20191316 Ver 1_BR-0122 CE CHECKLIST FINAL_20191001

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE541 D1 B-DD8D-4607-A3FA-88D4B89F7051
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form
STIP Project No.
WBS Element
Federal Project No.
A. Project Description:
BR-0122
67122.1.1
N/A
This project replaces Sampson County Bridge No. 348 on SR 1703 over
Beaverdam Creek. The bridge will be replaced on the existing alignment
while detouring traffic offsite (see Figure 1).
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 348 has a
sufficiency rating of 73.86 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. Priority
maintenance was recently performed including repairs to Bent 1.
The superstructure and substructure of Bridge No. 348 have timber
elements that are fifty-seven years old. Timber components have a typical
life expectancy between 40 to 50 years due to the natural deterioration rate
of wood. Rehabilitation of a timber structure is generally practical only when
a few elements are damaged or prematurely deteriorated. However, past a
certain degree of deterioration, most timber elements become impractical to
maintain and upon eligibility are programmed for replacement. Timber
components of Bridge No. 348 are experiencing an increasing degree of
deterioration that can no longer be addressed by reasonable maintenance
activities, therefore the bridge is approaching the end of its useful life.
The replacement of Bridge No. 348 is part of the Growing Rural Economy
and Agriculture through Transportation and Technology Enhancement or
Replacement in North Carolina (GREATTER-NC) Project under the United
States Department of Transportation's 2018 Better Utilizing Investments to
Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant program. The purpose of the grant
and this bridge replacement project is to provide transportation
infrastructure to support economic development and improve physical and
digital connectivity in rural communities in North Carolina. The posted
weight restriction on Bridge No. 348 prohibits large or heavy vehicles,
typically used in transporting agricultural and manufactured products, from
using the bridge. Vehicles above the posted weight must detour 2.0 miles to
avoid the bridge. Replacing the existing bridge will eliminate posted weight
limits by providing a safe crossing for all legal loads and will make
accommodations for broadband installation in order to support economic
competitiveness.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE541 D1 B-DD8D-4607-A3FA-88D4B89F7051
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
Type IA
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:
Offsite Detour (Preferred): Traffic will be detoured offsite during the
construction period. The offsite detour includes SR 1704 and US 13.
Sampson County Schools Transportation responded that the offsite detour
route would have a moderate impact on their operations. Sampson County
Emergency Services did not respond to a request for comment. The
condition of all roads, bridges, and intersections are acceptable without
improvement and Division 3 concurs with the use of the detour.
Design Issues:
Traffic Current — 110 vpd, TTST - 3%, Dual — 3%
Rural Local Route — Sub Regional Tier Guidelines
Design Speed — 55 mph
No Design Exceptions Required
Estimated Costs:
The estimated costs are as follows:
R/W: $ 3,000
Const: $ 775,000
Total: $ 778,000
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: This portion of SR 1703 is a
part of the Mountains -to -Sea -Trail. It is not listed in the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as a bicycle project. The Town of Newton
Grove nor Sampson County do not have current plans to improve the facility.
Per recommendation from the NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Division and
concurrence from NCDOT Division Three a minimum 4' shoulder on the
bridge and a minimum 4' paved shoulder on the approaches will be
implemented to accommodate bicycles.
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements:
A Nationwide permit 3 will likely be required for impacts to "Waters of the
United States" resulting from this project. Other permits that may apply
include a NWP No. 12 for utility relocations. In addition, an NCDWQ Section
401 Water Quality General Certification (GC) may be required prior to the
issuance of a Section 404 Permit. Other required 401 certifications may
include a GC 4133 for utility relocations. The USACE holds the final
discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project construction.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE541 D1 B-DD8D-4607-A3FA-88D4B89F7051
Typical Section for Bridge:
1
4'-5"
4'-5"
42"
GRADE
POINT
CONCRETEF
BARRIER
42"
RAIL
CONCRETE
BARRIER
0.04,
0.04,
RAIL
24" CORED SLAB BRIDGE (11 UNITS)
Public Involvement:
A newsletter was sent to all property owners affected directly by this project.
