils are
well drained, moderately permeable soils formed in recent alluvium. These soils are frequently
flooded, although they are not considered hydric. Chewacla soils (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrept) are
also non-hydric soils with hydric inclusions of the Wedhadkee series. Chewaclas are somewhat
poorly drained, occasionally flooded, and are formed in recent alluvium.
Masada fine sandy loam (2 to 15 percent slope) and Dogue sandy loam are rarely flooded. These
non-hydric soils are moderately well drained and moderately to slowly permeable. Masada and
Dogue soils may only be peripherally affected by construction of the proposed roadway
improvements.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 030702 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (DWQ
1997). This area is part of USGS accounting unit 03040101 of the Piedmont Region. Small
unnamed tributaries parallel the northern margins of SR 1331 in the northwest and northeast project
quadrants, eventually entering the river at the bridge. The section of the Fisher River in the project
area has been assigned Stream Index Number (12-63-(1)) by the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ)•
Stream Characteristics
The Fisher River is a well-defined Piedmont river with swift flow over a sand and cobble substrate.
Sandbars are present within the channel downstream from the bridge, and rock outcrops were
observed upstream and downstream from the bridge. A series of pool-riffle configurations are
apparent in the vicinity of the bridge. The Fisher River is approximately 40 - 50 feet wide at the
existing bridge and about 3 feet in depth. Little or no rooted aquatic vegetation is apparent in the
river channel, but some organic debris (i.e., branches, leaves) was apparent. Woody debris has
accumulated along downstream embankments, which has in turn served to trap sand and sediment.
Small tributaries noted in northwestern and northeastern project quadrants vary in size. The
northwestern tributary is approximately 5 feet in width, flowing through a wooded buffer alongside
the road and into the river. The substrate is sand and silt. The northeastern-most tributary is incised
and channelized, approximately 1 to 3 feet in width, and occurs in a ravine approximately 10 feet
below road level. The confluence of this system with the river also occurs at the bridge. Vegetation
along the stream channel is highly disturbed and all riparian woody vegetation has been removed.
The substrate is silt and clays. Both tributaries are identified on the USGS quadrangle. Both
systems had water depths of less than 3 inches at the time of this survey.
Best Usaae Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of W-II Tr has been assigned to the Fisher River from the North Carolina-Virginia
State line to Burris Creek, approximately 3 miles below the site (DWQ 1998). The designation W-II
denotes waters protected as water supplies which are generally in predominantly undeveloped
watersheds; point source discharges are permitted pursuant to state regulations, and local programs
to control non-point source and storm water discharges are required. The Tr designation denotes a
7
stream suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1 mile of
the study corridor. Fisher River is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor
as a national Wild and Scenic River. There are no major (>1.0 million gallons per day) point source
dischargers into the Fisher River or associated tributaries. Adjacent agricultural land represents the
primary source for non point source pollutant runoff.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project area is
summarized in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (Draft) (DWQ
1997). User support information is available for monitored stream segments of the Fisher River at
US 601 and NC 268 (more than 10 miles below the project area). Sampling data indicate a
bioclassification rating of Good for this segment of stream (DWQ 1997). The Fisher River along
this reach is rated as supporting its intended uses.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Impacts will be minimized by using best management practices
(BMPs) during construction, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation
control measures, and avoidance of using wetlands as staging areas. No adverse long-term impacts
to water resources are expected to result from proposed improvements. The proposed bridge
replacement will allow for continuation of present stream flow in the Fisher River, thereby protecting
stream integrity.
Since Fisher River serves as a potential water supply source and native trout fishery, efforts to
maintain good water quality are paramount. Therefore, use of BMPs for the protection of surface
waters and HQW guidelines (Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds) will be strictly enforced
during the life of the project.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: riparian hardwood forest,
successional/disturbed areas, and agricultural lands. These plant communities are described below.
Riparian Hardwood Forest
Riparian hardwood forest is limited to stream margins of the Fisher River (average forest width: 60
feet or less and a small woodland pocket associated with the northwestern tributary. Canopy species
include red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), green ash (Fraxinus americana), river birch (Betula
8
nigra), and occasional black cherry (Prunus serotina). The understory is primarily a reflection of
canopy saplings along with a mixture of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), blackberry and raspberry (Rubus spp.), and day lilies (Lilium sp.) along
ecotonal forest fringes.
Succession allDistu rbed Areas
This community is limited to roadside margins and disturbed river bank areas. The dominant
vegetation is herbaceous, including kudzu (Pueraria lobata) goldenrods (Solidago spp.), asters
(Aster spp.), wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia), pokeberry (Phytolacca americana), giant ragweed
(Ambrosia trifida), jewel weed (Impatiens capensis), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum),
blackberry, and Nepal microstegium (Microstegium vimineum).
Agricultural Land
The dominant land use in the floodplain of the Fisher River is agricultural. Row crops or pasture
grasses are present in all project quadrants. Recently planted crops were apparent in northeastern
and southwestern sectors (appears to be corn [Zea mays]). Other areas support a variety of grasses
including panic grass (Panicum sp.), Johnson grass (Sorghum halapense), wild-rye (Elymus
virginicus), foxtail grass (Setaria sp.), and similar species. This category also includes portions of
fallow fields which appear to be on a rotational cycle (for this reason, these areas were included as
agricultural). In addition to a variety of grasses, a number of successional species were noted
including asters, giant ragweed, wingstem, and Japanese knotweed.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant
community present within the projected right-of-way (actual impacts within construction limits will
be less). A summary of potential plant community impacts is presented below:
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED PLANT COMMUNITIES IMPACTS.
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACT
in acres
Alt. A Alt. B Temp. Detour 1
Riparian HW Forest 0.15 0.54 0.48
Successional/Disturbed 0.49 0.25 0.08
Agricultural 0.32 0.29 0.15
TOTAL: 0.96 1.08 0.71
Permanent impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement are generally restricted
to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. The total potential
impact to plant communities based on right-of-way is not significantly different between the on-site
replacement alternative (Alternative A) and the southern relocation alignment (Alternative B).
Impacts to riparian hardwood forest is the only significant difference, with Alternate B resulting in
0.54 acres of potential loss versus 0.15 acres for Alternative A. During the construction of Alternate
B, tree removal will be minimized and easements will be replanted with native tree species. The
existing bridge and approaches will be removed and revegetated with native tree species (see
Environmental Commitments No.s 3 and 4, page 1.)
Impacts associated with the detour alignment are actually less than the two permanent replacement
alternatives due to shorter lengths. However, these impacts are temporary in nature; upon completion
of roadway improvements, the temporary detour (bridge and approach fill) will be removed and
restoration of natural communities will be undertaken.
WILDLIFE
Terrestrial
Most of the study corridor consists of agricultural land with forest fringe along the river. The setting
is rural and undeveloped. Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor include northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American
crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor). Other birds, such as red-tailed
hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), eastern screech owl (Otus asio),
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and indigo bunting
(Passerine cyanea) may be expected to occur within forest and ecotonal communities.
No mammal signs (tracks, scat, etc)) or sightings were noted within the study corridor during this
investigation. However, opportunistic and characteristic species which are expected to frequent
