19920283 Ver al_Complete File_20100726

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
February 24, 1992
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch A
Action ID. 199200835 and Nationwide Permit No? 23
(Approved Categorical Exclusions) MPR _ ??gq2
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager Ott l(P1.11'i `r:•
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference your letter of December 10, 1991, regarding your plans to
discharge dredged/fill material in the waters/wetlands of Grants Creek,
associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 79 on North Carolina Highway
150, Rowan County, North Carolina, State Project No. B-1359.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the Federal
Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits. Authorization,
pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined,
pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the activity, work or discharge
is categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and the
office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions. This
nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any
required State or local approval.

V
-2-
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify,
suspend, or revoke the authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steve Lund, Asheville.Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copy Furnished:
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Copy Furnished (w/incom corres):
Mr. John Dorney
Water Qua. y Section
Divisi of Environmental Management
Nort Carolina Department of
vironment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J.HARRELSON December 10, 1991
SECRETARY
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
RECEIVED
`JAN 61992
REGULATORY BRANCH
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Subject: Rowan County, Bridge No. 79 on NC 150 over Grants Creek, B-1359
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the
subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to
proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with Section 330.5(a)(23) of the
Interim Final Rule for Regulatory Programs issued July 22, 1982, by the Corps of
Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.5(b) and 330.6 of these regulations
will be followed in the construction of the project.
We do not anticipate that a permit will be required from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
Sincerely,
0?- AvL DM
L. J. ard, P. E., Manager
LJW/plr Planning and Environmental
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
Mr. Charles Wakild, Environmental Management, w/report
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P. E.
Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Mr. D. B. Waters
Branch
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

v
Rowan County
Bridge No. 79 on NC 150
over Grants Creek
State Project 8.1631001
Federal Aid Project BRM-8881(1)
B-1359
REVISED
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
D e

401"0. ASefT:fk
J. Ward, P. E., Manage
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
/
Date /
F`" Division Administrator, FHWA
Rowan County
Bridge No. 19 on NC 150
over Grants Creek
State Project 8.1631001
Federal Aid Project BRM-8881(1)
B-1359
REVISED
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1991
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Jo Foutz
Project Planning Engineer
,,,,?1?IIIIf111If?I
?7 IL ?ZH CAI?
Gt/ct tie `/??a?T ?5S16A
Wayne Elliott SEAL
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head • 1154
t
01
. P.E.
Assistant Manager of Planning and Environmental
A
Rowan County
Bridge No. 79 on NC 150
over Grants Creek
State Project 8.1631001_
Federal Aid Project BRM-8881(1)
B-1359
Bridge No. 79 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement
Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project has been classified as a Federal
"categorical exclusion."
I. BACKGROUND
The original planning document for this project was a "categorical
exclusion" completed January 4 , 1988. That report recommended Bridge No.
79 be replaced at existing location with a structure 36 feet in width.
Two lanes of travel were proposed across the replacement bridge.
Approximately 200 feet of approach work was recommended.
Subsequent to the completion of the original report a state funded
project, B-1359A, was established. B-1359A provides for the widening of
NC 150 to a five lane curb and gutter section from US 70-601 (Jake
Alexander Blvd.) to just east of Grants Creek. The proposed two lane
replacement structure would be inadequate and should be widened to be
consistent with the approach roadway.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental. impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary. Approximately 0.6 acres of wetlands will be
disrupted by the project. Best Management Practices will be utilized to
minimize these impacts.
III. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 79 should be replaced at (slightly north of) existing
location as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 2.
The recommended width of the new structure is 64 feet. The structure
will accommodate a 5-lane curb and gutter section.
Preliminary hydrographic studies indicate that a. new bridge of 168
feet in length should be used.
Approximately 1300 feet of improved roadway approaches will be
required. The approach roadway should consist of a 5-lane curb and gutter
section.
Traffic will be maintained on-site by use of phase construction.