Property owners were invited to comment. No comments have been received to
date.
F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:
Type I & II - Ground Disturbing Actions
Yes
No
FHWA APPROVAL ACTIVITIES THRESHOLD CRITERIA
(FHWA Signature Required If "Yes" Selected)
If the proposed improvement (identified above in Sections C & D) is a:
• Type I Action for #s 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, Wor 30; Wor
• Type II Action
then answer the threshold criteria questions (below) and questions 8 - 31 for ground disturbing actions.
In addition, if any of questions 1-7 are marked "yes" then the CE will require FHWA approval.
1
Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)?
2
Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)?
3
Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any
reason, following appropriate public involvement?

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE541D1B-DD8D-4607-A3FA-88D4B89F7051
4
Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to
❑
low-income and/or minority populations?
5
Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a
❑
substantial amount of right of way acquisition?
6
Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval?
❑
❑X
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a
7
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic
❑
Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic
Landmark (NHL)?
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
or less for listed species, or designated critical habitat under Section 7 of the
❑
❑X
Endangered Species Act (ESA)?
9
Does the project impact anadromous fish?
❑
0
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
❑
0
mountain trout streams?
12
Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual
❑
Section 404 Permit?
13
Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
❑
Commission FERC licensed facility?
Does the project include a Section 106 of the NHPA effects determination
14
other than a no effect, including archaeological remains? Are there project
❑
0
commitments identified?
Other Considerations (continued)
Yes
No
15
Does the project involve hazardous materials and landfills?
❑
0
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
❑
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?
❑
0
19
Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a
❑
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area?
20
Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources?
❑
0
21
Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
❑
USFWS, etc.) or Tribal Lands?

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE541D1B-DD8D-4607-A3FA-88D4B89F7051
22
Does the project involve any changes in access control?
❑
❑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
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the Metropolitan Planning
25
Organization's (MPO's) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (where
❑
❑X
applicable)?
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
26
Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley
❑
Authority (TVA), Tribal Lands, 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)?
❑
0
29
Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy?
❑
0
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
❑
0
affected the project decision?
G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F
Question 1 — Endangered Species: The US Fish and Wildlife Service has
developed a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) in conjunction with the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and
NCDOT for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis) in eastern
North Carolina. The PBO covers the entire NCDOT program in Divisions 1-8,
including all NCDOT projects and activities. The programmatic determination for
NLEB for the NCDOT program is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect. The
PBO provides incidental take coverage for NLEB and will ensure compliance with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for five years for all NCDOT projects with
a federal nexus in Divisions 1-8, which includes Sampson County , where BR-0122
is located. This level of incidental take is authorized from the effective date of a
final listing determination through April 30, 2020.
Question 16 — Floodplain: This project is located in a FEMA Limited Detail study.
The project will result in a decrease of 0.1' in the 100 year Base Flood Elevation
and will be processed as a Type 2d MOA through North Carolina Floodplain
Mapping.
H. Project Commitments
See attached Project Commitments Greensheet.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE541 D1 B-DD8D-4607-A3FA-88D4B89F7051
Categorical Exclusion Approval
STIP Project No. BR-0122
WBS Element
67122.1.1
Federal Project No. N/A
C A RO!
Prepared By:
.........
�.`���.''S S•�
DocuSigned by: = i Q ��•• i
SEAL
7/15/2019
F�, �,nvuis _
" 022999
Date
Greg urvis, PE, Project Manager y ': F
'�,� N� 'S
Wetherill Engineering G;• I NEB; �.`
GS:;P�g
Prepared For:
North Carolina Department of Transportation Structures Management
Unit
Reviewed By:
7/18/2019
DocuSigned by:
li.�
Date
EU
evin Isc er, PE Assistant State Structures Engineer - Program
Management and Field Operations, Structures Management Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
7/18/2019
DocuSigned by:
�lnrmi�
Date
ii�43�."ffiarris, III, PE Unit Head - Environmental Analysis Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
❑- Approved e If Type I (Non -Ground Disturbing) Categorical Exclusion
"no"
with an answer of to question 3.