woodlands and fringe areas include cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and various
rodents. White tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) may use woodlands as travel corridors and as
cover to feed in adjacent fields. Due to the season in which the field work was conducted, no
terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were documented within the study corridor.
Aquatic
No sampling was undertaken in Fisher River or adjacent tributaries to determine fishery potential.
However, the varied riverine habitat and good water quality is expected to support a healthy fishery.
Species that may be present include redlip and greenfin shiners (Notropis chiliticus and N.
chloristius), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), dace
(Clinostomus funduloides),and margined madtom (Noturus insignis); potential game fish which may
be present within the study corridor include redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) and smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieu)(Menhinick 1991, Rohde et al. 1994; Kin Hodges, WRC, personal
communication, 3/26/98). Portions of the Fisher River are hatchery supported and are stocked with
brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri), and brown trout (Salmo trutta)
by the N.C. Wildlife Resource Management Commission (Kin Hodges, WRC, personal
10
communication. 3/26/98).
Limited surveys did not result in documenting any salamanders in the stream. The stream provides
suitable habitat for a few aquatic and semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians such as shovelnose
salamander (Leurognathus marmoratus), blackbelly salamander (Desmognathus quadromaculatus),
and queen snake (Regina septemvittata).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement
will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. Habitat
loss will be minimal and restricted to roadside margins. No habitat fragmentation is anticipated due
to the adjacency of proposed construction along the existing roadway. Potential down-stream
impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the system to maintain regular flow and
stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment
during construction will be minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
Construction activities within the stream will be prohibited during the spawning season for small-
mouth bass and redbreast sunfish from May I through June 30 (see Environmental Commitment
No.2, page 1).
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Fisher River and adjacent tributaries are subject to
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United
States" (33 CFR 328.3). The waters of the Fisher River exhibit characteristics of riverine, upper
perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded waters. The two small tributaries along
northern margins of SR 1331 are perennial to intermittent and also subject to jurisdictional review.
The area and length of stream to be affected by development is shown as follows:
TABLE 2. ESTIMATED OPEN-WATER IMPACTS
ALTERNATE ALTERNATE TEMPORARY
A B DETOUR I
AREA (ACRES) 0.14 0.08 0.08
LINEAR DISTANCE (FEET) 780 80 80
Potential impacts to the Fisher River (0.08 acres; 80 feet of stream within right-of-way) have been
included in the above referenced calculations. However, both alternates and the temporary detour
11
are expected to bridge the Fisher River. Therefore, Alternative B on new location and Temporary
Detour 1 are expected to result in no impacts to jurisdictional waters. Impacts associated with on-
site replacement (Alternative A) are also expected to be substantially less than reported since
bridging of the river is anticipated. Associated roadway improvements with Alternate A are
expected to be limited to existing northern highway right-of-way limits west of the river, but
encroachment into the small tributary adjacent to the northern limits of SRI 331 east of the river is
expected.
Any alternative which encroaches into the river or into adjacent tributaries should be avoided, if
possible.
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987).
Based on the three parameter approach, no jurisdictional wetlands occur within the study corridor.
Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] has been
issued by the COE for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has issued a General 401 Water
Quality Certification for NWP #23. However, use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ.
In the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated
approach improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the
Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this general
permit is utilized.
Surry County is among the twenty-five mountain counties designated as having trout waters. The
COE has implemented discretionary authority to override certain nationwide and general permits
which authorize the discharge of dredged or fill materials into North Carolina designated trout
waters. Generally, projects involving trout stream infringement, including all waters upstream to and
above their headwaters, can be processed under either General Bridge Permit 031 or Individual
Permit. Projects in trout waters require review by the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC).
Since portions of the Fisher River are hatchery supported and stocked with native trout species,
WRC review can be anticipated.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project impacts.
However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Temporary impacts
to floodplains associated with the construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed
areas with native wetland species and removal of temporary fill material upon project completion.
If Alternative A is chosen with subsequent impacts to unnamed tributaries north of SR 1331, stream
impacts may exceed 46 in (150 ft), requiring review by DWQ and potential stream mitigation.
12
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The FWS list for T
&E species also includes a category of species designated as "Federal Species of Concern" (FSC).
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. The
following federal protected and FSC species are listed for Surry County (May 14,1998 FWS list):
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenburgii T (S/A)
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus E
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC
Bog Turtle - The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 8 to 10 cm (3
to 4 in). This otherwise darkly-colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of a bright
orange or yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et. al. 1980). The bog turtle has
declined drastically within the northern portion of its range due to over-collection and habitat
alteration. The FWS has listed the bog turtle as threatened within the northern portion of its range,
and within the southern portion of its range, which includes North Carolina, the bog turtle is listed
as threatened due to similarity of appearance (S/A) to the northern population.
The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually in association with
aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow streams over soft bottoms (Palmer and
Braswell 1995). In North Carolina, bog turtles have a discontinuous distribution in the Mountains
and western Piedmont. NHP records indicate that the bog turtle has been documented within upper
reaches of the Fisher River basin and in nearby Mitchell River basin. However, no sightings occur
within 2.0 miles of the project bridge.
The bog turtle is Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T S/A). T S/A species are not subject
to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is not required. Although bog turtle has been
noted in the Fisher River basin upstream of this project, proposed bridge replacement is not expected
to affect the bog turtle since habitat (bogs, marshes, or wet pastures) is not present in the study
corridor. NO EFFECT.
Peregrine Falcon - Peregrine falcons were extirpated from nesting sites in the mountains of North
Carolina, but have been reintroduced to western North Carolina through a hacking program (captive-
reared and released). Peregrine falcons nest on ledges on remote cliffs in areas where a mixture of
forests and extensive fields, marshes, or water is present (Hamel 1992). Peregrine falcons may also
nest in broken off treetops in eastern deciduous forest. NHP records do not indicate that peregrine
falcon has been documented within 2.0 miles of the project bridge.
13
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect peregrine falcons due to the
absence of suitable nesting habitat (remote cliffs) within the study corridor. Broken off treetops that
could serve as nesting sites were not identified in the project area. Since NHP records do not
indicate that peregrine falcons have been recorded as nesting in the project vicinity, there are no
impacts anticipated to nesting or foraging habitats. NO EFFECT.
Small Whorled Pogonia - The small whorled pogonia is a small-flowered terrestrial orchid about
1 foot high. It has a greenish or purplish stem and a whorl of five drooping, pale dusty green, widely
rounded and pointed leaves (Radford et al. 1968). The single, nearly stalkless flower is yellowish
green, about 0.5 inch long and is surrounded by 3 narrow sepals less than 1 inch long. Flower
production is from May to June, followed by an erect ellipsoidal capsule less than l inch long. This