2
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $ 1,245,000.
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1991-1997
Transportation Improvement Program, is $ 637,000.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 150 is classified as an urban other principal arterial in the
Statewide Functional Classification System and is a part of the
Federal-Aid System, being designated FAU 8881. Development is
medium-density suburban residential. Several mobile homes are adjacent to
the bridge on the northwest quadrant. On-the south side immediately
adjacent to the bridge there is a major utility transmission substation.
An existing sewer line runs under the east approach. In the vicinity of
the bridge, NC 150 has a pavement width of 20 feet and shoulder widths of
8 feet. Horizontal and vertical alignment are generally good. Speed limit
in the project area is 45 MPH.
The current traffic volume of 11,000 VPD is expected to increase to
approximately 19,700 VPD by the year 2011. The projected volumes includes
2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 4 % dual-tired vehicles (DT).
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1931 and has a
sufficiency rating of 34.8. Overall weight limit is 18 tons for single
vehicles and 22 tons for trucks with trailers.
Four accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the
period from December, 1987 to October, 1990.
V. ALTERNATIVES
Two methods of replacing Bridge No. 79 were studied as follows:
Alternate 1 consists of replacing the bridge along the existing
alignment with a structure 168 feet in length. The new roadway alignment
would be shifted approximately 20 feet north to avoid a substation located
south of the bridge. The structure will accommodate 5-lanes of travel.
Traffic would be maintained on-site with a temporary detour structure 80
feet north of the existing bridge (see Figure 2). This alternate would
retain the present roadway alignment.
Alternate 2 (recommended) is identical to Alternate 1 except traffic
would be maintained on-site by using phase construction.
Traffic should be maintained at the existing bridge site in some
manner, since an adequate detour route is not available (see "Traffic
Detour", page 3).
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by
NC 150.

3

"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and
deteriorated condition.
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic at the studied
bridge site is felt to be necessary. Otherwise, traffic would have to be
detoured along existing secondary roads. No acceptable detour route was
found due to the traffic volume using NC 150 and the length of additional
travel.
In view of this factor, it is clear that traffic should be maintained
at the existing bridge site during construction.
The Division Engineer recommends that Bridge No. 79 be replaced at
(slightly north of) existing location and maintain traffic on-site during
the construction period by using phase construction.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
Alternate 1
Structure $ 516,000
Roadway Approaches 438,000
Detour Structure & 187,500
Approaches
Structure Removal 23,000
(Recommended)
Alternate 2
$ 570,000
438,000
23,000
Engineering & 1709500 154,000
Contingencies
Right-of-Way, Utilities 67,000 60,000
Total $ 19402,000 $ 1,245,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 79 should be replaced at (slightly north of) existing
location as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 2.
The recommended improvements will include about 1300 feet of improved
roadway approaches. A 5-lane 64-foot curb and gutter section should be
provided on the approaches and the replacement structure.

4
The dividing point between B-1359 and B-1359A (see Figure 2) may
shift approximately 200 feet westward to limit federal participation in
construction of roadway approaches for bridge replacement projects.
Determination of the project limits can be-made during final design.
Bridge No. 19 is to be phase constructed. This will allow traffic to
be maintained at the project site.
Based on preliminary studies, the Hydrographics Unit recommends the
new structure should have a length of approximately 168 feet. It is
anticipated the elevation of the new bridge will be approximately equal to
the floor elevation of the existing bridge. The length and height may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due
to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not
the quality of the human or natural
NCDOT standards and specifications.
have a significant adverse effect on
environment with the use of current
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No significant change in land use is expected to
result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No significant adverse effect on public facilities or services is
expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect social,
economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) indicates that the soil survey
for Rowan County has not yet been completed, and they are currently unable
to complete Form AD-1006, as requested. The SCS did comment that the
proposed bridge project is located on Chewacla soils, which are considered
prime farmland soils only if drained and protected from flooding. No
adverse impacts to farmlands are expected.
There appear to be no properties in the vicinity of the project that
are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
The structure itself is not historically significant. The State Historic
Preservation Officer indicates that one site, the A. L. Owens House, is
located in the general area. This house is located outside the area of
potential effect of this project. The State Historic Preservation Officer
concurs with these findings (A-1).

The project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties. There are
no publicly-owned parks, historic sites, recreational facilities, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance
in the vicinity of the project.
Upland and wetland impacts are anticipated from proposed
construction. Plant communities within the study area are largely
disturbed from man-dominated activities.
Residential sites in the study area are dominated by various lawn
grasses, herbaceous plants and common ornamentals.
Surrounding Grants Creek is a narrow hardwood forest strip that is
influenced by the creek. The canopy is dominated by willow oak ( uercus
hellos), box elder (Acer ne undo), winged elm (Ulmus alata), American e m
U mus americana), sycamore P atanus occidentalis an-Tred ash (Fraxinus
enns lvanica . The understory not well d a fined but includes cane
Arun inaria i antea), red ash seedlings, privet (LiRust?rum sinense),
blackberry Ru us sp. and grape vines (Vitis sp.). This community is not
very wide since it is bordered by the utility corridor to the east side
and a trailer park to the west.
A utility corridor is located to the east of Grants Creek and
residential developments are located in the west and extreme east sections
of the study area. South and east of Grants Creek is an electrical
substation. Vegetation in these areas is highly disturbed and maintained
in low growing condition. Shrubs and herbaceous species dominate. Common
species encountered at the utility corridor include shrub forms of box
elder and red ash. Growth of cow itch (Cam psis radicans), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonnicera japonica) and catbrier (Smilax sp. created tangled
mats of vegetation. Also noted in the utility corridor were elderberry
seedlings (Sambucus canadensis), buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidentalis),
clover (Tri o?'-fl m p. , Lespe esa (Les edeza sp. , an vetch Vicia sp.).
Wetter pockets included clumps of rus Juncus effusus).
Construction will impact the palustrine hardwood wetland, the
man-dominated upland and wetland communities. Plant community impacts are
stated in Table 1. These estimates are preliminary and may change with
final design.