• If Type I or Type II (Ground Disturbing) Categorical
Exclusions with an answer of "no" to all of the threshold
questions (1 through 7) of Section F.
❑ Certified • If Type I (Non -Ground Disturbing) Categorical Exclusion
"yes"
with an answer of to question 3.
• If Type I or Type II (Ground Disturbing) Categorical
Exclusions with an answer of "yes" to any of the
threshold questions (1 through 7) of Section F.
• If classified as Type III Categorical Exclusion.
FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature
required.
Date John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE541D1B-DD8D-4607-A3FA-88D4B89F7051
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Sampson County
Bridge No. 348 on SR 1703
Over Beaverdam Creek
W.B.S. No. 67122.1.1
T.I.P. No. BR-0122
NCDOT Division Three — Offsite Detour
In order to have time to adequately reroute school busses, Sampson County Schools will
be contacted at least one month prior to road closure. Contact person is Vicki Westbrook
— Director of Transportation at (910)-592-3191.
Sampson County Emergency Services will be contacted at least one month prior to road
closure to make the necessary temporary reassignments to primary response units.
Contact person is Ronald Bass — Emergency Services Director at (910)-592-8996.
Hydraulic Unit — FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (IMP), 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).
Division Three Construction, Resident Engineer's Office -FEMA
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.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE541 D1 B-DD8D-4607-A3FA-88D4B89F7051
1702
s
Rosy Rd.
2 1649
o
��1$1
1700
348
0
A
cQe�
1703
a
9-a.
<°
G°°
1701
0
ova
1703
13
■
Newton Grove
1704
/ 1705
pop.637
�
1701
.83
13
0
PROJECT SITE
a
Sr.
�O
OFF -SITE DETOUR
BR-0122
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 810348
OVER BEAVERDAM CREEK
ON SR 1703
(OLD GOLDSBORO RD.)
SAMPSON COUNTY
WBS 67122.1.1
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 3
VICINITY MAP - FIGURE 1

�` ��" ��
Sri `!?

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE541 DI B-DD8D-4607-A3FA-88D4B89F7051 rrglecr i racnzng ivo. (tnte,nat use)
18-09-0080
►►�,� HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
i
' This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
i7 is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
BR-0122
County:
Sampson
WBS No.:
67122.1.1
Document
T e:
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
X State Federal
Federal
Permit(s):
X Yes ❑ No
Permit
I T e(s):
USACE
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 348 on SR 1703 (Old Goldsboro Road) over
Beaverdam Creek (no off -site detour specified in review request).
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
DESCRIPTION OFREVIEWACTIVITIES, RESULTS, AND CONCLUSIONS: HPOWeb reviewed on 23 October
2018 and yielded no NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Sampson
County current GIs mapping, aerial photography, and tax information indicate an APE of cultivated fields
and woodland, with several resources dating from the 1930s to the 1990s, all unexceptional examples of
their types (viewed 23 October 2018). Constructed in 1966, Bridge No. 348 is not eligible for the National
Register as it is neither aesthetically nor technologically significant. Also not NR eligible is the Lee Family
Cemetery (PIN: 11011781501), which should be afforded the usual protections during construction.
Google Maps "Street View" confirmed the absence of critical architectural or landscape resources in APE
(23 October 2018).
No architectural survey is required for the project as currently defined.
WHY THE A VAILABLE INFORMATION PROVIDES A RELIABLE BASIS FOR REASONABLY PREDICTING THAT
THERE ARE NO UNIDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC ARCHITECTURA L OR LANDSCAPE RESOURCES IN
THEPROJECTAREA: APE equates with the study area provided in the review request (see attached).