species is found on moist hardwood slopes and along stream bottoms (Radford et al. 1968), usually
in association with white pine (Pinus strobus) (Weakley 1993); it sometimes remains dormant up
to 10 years between blooming periods (Newcomb 1977). The small whorled pogonia is widespread
but very local in distribution, inhabiting the Mountains and upper Piedmont from southern Maine
to northern Georgia (Weakley 1993).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Potential habitat for the small-whorled pogonia may occur within
riparian fringe areas of the project (although no white pine forest exists in the area). A systematic
review of stream bank areas in the vicinity of the bridge during the appropriate blooming period
failed to identify evidence of this species. There are no NHP records of this species occurring in the
vicinity of the project. NO EFFECT.
Brook Floater - This freshwater mollusk is typically found in Piedmont stream systems and along
the Blue Ridge escarpment of the Catawba River system (LeGrand and Hall 1995). Brook floater
is an FSC species in North Carolina and is listed as Threatened by the State. Potential habitat may
occur in the Fisher River for this species.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-
202 et seq. ).
As previously indicated, NHP records show that the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), a state
threatened species, has been found in upper reaches of the Fisher River above the project area. No
other state-listed species occur in the immediate vicinity of the project.
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
14
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federally
funded, licensed, or permitted projects, having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
The National Register-listed Edwards Franklin House is located approximately 600 feet west of the
existing bridge on the north side of SR 1331. The property boundary extends along the north of SR
1331 to the Fisher River. The Surry County Historic Society has expressed concern about the
appearance of the new bridge and has asked NCDOT to construct a bridge that is compatible with
the historic property and the surrounding rural area. Consequently, the Society has requested that
a bridge be constructed with metal rails similar to Bridge No. 30 constructed by NCDOT at Kapp's
Mill in Surry County (see letter in the Appendix). A computer generated rendering of this design
at the Fisher River crossing is shown in Figure 5. The Surry County Historic Society asked that the
bridge be constructed with an anodized or brown finish on the railings and guardrail. The Society
felt the brown finish would blend with the surroundings better than usual zinc or silver finish. (see
comments in Appendix).
On July 16, 1998, NCDOT, FHWA and the State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed properties
in the project's area of potential effect and concluded there are no other properties including Bridge
No. 53 considered eligible for the National Register (see Concurrence Form in Appendix). The
review also concluded the project would have an effect on the Edwards Franklin House, but it would
not be adverse if tree clearing is minimized, construction easements are replanted and if an
appropriate bridge design is developed in consultation with the Surry County Historic Society and
the SHPO (see SHPO comments in Appendix). These conditions are contained in the Environmental
Commitments on page one of this report.
Information supporting the determination of no adverse effect was sent to the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation for review and comments. The Advisory Council in a letter of December 18,
1998 commented "that we do not object to your determination. Therefore, you are not required to
take any further steps to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act other
than to implement the undertaking as proposed and consistent with any conditions you have reached
with North Carolina SHPO." A copy of the Advisory Council's comments is included in the
Appendix.
In their August 13, 1998 letter, the SHPO stated there are no recorded archaeological sites within
the project vicinity, but the area has not been surveyed to locate archaeological resources. They
stated the floodplain of the Fisher River and the adjacent upland areas contain a high probability for
the presence of prehistoric archaeological sites. The SHPO recommended a survey be conducted
within the area of potential effect for the project before project implementation (see Appendix for
SHPO letter). NCDOT will conduct an archaeological survey for the project.
15
XI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe bridge.
Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic will be maintained on site.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No families or businesses will be
relocated by this project (see Relocation Report in Appendix).
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
In consultation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, it has been determined that prime and unique farmlands are located in Surry
County that could be impacted by the alternatives under consideration. In its' completion of the
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD 1006, the NRCS has indicated that Alternate A and
Alternate B could impact 0.78 acres and 1.53 acres of prime or unique farmlands, respectively.
Project related impacts to farmlands in Surry County have been determined to be minimal
according to the Land evaluation and site assessment scoring used in Form AD 1006. Farmland
scoring on Form AD 1006 is based on a total score of 260. Sites scoring less than 160 points are
given a minimum level of consideration of protection and no further evaluation is required. The
alternatives under consideration for this project scored less than 160 points. The completed Form
AD 1006 is included in the Appendix.
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.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520.
16
The replacement of the existing bridge will not result in increased noise levels. The noise levels will
increase during the construction period, but will only be temporary. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental
Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department
of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground storage tanks or
hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Surry County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The bridge is located
in an Approximate Flood Hazard Zone where no detailed study has been done. The Flood Insurance
Rate Map which shows the approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain is included in the
Appendix. Since the proposed bridge will be an in-kind replacement, it is not anticipated that this
project will have a significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain nor on the associated flood
hazard to the adjacent properties.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
XII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Agency Coordination
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following agencies:
US Army Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District
US Army Corps of Engineers- Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Fish and Wildlife Service- Asheville
US Natural Conservation Service-Raleigh
* State Clearinghouse
* NC Department of Cultural Resources
* NC Department of Public Instruction
* NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* NC Wildlife Commission
* NC Division of Water Quality
* NC Division of Land Resources
* NC Division of Parks and Recreation
17
NC Division of Forest Resources
Surry County Commissioners
Surry County Manager
Surry County Planning Director
Northwest Piedmont Council of Governments
Surry County Schools
Asterisks (*) indicates agencies from which written comments were received. The comments
are included in the appendix of this report.
B. Public Involvement
Letters containing information on the proposed bridge replacement alternatives and notice
of the Citizens Informational Workshop were sent to property owners in the vicinity of the
project on August 18, 1998. A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on September 8,
1998 in the Surry County Government Center in Dobson. Approximately 10 citizens
attended the workshop including representatives from the Surry County Commissioners and
the Surry County Historic Society. Several residents expressed concerns about closing the
bridge during construction since they farmed property on both sides of Fisher River. They
felt the available detour route was too long, especially for farm tractors.
The Surry County Historic Society representatives reviewed information on bridge
replacement options and bridge rail designs provided by NCDOT and stated they would
discuss them with their board and provide a recommendation. The Historic Society provided
a written recommendation for a design similar to that shown in Figure 5 (See comments in
Appendix).
18
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1997. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned
to the Waters of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., and S.P. Hall. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 67 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston,
MA. 490 Pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
19