6
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community
Man-dominated Upland
Palustrine Hardwood Forest
Man-dominated Wetland
TOTALS
1.1
0.1
0.5
1.7
Temp. Detour**
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.8
Note: Values reported are in acres
widths of 80' for permanent bridge
temporary detour bridge and approach
* Alternate 1 or 2
** Alternate 1 only
and are based upon estimated impact
and approach construction and 30' for
construction.
The majority of the study area is associated with disturbed
man-dominated communities. The palustrine community impacted by
construction is only a narrow forested strip. Construction will further
disturb this community and the man-dominated communities associated with
the proposed project.
Strict erosion control measures should be enforced to minimize
washout and siltation at the Grants Creek crossing. Efforts should be made
to minimize clearing of vegetation and disturbed areas should be
re-vegetated as quickly as possible to prevent further erosion.
Minimizing vegetation loss at Grants Creek will retain the wildlife
corridor that surrounds and parallels the creek.
Disturbed habitats such as the utility corridor, residential areas
and roadsides, are maintained in early stages of succession. These areas
support a variety of mammals and may include the eastern mole (Scalo us
a uaticus), eastern cottontail (S lvila us floridanus), woodchuck Marmota
monax , cotton rat (Si modon hhiisPi us , pine vole Microtus inetorium ,
red ox (Vulpes fulva an wit t led deer (Odocoi eus virginianus .
Amphibian and reptiles that may inhabit disturbed habitats include
American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), spring
peeper (Hyla crucifer , eastern fence lizard (Selo orus un ulatus),
southeastern five Tined skink (Eumeces inex ectatus , mole kingr snag
(Lam ro eltis calli aster), red6eTTy sna a Storeria occi itomaculata),
smooth earth snake (Virginia valeriae) and copperhead Ag istrodon
contortrix).
Permanent Structure*
Species that are likely to be found in the palustrine hardwood forest
wetland community utilize both the moist areas such as the creek banks and
wetter habitats including the creek. Species that are likely to occur in
these habitats include bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), green frog (Rana
clamitans), southern leopard frog Rana s?ienote?iala), snapping turtle
y ra serpentina) and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
7F
Avian fauna likely in the study area include bobwhite (Colinus
vir inianus), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), mourning dove Zenaida
macroura , horned lark Er?emophi a aal es?tris , mockingbird (Mimes
o ott s), eastern bluebird (Sialia sial s), common yellowttiroat
warbler Dendroica domes a), meaowowTark Sturnella magna), American
goldfinch Car ue is tristis) and rufous-s_e_d-towhee (Pi ilo
erythrophtha mus .
Largemouth bass (Micro terus salmoides), sunfish, sucker, crappie,
and catfish are likely to utilize habitat in the creek. Grants Creek is
characterized as a slow-flowing river of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain
(Fish, 1968).
Project construction should adhere to strict erosion controls at the
Grants Creek crossing. Clearing of vegetation should be kept to a minimum
and erosion controls should be enforced adjacent to Grants Creek. After
project completion, re-vegetation should be accomplished as quickly as
possible.
Permanent bridge construction at Grants Creek should allow for
adequate stream flow. Migratory fish may utilize this portion of the
creek during spawning activities. Strict erosion controls should be
enforced during construction to minimize siltation. Construction of a
temporary bridge structure is suitable as long as it allows for adequate
water flow. Temporary bridge construction will further fragment the
palustrine hardwood forest and the man-dominated wetland communities.
Soils information was obtained from the local county Soil
Conservation Service office. Soil types mapped in the study area are
listed below in Table 2.
Table 2 Soil Type Summary
Name Slope Drainage Hydric Soils
Lloyd Loam 6-10 well Non-hydric
Chewacla loam 0- 2 sp Hydric Inc.
Dougue fine sandy loam 0- 2 mw Non-hydric
Poindexter loam 15-25 well Non-hydric
Pacolet sandy loam 8-15 well Non-hydric
sp - somewhat poorly
mw - moderately well
8
The project is located in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The creek
is approximately 15' wide in the study area. The bottom is composed of
sand and silt. Water is classified C (OEM, 1990). Best usage
recommendations for Class C waters include aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture..Grants
Creek is labelled as a larger, slow-flowing river of the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain (Fish, 1968). This section is characterized as too small
and too polluted to be of fishing significance.
Benthic macro invertebrate samples have been taken in Grants Creek
(Division of Environmental Management, 1988). Three sampling sites are
located upstream of the study area. Two have a bioclass rating of poor and
the third site has a rating of fair. Third site is closest to the study
area. Bioclass ratings are based on the taxa richness in the samples.
No impacts to High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), Water Supply Segments (WS-I) or Wild and Scenic Rivers are
anticipated at Grants Creek or downstream of the project.
Heavy siltation reduces water clarity, light-incidence and may reduce
the number of sensitive species. Construction at Grants Creek should
allow for adequate water flow especially during heavy flooding periods.
Also, bridge design should allow for maximum light intensity and minimum
sediment disturbances. Non-point sediment sources should be identified
and efforts made to control sediment runoff.
Jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Criteria for wetland determinations are described in the
"Federal Manual For Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands"
(Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). Any action
that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction
of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the Provisions of the Clean Water
Act.
Wetland boundaries were determined from observations of vegetation,
soils and hydrology. The vegetation is comprised of species predominantly
classified as Obligate, Facultative Wetland or Facultative. These species
are estimated to occur in wetlands greater than 99 percent, 67 to 99
percent and 34 to 66 percent of the time respectively. Hydric soils were
identified from mottles observed within 18 inches of the surface. Wetland
hydrological characteristics include pockets of standing water, location
in relationship to Grants Creek and nearly level topography. Table 3
summarizes wetland impacts. These estimates are preliminary and may
change with project design.

