20090136 Ver 6_More Info Received_20140710

Strickland, Bev
From: Smith, Cherri L
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 12:07 PM
To: Strickland, Bev; Maher, Niki
Subject: FW: SAW - 2013 - 01618: Dunn Creek Greenway PCN (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: EL- 5100AEDunnCkGreenway_approved PCE.pdf
Hi Beverly and Niki,
If you wouldn't mind including this email string for the 2009 -0136 v6 Dunn Creek Greenway project, I'd really appreciate
it. Thank you.
Niki,
I'm not sure how this project became version 6 since these impacts are new greenway impacts, but it's probably because
looking in BIM's there have been other Dunn Creek Greenway projects. I'll make it work by stating in the 401 /Buffer
Authorization that version 6 doesn't replace version 5. Ideally it would have received a new "2014" number. Is there a
simple way for us moving forward to be able to make this differentiation or would it require too much reading into the
application? Just let me know your thoughts when you get a chance and thanks.
Cherri
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Ed Hajnos [ mailto :ehainos @ecologicaleng.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:32 AM
To: Smith, Cherri L
Subject: FW: SAW- 2013 - 01618: Dunn Creek Greenway PCN (UNCLASSIFIED)
Cheri,
It was good talking with you this morning. Please see the email thread below from James Lastinger. In it he states he
will be permitting the project under a NWP 14. As requested I have attached a copy of the FHWA- approved
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) for your environmental compliance records for the project. Finally as we
discussed on the phone there will be no level- spreaders installed as part of this project. The statement on PCN page 7 of
13 (box 6i.) was erroneously carried over from a previous permit request. All stormwater outfalls will be stabilized and
flow dissipated using rip -rap dissipator pads. Please let me know if you require any additional information regarding the
project.
Thankyou
Ed
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Lastinger, James C SAW [mailto: James .C.Lastinger @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 9:19 AM
To: Ed Hajnos
Subject: RE: SAW- 2013 - 01618: Dunn Creek Greenway PCN (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Ed,

Yes I will be in the office. I just wanted to let you know that I will not be processing the Dunn Creek Greenway as a NWP
23. It will be a NWP 14. Other than that I haven't seen any issues with the project.
James Lastinger
Regulatory Specialist
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
ADDRESS: 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587
Tel: [phone], x32
Fax: [phone]
Regulatory Homepage: http: / /www.saw.usace.army.miI /WETLANDS
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at http : / /regulatory.usacesurvey.com /.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Ed Hajnos [ mailto :ehalnos @ecologicaleng.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 6:15 AM
To: Lastinger, James C SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: SAW- 2013 - 01618: Dunn Creek Greenway PCN (UNCLASSIFIED)
Hey James,
I am in the field this week delineating another greenway project. I hope to wrap up fieldwork today. Will you be
available tomorrow to discuss the Dunn Creek permit?
Thanks
Ed
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 22, 2014, at 2:34 PM, "Lastinger, James C SAW" < James .C.Lastinger @usace.army.mil> wrote:
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
> 11x17 will work
> James Lastinger
> Regulatory Specialist
> Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
> US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
> ADDRESS: 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587
> Tel: [phone], x32
> Fax: [phone]
> Regulatory Homepage: http: / /www.saw.usace.army.miI /WETLANDS
> The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at http : / /regulatory.usacesurvey.com /.
> - - - -- Original Message---- -
> From: Ed Hajnos [ mailto :ehalnos @ecologicaleng.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:37 AM
> To: Lastinger, James C SAW

> Subject: [EXTERNAL] SAW- 2013 - 01618: Dunn Creek Greenway PCN
> James,
> I hope all is well over there. It has been a while since we last discussed this greenway project. I wanted to give you a
heads up that we will be submitting the PCN within the next 2 weeks. All impacts are associated with the installation of
a temporary culvert to facilitate trail construction. Less than .02 acres wetland hand clearing and fill and 44 linear feet
of stream. The culvert and associated fill will be removed upon project completion. There will also be riparian buffer
impacts.
> I have one quick question for the submittal. Do you want the permit drawings in 8.5 "x11" or 11 "x17" format?
> Thanks
> Ed
> Ed Hajnos
> Ecological Engineering, LLP
> 919 - 557 -0929 (o)
> 919 - 622 -8016 (m)
> www.ecologicaleng.com
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
3

PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLILSION 'E
ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
F'or use by a Local Government Agency
TIP Project No. ---EL- 5100AE
WBS Element 41821.1.41
Federal Project No. STDPA-0527 (1 6)
A. Pr ect De�scrhtion: (include project scope and location, including
9
Municipality and (:ounty. Refer to the attached project location snap and
photos.)
The Town of Wake Forest (Wake County) proposes to extend the existing Dunn
Creek Greenway trail from the current termination point at the pedestrian culvert
under NC 98 Bypass (Dr. Calvin Jones Highway) to the north and west which will
connect the Cardinal Park and Deacons Ridge subdivisions. The trail will also
provide a spur that will connect with town property and the future Smith — Dunn
Creek Greenway.
The current Dunn Creek trail begins at the Smith Creek Soccer Center (Town of
Wake Forest Park) and terminates at the pedestrian culvert under NC 98 Bypass
(Dr. Calvin Jones Highway). The proposed new 0.3-mile section of greenway
will extend the existing l0 -foot paved path from the culvert and connect with the
Cardinal Park and Deacons Ridge subdivisions. The project will support bicycle
and pedestrian travel between residential, employment, commercial, and
institutional centers, as well as provide a connector to the downtown area by
connecting to the existing sidewalk network within the subdivisions.
The project corridor is shown in Attachment I and Attachment 2.
B. Purpose and Need:
This project is pail of the larger Dunn Creek Greenway corridor. The Dunn
Creek corridor was designated as a Phase I priority in the 'Town of Wake Forest's
Open Space and Greenway Plan Update (2009). The Dunn Creek Corridor
provides the key north/south corridor that will Connect Wake Forest with the 30+
mile greenway trail network along the Neuse River - providing connections to
adjacent municipalities which include Raleigh, Knightdale, Clayton, Cary, and
Morrisville as well as connections to the mountains to sea trail and east coast
greenway.
This new segment will add 0.3 miles to the northern portion of the Dunn Creek
Greenway. It will provide connections to Deacons Ridge, Cardinal Park and easy
access to downtown Wake Forest. It will also address drainage issues within the
existing pedestrian culvert.
Goals for greenway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities outlined in the `Town's Open
Space and Greenway Plan Update (2009) include:
Acquire, develop, and maintain a system qfgreenways and bikeways to
protect natural features, enhance the aesthetic character of'lhe Town,

create value and generate economic activity, provide viable alternative
transportation options, and improve health through active living.
• Provide safe, family friendly bikeways and walkways that connect to
various places in Wake Forest, including the library, schools, parks,
shopping destinations, and regional destinations, such as Raleigh, and
other parts qf'the Triangle.
• Provide maps, signage, and events to facilitate and encourage the safe use
qfon and qt
,fIroad bicycle and ped( ,strian,facilities.
• Improve connectivity andfill gaps in existing greenway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities.
The project is consistent with the Town of Wake Forest's Open Space and
Greenway Plan Update (2009), Bicycle Plan (2008), Pedestrian Plan (2006), and
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2005). Excerpts from the Town of Wake
Forest's Open Space and Greenvmy Plan Update (2009) are included as
Attachment 3 and Attachment 4.
C. Llroposed Improvements — Select ALL Activities that apply to the Project,
regardless of TYPE
Circle one or more of the following Type I activities:
1. Non-construction activities (program activities).
2. Approval of utility installations along or across a transportation facility.
­
Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities.
4. Activities included in the State's "highway safety plan" under 23 USC 402
(programs administered by the Division of Motor Vehicles).
5. Transfer of Federal lands pursuant to 23 USC 317 when the subsequent
action is not a FHWA action.
6. The installation of noise barriers or alterations to existing publicly owned
buildings to provide for noise reduction.
7. Landscaping.
8. Installation of fencing, signs, pavement markings, small passenger
shelters, traffic signals, and railroad warning devices.
9. Emergency repairs under 23 USC 125 (Governor Declared. Emergency).
10. Acquisition of scenic easements.
11. Determination of payback under 23 CFR Part 480 for property previously
acquired with federal-aid participation.
12. Improvements to existing rest areas and truck weigh stations,
13. Ridesharing activities.
14. Bus and Rail car rehabilitation.