O

w

A

W

0

V

® I,d?
7
?y
1'+I o
r

a

27

co

rn

w
=

u.. ^
LL
O

N r
U
0 If

w a m C) o
Z
w CL

J Z Z
W O
w Q

a a ? o
LOOKING EAST
LOOKING WEST
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
HISTORIC
EDWARDS FRANKLIN HOUSE
FIGURE 4

LO
W
0
U.

?.4
".,
,At
v
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
v ED
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
August 9y8
Q
4
`99'bF
m
?d EW
Re: SCH File # 99-E-4220-0060; Scoping Proposed improvements to Bridge No. 53 on SR 1331
over Fisher River in Surry County; TIP #B-3248
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
au2w jy?
Mrs. Chrys BaggeM Dircctor
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region I
116 Wert Jones Street Raleigh. North CaMHU 27603.8003 Telephone [phone]
A. E41M ooo+n.Wq / AtfmnW" Away Einployv
State of North Carofias
Department of Environment and Natural Raroureer
EgMGOVERr4MEN'TAL REVIEW` " rROyECr colKMErrrs raed w be obtained in order for 's p 'ect to
Aft rovisw of this projtict it has been determ-ed that the ENR ptxmiKr) an&a a mlh irtdteassd ally
comply IAW. rdio these pcnnits should be sddaMM tv the Rellionrl Ofce in"ted on rho reverse of the forth.
All app with
appli4 tth iortr, North ulf Comtaarolina tion and nd Qu Queatidelirlesionr rd.ti cep ve b 11 these plate raid ptlesnito me available Aom the MW Re flood 06ce.
All Nellsal Ttotss Time
(datuta)tu 'tutu lob)
TERMTfS SPECIAL APPtjCATiOty PROCEDURES of REQt?O
Affhadw 90 dar WON W& Onowtien or sward of construction 70 days
0 PwvA ",Um k epsnta Wotewsw tts.tranl eaves POWWWW".scbrttoal eoofenaos awl. odays)
6m7itiK sawn ayMwa estttttsiorr is asww ayststa P t disoh.tjnS ?+! ? w'rd1O` ""t°s
isspawn howum1on 9o.120 dry.
O t4PD1IS • pout to discbsrte iso Wfisse water "or Appuastien 180 diysbaont boo Ad is eeastrttel vhass.wale
MESA n fsedities aoatrratseueual. Addtlatd)6 A
of () U )
NPDLB 1tp1Y tiny, 70 days titer MOO
aisdtoWt irw s w ??* vestweat fscY?tY?sa? arm
30 planar w iwretNTD£s Pwtwt?l?i°b•"?: tWr.
}rs appliwi.w recltniod..hdMreso ustrUy nsas.ty car
O Watw 11s. Permit ' (N/A)
cea?pit+. wPrwllou.atet rtes nresi..d and PWWA:susd pear sa tine 7 days
(13 days)
wsu Coesbaaia? P.M" kwuljoioo ere won.
Appliaetie" copy avert be swr.doaach.djoorttt r F-M PtePwty $3 days
D1adp sera Phu ?ermit
Ch,,,, inpNW, rfospiicagon cmewanss trod. Fulkg m?y nqube
E SOWIM so Tut tram N.C. Dspscunw+<ofAA"66" "ad Fedanl Dndp 0 dsr)
(9
' std Tid Perati?
0 fermis to construes • opereto .ter Pollution Abstaarnt NIA,
60 der
facilitis asNor Em mien 8ourca u per 13 A NCAC
(2Q.0100. 2Q.030o. 2WOi00)
go' ti,y open bttmi Assoeirtad with subject Propowl
mutt be in compliance with 13 A NCAC 2D.1900
60 days
O L),Whtim Of r,,, _1;orts of Musturar ?nit8
asbW, massrial mat be in cotripliases
NCAC 2D.1110 (s) (1) which nquirs o0ti6atioo and NIA
nwArval rim se denbllsiod Coutact Asbsstas Cenral (90 days)
Group 919.773-0820.
O C lent Sawa Permit required under 13 A NCAC
.0100
The 8odimahtatWn polhaies Comol Ate of 1973 rears be prvpe*ly adaea.led for my hated did-bit8 a°"titY. M "eview k
roper Rt:l Ww OMa (Imd QW91h
bled wilt
i
R 20 days
P
ays
otr.
aedimsatstioe OoeMrol phn will k required if ter or then saes b be d
t maw
i
l (30 days)
ssa
teen or pac
S,0.) At Wren 30 Wrys before bsebsuate stuvhty. A In of S30 for 1114 fins sae tend 52000 for aad? addit
accorr*My the plot
f 1973 ma be sadreasd wits MPM to 1101 ssGnrt.ea LOW Otdirrmx
l Ate C30 days)
o
O 71r SWh.. 6 . P.Uwan contro
O Musinti Pamd On4pa it+spactioa sa..F 8AIRY bond ftlsd wi1Y ENR.1l.od aaaotnt v.tin 30 drys
..ills types tnitw sod vW*w sf eras of affedW Iasi Any we atisrd FUM
sun ota.we v M b. pswstitui The appM.AW bead evert be naivad (60 days)
bstsn 1be pattttit an be iuaaad.
O.oit.4,pmm by N.C. Divniow For" asoumn if permit etwesds 4 drys 1 day
O NonbCarelwaBun"POM" (NA)
O Special C"u"d Ckwaaa Bueain{ Pamir - 22 Ott rile i opeaiea W KC DivWaw Fee" RasaAv" taquind "iltttoer tbs. 1 day
counties in ca.atsl N.C. wish organic soils five aoas.tDowd d=r:p.aivilisa Mrs involved Imp od- AwaW be (NIA)
wghtsW at Mat saw days Mbn awing bane: pla met>_"
)
raw so
O Oil Refining F.eilitin -14IA)
(N
O Dos Sdcty Permit - if PIMA ra prod. WIi"iaa f0 days before beet cosmu atiom AWP-"
ts.ets: ptapae ptatsh. impart eoaantdisn 30 drys
wrest hire N.C. gAww att06
a nay caasuvodw 0 aotw"s to ENR oppmed ?,am May am rswim
p«ahit w,&, se pit. a - I pn fate Asd s 404 prank berm Co" of
Eegin"M As Wee" "w stabs is snsaery is variy Hasard Clondmisn A (60 days)
.mum fis WrSM.0pstttaa assoap¦•y the app4mtra An addniatsl
rvcowiui rte hoed tee a pffeWAW Of INC taut pro)" row sum be -Wwwl
.
WPM
NomW Proms Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQl1IR$MENT3 (tauutory tune Lout)
O Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well Filesurety bond o(S5.000 with ENR rumttiog to Slate of NC conditional that 10 days
any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abaudoom«t, be plutL,ed (NIA)
according to ENR roles and regulatiora.
D Geophysical Explornuon yemut Application Lied with ENR at least 10 days prior to iawc of permit. 10 days
Application by letter. No &wA&rd applieauun norm, (N/A)
0 Suter I.Altes 612 wmion Permit Application fee band on mucturs size is charted. Must me" descriptions A 15-20 days
drawings of pructure A proof of oww&W p of riparian Property (MIA)
I Wout Qulity Ce tificstion N/A 60 days
(130 days)
O CAMA Petnih for MAJOR development $230.00 fee must accompany Application 33 days
(ISO days)
D CAMA Permit for MINOR development 530.00 tie must woom any appli 4hoo 22 days
(25 days)
O Several geodetic tsrwa?nsente are inverted in or meat the prgen rtes. If any monumesms. peed to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27627, Aakith, NC 27611
o? Abandonment of any walk, if required must be in wordaren with Title ISA. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of ilia proper regional office is nKpwtud if "orplwt" underground swap Lamm (LISTS) an discovered during any excavation operation.
Cl Cemylianee vwth 1 SA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Storrnwater Rules) is requiftL 43 Mays
(NIA)
' Other comments (amach additional pages as neeeusg. Wing cauto to cos continent audwity)
?11a,-rr... - Z 7/4 1,(Iy
c??•-,[ GJ . ??l...i-? ?''t?.1 7 - .2 Z -t.1 Q

, 1,4 -7/w '; r.
t
REGIONAL OFFICES
Omeriloaa relurdknt Owjw pan alts WwWd be addtvued to the Regional Office marksed babe.
D Asheville Regional Office
39 WoodfnPleat
AaMvilla, NC 211$01
[phone]
O Mooresville Asgiwral OAirx
919 Noah Main street P.O. Ben 930
Moomvilke, NC 2$113
(704) 6634699
O W"biwgten Rewowal treys.
941 waaningtom sgo4n Mall
Washingtat NC 27$19
919)9466481
O Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 7114 Wuliovis Building
Faymeville, NC 29301
[phone]
O Raleigh Reo"A ow"
3$00 8amn, Drive, Suite tot
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
O WiYsinpon Rseenst O>Yice
127 Cardinal Drive EAwasion
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
O Weston-Sakm Regional Olfica
513 WeatMownSL
Wi wAwSaknr, NC 27107
[phone]

Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Divisien of Land Resources
Jarnes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G•, P.E.
Director and State Geologist
p HN
pROJECT REVIEW COOW=S
(.?pQ County: ????
Project-Number:
Project Name: /Sal
t?C officT.idf twat planning -t1- de 'c S e
This projact will impact geodetic survey markers. K.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
'Sox 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. Ceneral
Statute 102-4.
This projeet will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
other (comments attached,)
For pore information contact toe V.C. Office of State
Planning, Geodetic Survey office at 91-9/733-363.6.
Am4
F.evie?ar Date T
-irosion and S ce ati Go roi
tto ccm ent
This project will require acoroval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beg:.^•niac any lard-disturbing activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required•to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requitemencs, the document must be su`a!ttQd as
part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High.Quality
Water Zone (HQW), as classified b7 the Division of Environmental
management, increased design sta:wards fer Sediment and esOsion
control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation ccctrol plan required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control Frograa delegation to the Division of
Highways from the r:::2ina Sedimentation control commission.
Othor (comments attached)
g•.- more irR9r=--tion contact S3. ion at 913/733-4574.
.
a? u3G3
rj.
•,, ,
(t :i' 1::•242"
7 4, r, rn
:: ?-'ri1
:?: 7
.Ay

NORTH CAROLINA !DE?1_ REs NT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
D1visloN of PARKS AND RECREATION
August 17, 1998
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall s 1'1
SUBJECT: Scoping - Improvements to Bridge No- 53 over Fisher River, Surry
County
REFERENCE: 99-E-0060
The Natural Heritage program database contains records for bog turtles (Clen:Vs
muhkngbergii), state listed as Threatened and federally listed as Threatened Due to
Similarity of Occurrence, from the Fisher River floodplain within two miles of the
proposed project. Other populations of this species have also been recorded in the
general vicinity, as has a population of mole salamanders (Anlbystoma talpoidewn),
state listed as Special Concern.
We recommend that a survey be conducted to determine whether habitat for either of
these two species is present within the area that will be affected by the project. These
habitats include bogs and wet pastures, in the case of the turtle, and isolated,
ephemeral pools, in the case of the salamander. Such habitats should be avoided as
much as possible during construction.
P.O. OM a7?0'f? IIM?.?.• YG a"1 1-7N7 PWOMC 01 O.7P"' 01 PAX O 10.710.0000
AM 6OVA69VV6=VNIt1 /AIIIIIMATIYC AC7/ON OMILOTIP • a0M OtCVCL9O/10% V&ST-CO"SUMt0 /w/CR
a
1.l•.. ,.w.,?at r
!AWL

AM99 S. HUNT JII.+
ww1wMan
.,

TAZ 2z
ti,L r ..L s4
Y
JA•.J.
??. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT t"F
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MEMORANDUM
TOt Chrys Daggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM* Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 99-0060 9copinq Bridge Replacement, Fisher River,
Surry County
DATE: August 18, 1998
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The attached comments are
for the applicant's information and consideratioin.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
P.O. NOX 27687, RALE16H N6 2761 1.7667 / 512 NORTH VALINOWNY 6TReET, RALZION NC 27604
INONE *t e•727•I66A FAX 6I6-71 $•3060 WWw•6IIHw.eTAT5.NG.UerENNR/
AN EQUAL OPPOwTUNITT / ArPIw MATIve AGTIeN Em RoTaw - 50% 119crcLEO/10% reeT•CON/UNER PAPER
® North Carolina
512 N. Salisbury Street, Rafe
Charles R.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative
Dept. of Environment and
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr., Wester
Habitat Conservation Pros
DATE: July 24, 1998
Resources Commission 9
Ca abna 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Executive Di ecwr
Intergovernmental Affairs
W Resources
Piedmont Region Coordinator
M ?L 14.
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Pro' No. 99E0060: Scoping comments for replacement of
NCDOT Bridge No. 53 on SR- 1331 over Fisher River, Surry County, TIP No. B-
3248, State Project No. 8.2741401. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1331(2).
This correspondence responds to al request by you for our scoping comments on the above
referenced project. These comments are rovided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 4 1, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 13A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The proposed bridge replacement over the Fisher River has the potential to impact
smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish populations. We would recommend that any instream
work (support footings, etc.) be prohibited during the smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish
spawning season from 1 May through 30 June. Our preference would be to replace the bridge on
the existing location with another bridge.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comnient on this project during the early
planning stage. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at
336/366-2982. II
cc: Kin Hodges
. Y
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMZNT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DivtstoN of FOREST RESOURCES
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, NC 27520
August 3, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, ce of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Bill Pick Division Forest Resources
SUBJECT: DOT Scoping Bridge No. 53 on SR 1331, Story County
PROJECT #: 99-0060 & TIP # B-3248
The North Carolina. Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced scoping
document and submits the following comments that should be addressed in the EA
concerning impacts to woodlands.
1. The impact to forest resources by bridgc construction will vary depending on the
alternative selected In general the rehabilitation or replacement of the existing
structure on the existing site would have minimal impact to forestland. Therefore,
we prefer the bridge be replaced or rehabilitated on the existing site.
2. If the bridge is replaced on new location woodlands will likely be impacted by the
project. Therefore, the total forest land acreage by typc that would be removed or
taken out of forest production. as a result of the project should be listed in any
environmental documents. Efforts should be made to minimize impacts to
woodlands in the following order of priority:
• Managed, high site index woodland
• Productive forested woodlands
• Managed, lower site index woodlands
• Unique forest ecosystems
a Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands
a Urban woodland
3. If woodlands are cleared include provisions requiring the contractor to utilize the
merchantable timber removed during construction Emphasis should be on selling
all wood products. However, if the wood products cannot be sold then efforts
should be made to haul of the material or turn it into mulch with a tub grinder.
This practice will minimize the need for debris burning, and the risk of escaped
fires and smoke managernent problems to residences, highways, schools, and
towns.
RO. ?011l?SOI, AA6ttON, MC =!O3•-oval
?NON! 011ssa.a 1 sa P^X Sl ss1 s-ssso
AN LOVAI. OPPORTUNITY /A/PIAIIIATIVIRACTION aMILOVER • f0% AttTCLtO11 OK POWT•CONDUM[II'APER
4. If debris burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and regulations of open
burning as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113-60.31. Surry County is a non-
high hazard county and a regular burning permit applies.
5. Include provisions that the contractor will take to prevent erosion and damage to forestiand
outside the construction area. Trees, particularly the root systern, can be permanently
damaged by heavy equipment. Efforts should be to avoid skinning of the tree trunk,
compaction of the soil, adding layers of fill, exposing the root system, or spilling petroleum
or other substances.
6. If woodlands will not be impacted this should be plainly stated in the environmental
document.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and encourage its impact on
forest resources be considered during the planning process.
cc: Warren Boyette
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water (duality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 23, 1998
NCDENR
To: Melba McGee, DENR SEPA Coo:dmator
From: rMary Kiesau, DWQ SEPA Coordinator P)V
Subject: Comments on DOT Scoping, DENR Nos. 99-0058,99-M9,99-0060.
99-0061, DWQ Nos- 12266-12169.Rehabilitation or Improvement for
Bridge Nos. 317, 207, 53 and 83. Watauga, Forsyth, Surry and Gaston
Counties, respectively.
The Division of wader Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the Categorical Exclusion document:
A. Identify the streams pooentinD impaacled by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings far these streams should be included. This
information is available f=vm DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. $72
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 929-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet of stream chanrteliation , - ocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelizedhelocated stream banks be
mvegetated
C. Identify the number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
tnaintenanc e.
E. Identify the stormwa= controls (permanent and mmporary) that will be used
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G . Wedand Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for idunifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as ranch as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts boen minindizod?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensm for habitat losses.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Cwoft 27628-0535 Tetephom 919-733-5083 FAX [phone]
An Equ*J Opportunity Af fume Action Emp"er 60% rocycloW 10% post-consumer papw
Bridge'ehab. CE comments
7/2191'
?Page ?11 Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
Quality of wetlands impacted.
Total we
tland impacts.
List the 401 General Certification numrequested from DWQ.
Lw'
H. waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
to the a val of an horn /waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
twin a 401 Certification from DWQ.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
p t. Applications to questing coverage under our General Certification 14 or General
=it 31 (with wetland impact) wilt require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized tr the maximum extent p=dcable.
Please give Cyndi Bell a call at [phone] if you should have any questions
on these comments.
melt Bridge Rehab. CE comments
oc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ - Wetlands/401 Unit (DM
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTIZNT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTF.RGOVERNNMITAL REVIEW
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
Clearinghouse Coordinator
Dept. of Cultural Resources
Archives-History Bldg.
Raleigh NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Crime Cont./ Public Safety
Dept. of Cultural Resources
Dept. of Environment 6 Natural Res
Northwest Piedmont COG
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N.C. Department of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
STATE NUMBER: 99-E-4220-0060 F02
DATE RECEIVED: 07/14/1998 a 8?j 3
AGENCY RESPONSE: 08/17/1998
REVIEW CLOSED: 08/21/1998
he
_1/Z?f

