20210345 Ver 1_B-4626 Type I Ground Disturbing CE Checklist_20210319

Type I and II Ground Disturbing Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form
STIP Project No. B-4626
WBS Element 38443.1.FS1
Federal Project No. BRNHP-0049(33)
A. Project Description:
NCDOT proposes to replace the existing superstructure with a wider superstructure on
bridge 790003 on NC 8/NC 49 over Yadkin River and Winston-Salem Southbound railroad
in Rowan, Davidson, and Stanly Counties. Substructure bent cap retrofitting will be
required to accommodate the new superstructure. The project would also apply deck
preservation treatment to the parallel bridge 790008. See attached project location map.
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
The need of the proposed project is to improve public safety by replacing the structurally
deficient, functionally obsolete, and fracture critical bridge (Rowan County Bridge No. 3)
from the state's transportation infrastructure.
The purpose of the project is to construct a new structure that meets current NCDOT bridge
design standards.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE I A
TYPE I B
TYPE II A
❑ TYPE IIB
D. Proposed Improvements —
28. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings, if the actions meet the
constraints in 23 CFR 771.117(e)(1-6).
E. Special Project Information:
Detour: The division has determined that an onsite detour on the southbound bridge will
be acceptable. The detour will utilize existing transition points at each end of the four-lane
divided roadway to shift traffic. Minor widening will be necessary along the southbound
lanes to accommodate the lane shift and the left turn lane to Tuckertown Road. The minor
widening will occur within the existing median. These lane modifications will be temporary
to support the on-site detour for the duration of construction. The additional pavement will
1 Updated 4/25/17

be left in place following construction and the lanes re-striped, resulting in wider paved
shoulders in these locations.
Design Issues:
• Traffic
o Current/Let (2020): 6,800 vehicles per day (vpd)
o Design Year (2040): 8,100 vpd
• Design speed — 60 mph
• Design exceptions — None
• Typical Section
o Roadway: 2-12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot usable outside shoulders with 4-
foot full-depth paved, and 6-foot usable inside shoulders with 2-foot full-
depth paved.
o Bridge: 2-12-foot lanes, 8-foot outside shoulder, 4-foot inside shoulder (i.e.,
36 feet clear roadway).
Public Involvement: A project announcement newsletter was sent to property owners on
NC 8/NC 49 within the project study area and to local officials in the surrounding
communities in August 2017. NCDOT did not receive responses or comments as a result
of the distribution.
F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:
Type I & II - Ground Disturbing Actions
FHWA APPROVAL ACTIVITIES THRESHOLD CRITERIA
If any of questions 1-7 are marked "yes" then the CE will require FHWA approval. Yes No
1 Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife ❑ 0
Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)?
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and ❑ ❑X
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)?
3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any ❑ ❑X
reason, following appropriate public involvement?
4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to n n
low-income and/or minority populations?
5 Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a ❑ ❑X
substantial amount of right of way acquisition?
6 Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval? ❑ nX
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a
7 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic ❑ 0
Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic
Landmark (NHL)?
2 updated 4/25/17

If any of questions 8 through 31 are marked "yes" then additional information will be required for those
questions in Section G.
Other Considerations Yes No
Does the project result in a finding of"may affect not likely to adversely affect"
8 for listed species, or designated critical habitat under Section 7 of the U ❑
Endangered Species Act (ESA)?
9 Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters? U ❑X
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water
10 (ORW), High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, ❑
303(d) listed impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)?
11 Does the project impact waters of the United States in any of the designated ❑
mountain trout streams?
12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual ❑ 0
Section 404 Permit?
13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory ❑
Commission (FERC) licensed facility?
14 Does the project include a Section 106 of the NHPA effects determination X ❑
other than a no effect, including archaeological remains?
Other Considerations (continued) Yes No
15 Does the project involve hazardous materials and/or landfills? n ❑X
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a
16 regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) ❑
elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and
23 CFR 650 subpart A?
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and ❑ 0
17 substantially affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental
Concern (AEC)?
18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit? ❑X
19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a U
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area?
20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources? n ❑X
21 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
USFWS, etc.) or Tribal Lands?
22 Does the project involve any changes in access control? U ❑X
23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or ❑
community cohesiveness?
24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? ❑ 0
3 Updated 4/25/17