15. Alterations to facilities or vehicles in order to make them accessible for
elderly and handicapped persons.
16. Program administration, technical assistance activities, and operating
assistance to transit authorities to continue existing service or increase
service to meet changes in routine demand.
17. 'The purchase of vehicles by the applicant where the use of these vehicles
can be accommodated by existing facilities or by new facilities which
themselves are within a CE.
18. Track and rail bed maintenance and improvements when carried out
within the existing right of way.
19. Purchase and installation of operating or maintenance equipment to be
located within the transit facility and with no significant impacts off the
site.
20. Promulgation of rules, regulations and directives.
21. Replacement of guardrail.
Circle one or more of the following Type 11 activities:
I Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
C. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
9. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
C. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f'. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
9. Improving intersections including relocation and./or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes

k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
C. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
d. Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
S. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-W*-way or for joint or limited use Of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.
11

D. Spggialj-�3rect �Iryform�atiow.� (Provide a description of investigations and findings
concerning Threatened and Endangered Species, National Historic Preservation
Act, Right of Way/Easements, Section 4(1--) and Section 6(f) as described in the
Local.Programs Management Handbook. Also include Environmental
Commitments and Permits Required)
Threatened and Endangered Species
Anoturu1 resources investigation was conducted iuthe project study area. Field
reviews were conducted in June 2013.A Natural Resources Report was prepared
in January 2V[4and im appended via separate cover. From this review, and
associated field investigations ahi0lOgiC4l conclusion of No Effect was given for
the project.
As of December 27, 2012, the United States Fish and VVi|d|Ke (USFVVS) lists three federally
protected species for and one species protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act Wake County. /\ 2>i0[0gicu[ Conclusion rendered based on survey results of
the study area call be found in the following chart. A brief description of each species'
habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey
results in the study area. Habitat requirements for each species are bayed on the-current best
available information from referenced literature and/or USFVVS.
Federally Protected Species Listed for Wake County
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald Eagle
BGPA
No
No Effect
Picoides borealis
woodpecker
E
Yes
No Effect
E - Endungered
@GPA— Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Dwarf wedgemusse|
USFWS recommended survey window: year round
Habitat Description:
In North Carolina, the dwmrfwedgemusse| is known from the Neume and Tar River drainages.
The mussel inhabits creek and river areas with a slow to moderate current and sand, gravel, or
firm silt bottoms. Water in these areas must be well oxygenated. Stream banks in these areas
are generally stable with extensive root systems holding soils in place.
Study area investigations conducted in June 2013 revealed that marginally suitable habitat for
the dwar[vvedgemusse| is present within UT Hatters Branch. This perennial stream channel
exhibits a drainage area of approximately 55 acres and the watershed is comprised almost
entirely ofresidential development. Although the channel appears relatively stable, there is
little habitat diversity for aquatic fauna. The baseflovv of the stream is approximately one-foot
wide and two inches deep. The bankfuU width ranges between three and five feet. Within the
R

study area, the channel substrate consists entirely of coarse sand. She investigations also
revealed the lower portion of this tributary lacks a natural connection with its receiving channel,
Hatters Branch. Rather, a small wetland area receives surface water from UT Hatters Branch
prior to its confluence with Hatters Branch; no channel exists between the wetland area and
Hatters Branch. The tributary flows across a wide area, perpendicular to the sewer easement,
and then over an armored (rip-rap) portion of the right bank of Hatters Branch. This
fragmentation of channel continuity prevents host fish migration into the tributary thereby
inhibiting the potential for mussel reproduction and colonization ofUTHatters Branch.
A June 3, 2013 review of the NC Natural Heritage Program's database denotes there are no
federal protected species known to occur within one mile of the project. The database denotes
m historic record for the dvverfwedgemusse| approximately 13 miles downstream in the Neuse
River. Otherwise, the closest viable population of the dwarf wedgemussel is in Swift Creek, more
than 35 miles away. No mollusk shells or middenm were observed immediately upstream,
immediately downstream, or within the study area. In the event stream or wetland crossing*
is required the resource will be spanned with a boardwalk. Given the marginally suitable habitat,
minimal project impacts, and existing barrier to host fish migration, Ecological Engineering
obtained concurrence with a "NV Effect" biological conclusion for this species on February 11,
2014.
(Picoides borealis) Red-cockaded woodpecker
USFWS recommended survey window: year round; November-early March (optimal)
Habitat Description:
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open, mature stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting/roosting habitat. The RCVV excavates cavities
for nesting and roosting in living pine trees, aged 6O years orolder, and which are contiguous
with pine stands at least 30 years of age to provide foraging habitat. The foraging range of the
RCVVis normally no more than O.5miles.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Marginally suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the red cockaded woodpecker exists in the
study area. Mature pine trees were observed in the residential subdivision north and west of
the study area during a cursory drive-by survey. Within one-half mile of the study area, a
limited number of pine trees greater than 6O years of age were observed. None uf these trees
exhibited evidence of KCVV nesting cavities. In the southeast and northwest sections of the
study area even-aged, evenly-spaced pine stands were found. As previously stated in Section
4.1.2, historical aerial photography indicates these stands were planted less than 2O years ago.
The upland forests immediately adjacent to and south of the study area (south of NC Highway
98) are also dominated by even-aged, evenly-spaced loblolly pine/Pinus &medo\ stands less than
2O years ofage. A]une 3,2O13 review ofNCNHP records indicated no known RCVVoccurrences
within one mile of the study area. The project, aspnmposed,wiUnotvemu|tintheremmva|ofpine
trees 3O years orolder. Given the marginally suitable habitat absence of known occurrences,
and minimal anticipated impacts, project implementation will not affect this species.
6