The comprehensive architectural survey of the county (1979; Tom Butchko, An Inventory of Historic Architecture,
Sampson County, North Carolina (Clinton: City of Clinton, 1981)) and later additions record no properties in the APE,
apart from the White Oak School, now no longer standing. County GIS/tax materials and other visuals
illustrate the absence of significant architectural and landscape resources in the APE. No National
Register -listed or —eligible properties are located within the APE.
Should the design of the project change, please notify NCDOT Historic Architecture
as additional review may be necessary.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
X Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Histo /cArchitecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
NCDOT Architectural Historian
Date
19
Historic Archiiecnnr, and Landscapes NO SURI7iY KF.O(Transportation Pro/eels cis 6lualiJied in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE541 D1 B-DD8D-4607-A3FA-88D4B89F7051
Project Tracking No.:
18-09-0080
oo NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM T
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not�rn
valid for Historic Architecture and Landsca es. You must consult se aratel with the ;; ,0)
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No.
WBS No:
F.A. No:
BR-0122
67122.1.1
Federal Permit Required?
County: Sampson
Document: MCC
Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description: The project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 348 on SR 1703 (Old Goldsboro
Rd) over Beaverdam Creek in Sampson County, North Carolina. The archaeological Area of Potential
Effects (APE) encompasses all areas of potential ground disturbing activity as depicted on the attached
GIS mapping.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
Permitting and funding information was reviewed for determining the level of archaeological input required by
state and federal laws. Based on the submitted "request for cultural resources review" form, the project is state -
funded with federal permit interaction. As such, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act will apply
and the United States Corps of Engineers (USACE) will serve as the lead federal agency. Next, construction design
and other data was examined (when applicable) to define the character and extent of potential impacts to the
ground surfaces embracing the project locale. For the most part, the APE was primarily designed to capture any
federal permit areas or locations of potential ground disturbing activity.
Once an APE was outlined, a map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology
(OSA) on Thursday, September 27, 2018. One previously documented cemetery is located directly adjacent to the
APE. The resource is located immediately west of Beaverdam Creek and north of SR 1703 within the northwestern
project quadrant. Avoidance of the resource during construction is recommended.
Examination of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), State Study Listed (SL), Locally Designated (LD),
Determined Eligible (DE), and Surveyed Site (SS) properties employing resources available on the NCSHPO website
is important in establishing the location of noteworthy historic occupations related to a perspective construction
impact area. A cross-check of these mapped resources concluded that none of the above properties with potential
contributing archaeological components are situated within or proximal to the APE. In addition, historic maps of
Sampson County were appraised to identify former structure locations, land use patterns, cemeteries, or other
confirmation of historic occupation in the project vicinity. Archaeological/historical reference materials were
inspected as well. In general, the cultural background review established that no previously recorded
archaeological sites or NRHP properties are located within the APE. Based on cultural -historical factors, the APE is
considered to have a low potential for the documentation of archaeological resources.
Further, topographic, geologic, flood boundary, and NRCS soil survey maps were referenced to evaluate
pedeological, geomorphological, hydrological, and other environmental determinants that may have resulted in
past occupation at this location. Aerial and on -ground photographs (NCDOT Spatial Data Viewer) and the Google
Street View map application (when amenable) were also examined/utilized for additional assessment of
disturbances, both natural and human induced, which compromise the integrity of archaeological sites.
Environmental/impact factors do not suggest a heightened potential for archaeological resource recovery.
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED "form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE541 D1 B-DD8D-4607-A3FA-88D4B89F7051
Project Tracking No.:
18-09-0080
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
The APE has a low potential for the recovery of archaeological remains based on soil data (wetlands) and
agricultural impacts. It is unlikely to contain significant, intact, and preserved archaeological deposits eligible for
NRHP inclusion. The documented cemetery, situated in the northwestern project quadrant, should be avoided
during construction activities. As currently proposed as a state -funded project with federal permit interaction, no
further consultation is advocated. A finding of "no archaeological survey required" is considered appropriate.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ® Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED
0-M&Ije-
NCDOT
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED "form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 2