ERD: Scoping
DESC: Proposed Improvements to Bridge No. 53 on SR 1331 over Fisher River in S Crr
County; TIP NB-3248
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office
at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
19 COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY: a,
RECEIVED
DATE : S/ /
AUG 17 1998
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
'A ' 61;99b.
W 2 9 1998
d'
•+ .?
b
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt 1r., oa?eraor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 13, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina rtment of T ansportation
FROM: David Brook BILv't??--?
1 ?
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XVI, Bridge No. 53 on SR 1331 over
Fisher River, Surry County, TIP No. B-3248, State
Project No. 8.2741401, Federal Aid Project No.
BRZ-1331(2), CH 99-E-4220-0060
Division of Atchim and History
kffrey L Caw, Director
We have received the notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning the
above project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the project vicinity, but the area
has never been surveyed to locate archaeological resources. The wide floodplain of
the Fisher River and the adjacent upland areas contain a high probability for the
presence of prehistoric archaeological sites. We recommend that an archaeological
survey be conducted within the area of potential effect for the project prior to
project implementation. Deep testing of the floodplain area to locate buried sites
that may be affected should be part of this survey.
On July; 16, 1998, members of our staff met with representatives of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation and Ko and Associates to review
photographs of properties within the project area and to discuss the project's
effects on the National Register-listed Bernard Franklin House. Based on our review
of the photos, the Franklin House is the 'only historic property in the project's area
of potential effect. Given our understanding of the two alternatives under
consideration, we believe the project will have an effect on the Franklin House, but
that it will not be adverse if tree clearing is minimized and construction easements
are replanted, and if an appropriate bridge design is developed in consultation with
the Surry County Historical Society and us. All parties present signed a
concurrence form documenting the above agreements.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 Eau Jones Street • Rater, ponb Carolins 27601-2807
William D. Gilmore
August 13, 1998, PPge
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.
DB:slw
cc: ?-'Mate Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
r

Federal Aid n gKz, Ir.'?I ?2 1 TIP 9 Ff`'L44r County '5v IL
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description R f_?L_Axe- ga%yG-E .la
( ?>it.IG4E 0-COuP 1 t.

On J? 6 tlliqb . representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highwav Administration (FHWA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as b'2?DaE wag 140640*t: «2 H-atr_ 'd 4. are considered
not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
Gl
FHWA, for the Division
Representative,
I&
Date
2116./YliJ
Inistrator, or other Federal Agency
r r
,'A?
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report os prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
Date

Federal .?i.: T lSrtZ 1 31 1 TIP T 5. 3Z.4', County S••rjQy
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESS;YIENT OF EFFECTS
Brie: Project Description
REPLIIGIi; b4-102E WO. Cjzj i,J '54- 13421 NFL F ,, r-Q. 2,vra-
( ?fLiDf,E G+ea?t0 I&)
On representatives of the
North Carolina Department or Transooration (i`iCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (F=-',VA)
? Nor,h Carolina State Historic Prese^.,ation Office (SKP0)
Other
reviewed the subjec: project.and agreed
there are no ezec;s on the National Register-listed property within the projec:'s
area of potendai et ec; and listed on the reverse.
there are no e:rec:s on the National Register-eii¢ioie proper pies located within the
proiec:'s area of ootentiai e::ec: and listed on the reverse.
there is an erred on the National Register-iisted property/properties within the
prejec;'s area of potential exec;. The property-properaes and the et;ect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an etiect on the National Register-eligible Drape:-y/properties within the
project's area of potential er?ec;. ire prepe.;y/properties and errect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Siened
Representaxfyet INCDOT, Historic Architectural Resources Sutton
FH%VA,if r the Divi
.presentative, SHPO

Administrator, or other Federal Agency
?- a16-1
c
Dae
171i-1/;
Date
f
Date
Gate H'istoric PreserJation Officer -7
(over) '
Federal Aid m tpfm- i33 ? z TIP #
F3 • ',, IA S'
County louvL2y
?roper ties within area of potential effect or which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determned eligible (DE).
?rope: ,ies within area o, potential a ect fcr which there is an eriect. Indicate properly starus (NR
x DE) and describe a ec:.
F,PwAw-,. Fr"wv sw }?eNSe. (NR) - tJo ADVEedf, S;rr-e f P0.2. AL, rs. A? &
W M4 TVK, E-6-M o-o%4 WL&OTAL- GoMWU'rK4G+JTs To M IAJ I M IZE Gt.pAw_,, jC, A,jD
YLfi L-pWTIw1 Cr ZASEwteWr "ZAS aw1D DEJEA P P A6e.PTA46L r_ L ?D (s6 DE4tC p4
t1J COW4iAL-'A;rw1J wtrR 4Hpo A..ID e,'""I C0"INJ AkS owes` Sou
C (LEFfwt. TD Q?iMS4 6444 FOIL W ATA Gt.G SJ f ? r 3G
A '`4 CvAu.E c,Q.KflS? p?l? ??PP's ••???? A?-EDGE
t a ? ce .
season(s) why e.tect is not adverse (if applicable).
nitialed: NCDOT