(Rhus Michaux'smumac
USFVVS recommended survey window: May-October
Habitat Description:
Michaux'soumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont grows in sandy or
rocky, open, up/and woods on acidic ordrcunnneutm|, well-drained sands orsandy |mmm soils
with |ovv cation exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy or auhmesic loamy
svva|es and depressions in the fall line SandhiUs region as well as in openings along the rim of
Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line, and utility rights-of-way; areas where
forest canopies have been opened by b|ovvdovvns and/or storm damage; small wildlife food
plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to moderately dense pine orpine/handvvoqd
canopies; and in and along edges of other artificially maintained clearings undergoing natural
succession. In the central Piedmont, it occurs on clayey soils derived from mafic rocks. The plant
is shade intolerant and, therefore, grows beat where disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing,
grazing, periodic fire) maintains its open habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for K4icham/saumac is present in the study area along the existing sanitary
sewer and roadside rights-of-way. Plant-by-plant surveys were conducted during June to
determine its presence or absence. Neither K8ichaux's sumac (8husnnichoux0 nor any other
sumac species were observed. In addition, a]une 3, 2013 review ofNCNHP records indicated
there are no recorded occurrences of this species within one mile of the project area. Project
implementation will not affect this species.
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of
open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within one
mile Vf open water.
Adeaktop-G|S assessment of both the project study, as well as the area within a1.13-mi|eradius
(l.0-mi|e plus 66U feet) of the project limits, was performed nnJune 3,2O13using 2010 color
aerials. Suitable habitat for the bald eagle does not exist in the study area. Existing and ongoing
development, highway construction and the lack of large bodies of water within one mile are
likely significant deterrents for the nesting and foraging of this species. No water bodies large
enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were identified. Since
there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a physical survey of the project study area
and the area within 66U feet of the project |imitsvvasnutconducted.Arm/iewoftheNCNaturo|
Heritage Program's database denotes that there are no known occurrences of this species
within one mile of the study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal
impact anticipated for this project, implementation will not affect the bald eagle.
National Historic Preservation Act
The project hVs been reviewed 6v North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, StatC0imtoric Preservation Office (NkCSHPQ). In their response
letters dated February 24, 2011° they have reviewed the project nud are uvv8re of
on historic resources which would be affected by the project (Attachment 5).
19

Permits & Environmental Commitments
The project corridor is located within the Neuse River Basin and is therefore
subject to the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules. These rules limit
activities within 50 feet from the top of the stream bank, and include specific
activities within the buffer which are exempt, allowable, allowable with
mitigation, or prohibited. Greenway /hiking trails are considered 'allowable'
according to the Rules.
The following regulatory permits will be obtained for the project:
• NCDENR — 401 Water Quality Certification and Authorization Cert.
• NCDENR — NPDES General Stormwater Permit NCG01000
• USACE — Nation Wide Permit 23
Right of Way & Easements
The Dunn Creek Greenway is located exclusively on one parcel. The Town of
Wake Forest has been working with the property owner to secure the required
easement for the project.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed. See Local
Programs Management Handbook for more guidance on how to answer these
questions.
ECOLOGICAL
YES
NO
(1)
Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource?
X
(2)
Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
X
(3)
Will the project affect anadromous fish?
❑
X
(4)
If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and /or temporary wetland taking less than
one -tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures
❑
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated?
X
(5)
Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
❑
X
(6)
Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities?
X
(7)
Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
❑
Resources (OWR) and /or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
X
(8)
Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
X

(9)
Does the project involve any'known underground storage
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and /or land use of adjacent property?
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
YES
NO
(10)
If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
X
(11)
Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
X
(12)
Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
❑
X
(13)
Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
X
(14)
Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
X
SOCIAL ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
YES
NO
(15)
Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
X
(16)
Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low - income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the ❑
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
❑ X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and /or land use of adjacent property?
X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, ❑
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
9