9
Table 3 Summary of Wetland Acreage
Permanent Const.* Temp Detour**
Palustrine Hardwood Forest 0.1 0.1
Man-dominated Wetlands 0.5 0.2
Totals 0.6 0.6
Note: Values reported are in acres;
right of way limits for permanent
temporary detour construction.
estimated impacts are based on 80'
bridge construction and 30' for
* Alternate 1 or 2
** Alternate 1 only
Wetland impacts are small; less than 1 acre. Since the project is a
federally funded CE, the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (a)
23 are likely to be applicable. This permit authorizes any activities,
work, and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded
or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the
activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment.
State permits are administered through the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources. One state permit that is
likely to be requested is the 401 Water Quality Certification. This
certificate is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge
into waters and for which a federal permit is required.
Projects that fall under a Nationwide Permit and have less than one
acre of impacted wetlands are generally not mitigated according to the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
and the US Army Corps of Engineers (1989).
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to locate any occurrences
of protected species in the study area.
One federally protected species is listed for Rowan County:
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). The NCNHP files did not
show any federally protected species in the study area.
The Schweinitz's sunflower is a member of the composite family. It
is a plant 0.6 to 1.5 meters tall, characterized by a scabrous upper leaf
surface and a soft tomentose lower leaf surface. Stems are usually
solitary. The plant flowers are yellow and the flowering period is from
10

September to frost. It is found along edges of upland woods and clearings
and limited to the piedmont physiographic province of North and South
Carolina. It is known to prefer disturbed areas. Suitable habitat such
as highway right-of-ways and residential areas in the study area were
surveyed plant by plant and no evidence of the plant'was seen. No impacts
to the plant are anticipated.
According to the NCNHP files, no state protected species are located
in the study area.
Rowan County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. The approximate 100 year floodplain in the project area is shown
in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to be effected is not
considered to be significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area.
Any shift in alignment would result in a crossing of about the same
magnitude. The alignment of the project is perpendicular to the
floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
The project is located within the Metropolitan-Charlotte Interstate
Air Quality Control Region. This project is in an air quality non-
attainment area which has transportation control measures in the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) which was approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on March 19, 1981. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined that both the Transportation Plan and
the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conform to the SIP. The FHWA
has determined that this project is included in the TIP for the
Charlotte-Metropolitan planning area. Therefore, pursuant to 23 CFR 770,
this project conforms to the SIP.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will
be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of FHPM 7-7-3
(highway traffic noise) and FHPM 7-7-9 (air quality) and no additional
reports are required.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project.
JF/plr

3 /\
9
i

.29
7C

Affio?l NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DWMON OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNIIVG AND ENVUWNMENCAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 79
ROWAN COUNTY
0-1359
10/90 0 mile 1/4 FIG, I
i
60
,BRIDGE NO. 79
T. ?o
?u
bdd.
'a
c?
Qo
S
Y
BRIDGE NO. 79
ROWAN COUNTY
B 1359
,
I
SIDE VIEW
i
I

¦ LOOKING EAST