FHWA ?C . SHPO ??•

/ OF TJ4A
Sp% U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
?FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
g
° 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
?AiES of December 29, 1998
Mr. William Gilmore, P.E.
Manager of Planning and
Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Raleigh, North Carolina
Subject: Federal Aid No. BRZ-1331(2), Replacement of Bridge No. 53 over
Fisher River, Surry County, State Project No.8.274101, TIP No. 6-
3248
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
IN REPLY REFER TO
HO-NC
We refer to your letter of November 18, 1998 providing the necessary documentation to our finding
of no adverse effect on the Edwards-Franklin House pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.8(a).
Enclosed is the December 18, 1998 letter from the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation
(ACHP) indicating they do not object to our no adverse effect determination.
If you have any questions please contact Mr. Felix Davila at [phone] extension 106. Thank
you for your assistance.
Sincerely yours,
/1?y C_Wte22
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Mr. David Brook, SHPO
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW, #809
Washington, DC 20004
DEC 18 r: .
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
REF: Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 53
Surry County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Graf:
On December 4, 1998, the Council received your determination, supported by the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), that the referenced undertaking will have no adverse
effect upon properties listed on and eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Pursuant to Section 800.5(d)(2) of the Council's regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties"
(36 CFR Part 800), we do not object to your determination. Therefore, you are not required to
take any further steps to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act other
than to implement the undertaking as proposed and consistent with any conditions you have
reached with the North Carolina SHPO.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Raymond V. Wallace
Historic Preservation Technician
Office of Planning and Review

LAMA C. MERRITT
832 EAST COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
MOUNT AIRY, NC 27030
tU y 1 5 1991
RECE 9 11, WMT
DIVISIO eN INEER'S OFFICE
Mr. W.E. Hoke, Division Engineer N. WILKESBORO, NC
NCDOT, Eleventh Division Office a y
P. O. Box 250 Z
North Wilkesboro, NC 28659
*0
Subject: Bridge on Haystack Road at EdNvards-Franklin House in Surry County
I I ?!
Dear Mr i loke
11 ` !I:. Sari, C History al c., 1 i„ „,.,r;•,?, ,,?,, ,th???it the
hne iane hr due at the corner o the 1-10U e
Ha\ stack Road betN\ een Beulah Road arc' Bl.. ns St,?re Read..\ hi?i? \\ e ha\
learned is to be modified or replaced in the near future. Our representative, Judy I?
Driver, attended the Annual Transportation Pro=ram Meeting at Boone November
7, 1996, to register our concern about the appearance of this bridge.
The board of directors of the society feels that the appearance of the bridge is
important. It constitutes the approach to this historic house. The society invested a
great deal of effort and funds in purchasing and preserving the house as it looked
almost 200 years ago in order to remind people, particularly school children and
young people, of our heritage. We maintain compatible surroundings with four
acres of grounds in a rural neighborhood that is residential and agricultural. A
heavy concrete bridge at this location would not be in keeping with the setting. It
would detract from the historic impression that we wish to evoke as visitors
approach the house.
The old bridge near the Kapps N fill site in Surry County -,vas replaced a few years
ilUO A substantial bridge \\ as required r:,r scl-ool hoses to cross safely after local
people expressed concern aiunit the aprraranl??: 0-I'll Ite;t\\ ?ur?r ;? i rlJs?.
\CDOT designed and built an attracti\ e bridle \\ Ith metal rails \\ e \\ould like to
ha\e a similar bridge near the Ed%%ards-Franklin House.
I enclose snapshots of the present bridge at the Ed\, ards-Franklin House and of
the Kapps Mill bridge. Please let the Planning Section of the Division of Highways
know about our request for a bridge like the one at Kapps Mill.
33(.
I can be reached by telephone at,%10'-786-8359 or by FAX at 786-1449.
Yours sincerely,

LAMA C. MERRITT
BRIDGE AT KAPPS MILL IN SURRY COUNTY
Pan 2
BRIDGE AT EDWARDS-FRANKLIN HOUSE ON HAYSTACK ROAD, SURRY COUNTY

LAMA C. MERRITT
BRIDGE AT KAPPS MILL IN SURRY COUNTY

-1 ./,,'
'fir ` :*rf•-1
Page 3
CAMA C. MERRITT
832 EAST COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
MOUNT AIRY, NC 27030
September 17, 1998
Mr. L. Jack Ward
Ko & Associates, P.C.
1011 Schaub Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27606
Dear Mr. Ward:
When the Surry County Historical Society board of directors met this week, I presented
the issue of the bridge on Haystack Road to them. Using the materials that you sent me,
I was able to show them the maps detailing Alternate A and Alternate B and the
photograph of the way the bridge will look. 1 also was able to describe the brown finish
that you mentioned, in place of the aluminum and galvanized finishes, because four of us
drove up to Valle Crucis Saturday and looked at the bridge there.
The historical society board has two concerns. We want the site to be disturbed as little
as possible, on the one hand. However, on the other hand, we do not want the people
who live in that community to be inconvenienced any more than is necessary during the
construction of the bridge. There appear to be several possible ways to minimize damage
to the environment and still allow the local traffic to continue uninterrupted. I leave it to
the discretion of the planners to choose the best way to address these concerns.
Our board prefers the brown finish on the bridge and the guard rail because we believe
that it will blend with the surroundings better than the usual "silver" finish. Also we are
glad to know that the site will be landscaped and restored to the extent possible.
You may recall that at the meeting in Dobson on September 8, Marion Venable
expressed concern about slave graves nearby. After talking with historian Ruth Minick,
who recalls locating the graves, I carefully studied the aerial photographs with Alternate
A and Alternate B superimposed on them. From the information I received, I believe that
the graves are a sufficient distance south of the bridge construction site to be in no
danger of disturbance from the construction of the bridge.
Thank you for the courteous attention that you and your associates have given to
concerns of the Surry County Historical Society.
Sincerely,

Cama C. Merritt, President
Surry County Historical Society
ack
J? r S
k
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JP- E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 18, 1998
PROJECT TIP NO.: 8.2741401 (B-3248)
FEDERAL ID NO.: BRZ-1331(2)
COUNTY: Surry
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge Number 53 on SR 1331 Over Fisher
River.
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
FROM: W. E. Hoke, PE kr13
Division Engineer - Division 11
SUBJECT: Comments Concerning the Citizen's Informational Workshop
I previously sent you a memorandum dated August 14, 1998 stating that the Division felt
an off-site detour was feasible for the above referenced project. However, subsequent to
the memorandum, a Citizen's Informational Workshop was held and there were many
comments received against an off-site detour. Accordingly, the Division concurs that the
bridge should be constructed just south of the existing bridge while maintaining traffic on
the existing structure.
Please advise if additional information is needed.
WEH/JWB/wb
cc: Leigh Lane - Project Planning Engineer
Jack Ward, PE - KO & Associates
P. O. Box 250. N. WILKESBORO, NC 28659
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]