4 Updated 4/25/17

25
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the Metropolitan Planning
Organization’s (MPO’s) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (where
applicable)? ☐ ☒
26
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in
fee or easement with public-use money and have deed restrictions or
covenants on the property?
☐ ☒
27 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
buyout properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)? ☐ ☒
28 Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)? ☒ ☐
29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy? ☐ ☒
30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by
the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)? ☒ ☐
31 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that
affected the project decision? ☐ ☒

G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F

For the following, please see Section H. for associated project commitments.

Question 8 – Habitat for the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is listed as present in Davidson,
Rowan, and Stanly Counties, though the nearest NLEB hibernacula record is 99 miles
northwest of the project and no known NLEB roost trees occur within 150 feet of the project
area. NCDOT has determined that the proposed action does not require separate consultation
on the grounds that the proposed action is consistent with the final Section 4(d) rule.

NCDOT will complete survey for the Schweinitz’s sunflower prior to construction let.

Question 10 – The Tuckertown Reservoir (Yadkin River) in the project area is classified Water
Supply IV (WS-IV), Class B waters. The Tuckertown Reservoir in the project area is also
classified as a Critical Area. The Tuckertown Reservoir (Yadkin River) is listed as impaired
from the mouth of Cabin Creek to Badin Lake for pH in the 2014 Final 303(d) list. This area
encompasses the project area.

Question 13 – The Tuckertown Reservoir is a FERC regulated facility with the owner listed as
Alcoa (Aluminum Company of America). Alcoa sold the Yadkin Project to Cube Hydro
Carolinas on February 1, 2017. An easement agreement was made between NCDOT and
Aluminum Company of America on August 6, 1998 but does not cover the entire study area for
the current project and will need to be updated by NCDOT.

Question 14 – The Rowan County Bridge No. 3 was recorded by the NCDOT Historic Bridge
Inventory in 2005 and determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
under Criterion C for the construction technique employed (i.e., welded steel girders). The
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), FHWA, and NCDOT concurred on May 24, 2017
that the project would result in an adverse effect to the bridge. A Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) was signed by the Section 106 consulting parties that stipulates the mitigation
measures NCDOT will take for this project. The consulting parties have agreed to complete
photodocumentation of the Rowan County Bridge No. 3, photodocumentation of the bridges
demolition, and the development and implementation of content to feature on the NCDOT
Historic Bridges of North Carolina website.
Question 16 - Rowan County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program, which is
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The effective FEMA
floodplain mapping indicates that this crossing of the Yadkin River is located within a limited
detailed study. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) shows the approximate limits of the
100-year floodplain in the vicinity of the project.
Question 28 — The project will result in the Section 4(f) use of the NRHP eligible Rowan
County Bridge No. 3. A Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for Federally Aided
Highway Projects That Necessitate the Use of Historic Bridges has been completed for STIP
B-4626 and is included in the project file. The programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation was
approved by FHWA 4/13/ 2018. The Section 4(f) Evaluation and supplemental information is
included in the project file.
Question 30 - Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) eligible soils are present within the
Stanly County portion of the study area. A preliminary screening of farmland conversion
impacts in the project area has been completed (NRCS Form AD-1006, Part VI only) and a
total score of 52 out of 160 points was calculated.
5 Updated 4/25/17