l
Public Schools of North Carolina
F
St:ttc Board of Education Deparancnt of Public Instruction
Phillip J. Kirk.)r., Chairtnan Michael E. Ward, State Supcrintcu
l _ http://www.dpi.statc.nc.us
August 12, 1998
cat
TO: Richard L Brewer, P.E., NC Department of Transportation
FROM: Gerald H. Knott, Section Chief, School Planning
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 53 on SR 1331 over Fisher River, Surry County, TIP No. B-3248, State
Project No. 8.2741401, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1331(2)
Enclosed is the response from Surry County Schools to our impact inquiry.
/ed
Enclosure
3o1 N. Wilminpm Street, lWe1d6, North Caroliea 27601-7825
AoBgvdoppogWnWAffin- reACHMEmploya
SURLY COUNTY jCHGOLS a; r
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
POST OFFICE BOX Sea, - °-- _-U--71
DOBSON. NORTH CAROLINA 27017 (' {; n :7 U L f L P l NN i ING
SOARO OF 9VUCAT*"
SUE W. STONE
MARSHA E. BLEDSOE. 6D.D. CNAIAMAN
EUPEItINTENOENt
pRAMAM H. A7KINBON
BILLY G. SAWYERS VICE CMAMMAN
ANNTAKT iuPERINTENDENT J. WAVNE BURTON
BOB L. WARD TIM A. DOCKERY
ASSISTANT SVPERINTENVENT I. BOBBY MANES
August 10, 19.98
Gerald H. Knott, Section Chief
School Planning
Depmunlent of Public Instruction
apt North Wilmington Stmt
Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2825
Dear Mr. Knott:
'thank you for the opportunity to respond to proposed highway improvements within our
school anendance.zone. Bridge number 53 on the Haystack Road provides a vital link to
remote areas in our county. Therefore, we will gladly deal with any temporary
inconvenience as the Department of Transportation makes needed repairs or replacements.
Some of our parents and two of our schools will simply m-route their normal travel plans
during this project. We have already identified possible options for the school system.
I appreciate the notice concerning this project. Please call if you have any further
questions.
Sincerely.
Marsha E. Bledsoe, Bd.D.
Superintendent
dcb
Today and Tomorrow : Meeting the Challenge

A
Teresa E. Kinney
Director
SURRY COUNTY
118 Hamby Road, Suite 147
Dobson, NC 27017
336401-8350
Fax [phone]
Email tkinney(ainfoave.net
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
July 24, 1998
Itna of North Carolink
C/o William D'. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
PO Box 25201
Raleigk NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
VF
C
ti K?J
TI .. ° 0 3 1446
1
To the best of my knowledge there are no required county permits for the relocation or replacement of
Bridge No. 53 on SR 1331 Fisher. River.
Please note that the bridge is located within the Fisher River WS II Watershed that requires thirty (30)
foot natural buffer to be sustained along the stream banks. I understand that the Division of
Enviroamental Management (DEM) and Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requires !fiat all DOT projects
practice Best Management Practices (BUP's). I recommend that the DOT contact DEM and DWQ to
discuss aiternstives for the project. ,
Likewise, DOT may wish to notify the Scary County Board of Commissioners to obtain public comment
regarding the proposed status of the bridge.
If I can be of any thither assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Teresa E. rmey, lector
Planning and Development
pe: Dennis Tbompson, County Manager
T n
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AMA rodounoN oRICE
E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR M DESIGN
1E
PROJECT: 8.2741401 COUNTY SORRY Altemate A &B of Altemate
I. D. NO.: B-3248 F.A. PIIOJECT WA
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Bridge M53 on SR 1331 over the Fisher River

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Die aoees Owners Tenants Total Minofities 0-15M 15-25M 25.35M 35.50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VAUX OR OVAVJ N0 ots VANLUN O AVAILADW
Forms 0 0 0 0 Owners Taaaats For Sale For R ent
Non-Profs 0 0 01 , 0, e.M o s 0.10 0 641ae p e $-1 p
ANSYM ALL QUasT10Ne UAW 0 l' ;W 0 =AN p ssssso p
Yee Ne EjrjmWn aN "rE S• arrawwa 494" 0 n"n p 40 no p 20400 0
X 1, WIC special, relocation wfvtca be nece ry M9110m 0 400410 Q M1e1w. 0 441410 0
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by t10 vn p 111 ui p In u. p m ur p
displacernent?
TOTAL 0
4 0 0
X 3. Will business services still be available ac REMIIRKi Iles nd Nun0w
project?
X 4. Will any business be dispteced? If so, This is a negative report - -Sae an no c0oplacees
indkalte Site. type. estimated number of • on this project.
Employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. WIII relocation cause a housing shortage?
e Source for available housing (list).
X 7. WID additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Lest R*@W Housing be coo Idered?
X 4. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
familhs?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for projecr,
X 11. Is pubpe housing available?
X 12. Is It felt there will be "uate DSS hou g
housing avadable during re'n - Mlon period?
X 13. Will there be a problems of housmo within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (1st
sourc
)

15. e
.
Number moths estimated to complete
IIBOCA1foN2 WA
f

T. Kent Melton 08-1 ?-g6 -
R lore Date Appnwed by Date
ram w rw.w?o vww o 00" i 1 COW. GWO ReWco one
2 Copy Arse ftwetion OMes
JOINS PANEL 50

II
('p
C
p P
/q
.1

11
,__, =rte=.
`laaa y ??? `y
y
11 y
ZONE A
/ aa?a?e V NS
STORE
Pa \
w
Il
11
it
n
u
u

o\ \ \
`I
Rd.
ktiKin.s
I p`
BRIDGE NO. 53
133'
Q
4? V
0-0 rl
\I \\ Il
•\,..•.•.•. ;1 Jam"'` ...,,??
ZONE C
39 > .?? Sloes Rd.
plies
• ,:?`'=1% ? 11
• ? 11
ZONE
Ilk,
11
t? \\
?I) Irk. `
11
II
ZONE C
1
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request 9_ 4.98
Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use ICJ '7 County And state
/' 44 /QGEI'N?iVT ?? L xwl y
PART 11 (To be completed by SCSI Date Request Received BY SCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland?, `t BS No
(lf no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts 'this forrri)r ;, '13 :Atxea Irrigated Average Form Size
Major Crop s /7

Name Of Land Evaluation System Used r Formable Land In Gosrt Jurisdiction
Acres: •/91;1. ??.?,?
Name Of Local Site Asssamain System Amourtt Of Farmland As Defined in PA /
AcresQu2'?{. -a7tala/?
Date Land Evaluation Returned Illy SCS
Iternattve Site tin
PART 111 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A
- Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 0,79
. 7 /. t5-3
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirect)
C. Total Acres In Site /• `-?
PART IV (To tie completed by SCSI L aad Evaluatt'on Information
A. Total Acres Prime And UniquaiFarmland :,„
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland :? ti ?r ' ;'r!t`7-y;a'?-J? ^s r3'' =
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt Unit To BiiConvirted`''
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Some Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion ? :'>
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100P6inisl' r .. +` «•,° « y? ?"
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria ant explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use 15 /
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use O /0
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed ZO O /0
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 O 0
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area $ /57 /5
6. Distance To Urban Support Services / .S /-15-
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average /O S S
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland O O
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments 170 5-
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services O O 0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use /0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 76P / to
PART V I I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 17 77
Total Site Asse$sment (From Part Vl above or a local
site assessment! 160 rAp `1(p
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 15 _3
Was A Local Site Assessment Used!
Site Selected: le Pj I Date Of Selection 9- z9_ 98 Yes ? No ,
Reason For Selection!