H. Project Commitments
Rowan, Davidson, and Stanly Counties
Rowan Bridge No. 3 Replacement
Federal Aid No.: BRNHP-0049(33)
WBS No.: 38443.1.FS1
TIP No.: B-4626
Section 106
NCDOT will meet the stipulations of the attached Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for
the adverse effect to the historic bridge, including photodocumentation of the Rowan
County Bridge No. 3, photodocumentation of the bridges demolition, and the
development and implementation of content to feature on the NCDOT Historic Bridges
of North Carolina website.
FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and
subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics
Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s)
and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as
shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
FERC Coordination
NCDOT will continue to coordinate with Cube Hydro Carolinas, the current FERC
licensee for the Yadkin Project, through the course of project development. NCDOT will
prepare the applicable FERC license and prepare an amended easement agreement,
as necessary.
Impaired Waters
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be followed
throughout the design and construction of the project.
Erosion Control
Since the Yadkin River (Tuckertown Reservoir) is classified as WS-IV, B;CA (Critical
Area) waters, the Erosion Control plans will have to adhere to the Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds.
Railroad Coordination
The Division will coordinate with NCDOT Rail Unit and CSX through the design and
construction of the project.
STIP B-4626 Page 1 of 2
Project Commitments
August 2017

Schweinitz's Sunflower
A complete survey for the Schweinitz's sunflower will be conducted prior to construction
let.
Northern long-eared bat
NCDOT has committed to the following conservation measures: No alterations of a
known hibernacula entrance or interior environment if it impairs an essential behavioral
pattern, including sheltering northern long-eared bats (January 1 through December
31); no tree removal within a 0.25 mile radius of a known hibernacula (January 1
through December 31); and no cutting or destroying a known, occupied maternity roost
tree, or any other trees within a 150-foot radius from the known, occupied maternity tree
during the period from June 1 through and including July 31.
NCDOT has determined that the proposed action does not require separate
consultation on the grounds that the proposed action is consistent with the final Section
4(d) rule.
STIP B-4626 Page 2 of 2
Project Commitments
August 2017

Categorical Exclusion Approval
STIP Project No. B-4626
WBS Element 38443.1.FS1
Federal Project No. BRNHP-0049(33)
Prepared By: /J
4/13/2018
Date Adam rchual, Transportation Planner
HNTE3/North Carolina, P.C.
Prepared For: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Structures Management Unit
Reviewed By: p—°OcuSignedby:
5/10/2018
ED19A18D98EC496...
Date Kevin Fischer, P.E., Assistant State Structures Engineer—Program
Management and Field Operations, Structures Management Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
If all of the threshold questions (1 through 7)of
n Approved Section F are answered "no," NCDOT approves this
Categorical Exclusion.
If any of the threshold questions (1 through 7)of
n Certified Section F are answered "yes," NCDOT certifies this
Categorical Exclusion.
FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature
required.
Date John F. Sullivan, Ill, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

L'
o b RdN
Reeves`Sla.
`ti 8
`Tuckrio 'ri
rzyerd0If
w
x
1.
Sr
1 2
n
x.
0 m
in 13
y c 1 •
r.
n L
co 1) 00 •
6
Deck Preservation
Bridge 790008
Rq `9 `g - 1.
a
?uckpo d Rd — — — —— — — ——— — — — � Stoke- ____20 _ — — -
010.1'illit:111111::'
�y' ,
Replace Bridge 790003 p
F,
•
% l
ii,
s c'r„rr°"",Ra� ,
•
wt
l
4Tignmspe-witLegend Project Location Map
1"11111111111111B *Mk
.0 . ls1=�� �1W B 4626 Study Area NCDOT STIP Project B-4626
iar j ��e,, �� Replace Bridge 790003 and Apply Deck Preservation
di � � 0 0.5 1 Miles Treatment to Bridge 790008 Over Yadkin River and
41.1611kV I 1 I 1 I Winston-Salem Southbound Railroad.
4ir Sources: ESRI,NCDOT,HNTB North Carolina,PC.
Credit: HNTB North Carolina PC, 2018 Rowan, Davidson, and Stanly Counties

Summary and Approval
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on July 5,
1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to
this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic bridge. The project
includes all possible planning to minimize harm,and there are assurances that the measures to
minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
DocuSigned by:
4/2/2018 uvn
EDIDA101B50 04D0...
Date Manager, Structures Management Unit, NCDOT
4/13/2018 Digitally signed byJOSEPH PAUL GEIGLE
JOSEPH PAUL GEIGLE DN:c=us"o=D.S.G°u="71 ent,o°=PHWA
PAUL GEleighNC,ou=DOT FH WARalelghNC,cn=JOSEPH
PAUL GEIGLE
Oa[e:3018.04.1310:02:49
Date for Division Administrator, FHWA
*Additional information is required priorto a pproval.Consult the Nationwide Section4(f)evaluation.
5

Explanation of Effects Determination: Proposed project will retain the substructure
(piers) of the existing bridge and replace its superstructure and deck, necessitating
removal of the welded steel elements that define its NR eligibility.
List of Environmental Commitments:
‘74.o4-0dmOCU h^ "C'al�t4y110-110?C1-541 G Sifyren t.15,
c ek M,00 k Lk)�� — o,c eav�4— erg Y c An d o 1r-o s
ilj.
FHWA Intends to use the State Historic Preservation Office's concurrence as a basis for a "de
minimis" finding for the following properties, pursuant to Section 4(f): ---
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
X Map(s) X Previous Survey Info. X Photos ['Correspondence Design Plans
INDING BY NCDOT AND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Histo 'c Architecture and Landscapes—ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
YCUAQ.LAZi-66j‘.
y% ô/ ?---
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
[2,...4u.L. \11.46A449t, 5•••=74 .I
State Historic Preservation Office Represen ative Date
-0--CA-0.-e.fl 0 h a,- .0 z 1)
Federal Agency Representative Date
B-4626, Davidson, Rowan, Stanly Counties
Tracking No. 15-02-0049
Historic Architecture and Landscapes EFFECTS ASSESSMENT form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 2

AGREE:
p ,....., ,,1 14
A
?e,i---flelyik
. ko' ( Jo. F. Sullivan III,P.B, Date
North Carolina Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
.--,/-2-(2._/-2-o I
i
Kevin erry,Ph.D Date
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
••• to4.4 0 ti/1 Z i?°le
Philip S. -larris III, RE., C.P.M. Date
Environmental Analysis Unit Head
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FILED:
By: ,
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Date ..
Memorandum of Agreement 5
B-4626 Davidson,Rowan,and Stanly Counties

Project Tracking No.:
15-02-0049
An examination of soils in Davidson County presented on the National Resources Conservation Service Web
Soil Survey(http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) indicates the following soil types
are mapped within the proposed APE: Georgeville silt loam,4 to 15 percent slopes,extremely boulder
(GmD);and Georgeville silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes,extremely boulder(GmF). For the portion of the
APE within Rowan County,the following soils are mapped:Badin channery silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
(BaD);and Uwharrie loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes,very stony(UhE). For the portion of the proposed APE
that falls within Stanly County,the following soil types are mapped:Badin channery silt loam,8 to 15 percent
slopes (BaD);Goldston very channery silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes (GoF).
No further archaeological investigations are required for the project within the area established as the current
APE. Should the project expand outside the archaeological APE,as defined herein,further consultation will
be necessary.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
As noted above,the revised APE is narrower in most places than the original APE when an archaeological
reconnaissance was recommended. Since the majority of the new APE is contained within the severely
disturbed ROW,it is unlikely that NRHP-eligible archaeological resources will be located within these areas.
Additionally,the proposed locations for new ROW and utility easements are located in areas that are
dramatically sloped and are also unlikely to contain NRHP-eligible archaeological resources.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) n Previous Survey Info n Photos (Correspondence
® Other: soil map;preliminary design.
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED
March 14,2017
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED"form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 6