(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? — X _ C..._
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register offlistoric Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are F-1
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? Ed X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? 1-1 X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? Ll X
F. Additional Documentation Required for
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
A natural resource investigation was conducted at the project site in June 2013.
From this field investigation, and the report issued in January 2014 it was
determined that marginally suitable habitat for dwarf wedgemussel and red-
cockaded woodpecker is present, and that suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is
present in the study area. The report contains the following biological summaries:
Protected S
Listed for Wake Co
Alasmidonta heteroclon Dwarf wedgeTussel No Effect
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded wo
o
No Effect
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac No Effect
fro

Dwarf wedgemusse|
USFWS recommended survey window: year round
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Study area investigations conducted in June 2013 revealed that marginally suitable habitat for
the dvva|fvvedgemussd is present within UT Flatters Branch. This perennial stream channel
exhibits m drainage area of approximately 55 acres and the watershed is comprised almost
entirely ofresidential development. Although the channel appears relatively stable, there is
|ii1|e habitat diversity for aquatic fauna. The basefovv of the stream is approximately one-foot
wide and two inches deep. The bankfuU width ranges between three and five feet. Within the
study area, the channel substrate consists entirely of coarse sand. Site investigations also
revealed the lower portion of this tributary lacks a natural connection with its receiving channel,
Flatters Branch. Rather, a small wetland area receives surface water from UT Flatters Branch
prior to its confluence with Flatters Branch; no channel exists between the wetland area and
Flatters Branch. The tributary flows across a wide area, perpendicular to the sewer easement,
and then over an armored (rip-rap) portion of the right bank of Flatters Branch. This
fragmentation of channel continuity prevents host fish migration into the tributary thereby
inhibiting the potential for mussel reproduction and colonization wfUT Flatters Branch.
A June 3\ 2013 review of the N[ Natural Heritage Program's database denotes there are no
federal protected species known to occur within one mile of the project. The database denotes
a historic record for the dwarfwadgemusse/ approximately 13 miles downstream in the Neuse
River. Otherwise, the closest viable population of the dwarf wedgemussel is in Swift Creek, more
than 35 miles away. No mollusk shells or middens were observed immediately upstream,
immediately downstream, or within the study area. As previously described in this document
(see Section 5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts) in the event a stream or wetland
crossings is required the resource will he spanned with a boardwalk. Given the marginally
suitable habitat, minimal project impacts, and existing barrier to host fish migration, Ecological
Engineering obtained concurrence with a "No Effect" biological conclusion for this species on
February 11,2O14.
(Picoldes borealis) Red-cockaded woodpecker
USFWS recommended survey window: year round; November-early March (optimal)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Marginally suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the red cockaded woodpecker exists in the
study area. Mature pine trees were observed in the residential subdivision north and west of
the study area during a cursory drive-by survey. Within one-half mile of the study area, a
limited number ofpine trees greater than 60 years of age were observed. None of these trees
exhibited evidence of RCVV nesting cavities. In the southeast and northwest sections of the
study area even-aged, evenly-spaced pine stands were found. As previously stated in Section
4.1.2, historical aerial photography indicates these stands were planted less than 20 years ago.
The upland forests immediately adjacent to and south of the study area (south of NC Highway
98) are also dominated by even-aged, evenly-spaced loblolly pine (Pinus toedo) stands less than
2O years ofage. AJune 3,2013 review ofNCNHP records indicated no known RCVVoccurrences
within one mile of the study area. The project, as proposed, will not result in the removal of pine
trees 30 years nrolder. Given the marginally suitable habitat, absence of known occurrences,
and minimal anticipated impacts, project imp|ementatinnvviUnotaffectthisspedes.

(Rhus michauxii) Michaux's sumac
USFWS recommended survey window: May- October
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the study area along the existing sanitary
sewer and roadside rights -of -way. Plant -by -plant surveys were conducted during June to
determine its presence or absence. Neither Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) nor any other
sumac species were observed. In addition, a June 3, 2013 review of NCNHP records indicated
there are no recorded occurrences of this species within one mile of the project area. Project
implementation will not affect this species.
12

G. PCL Ap rqvql
TIP Project No. EL-5100AE
WBS Element 41821.1.41
Federal-Aid Project No. S_TDP_A_-527 (1 6)
Project Descriptioq. (Repeat all information from Page 1)
The Town of Wake Forest (Wake County) proposes to extend the existing Dunn
Creek Greenway trail from the current termination Point at the pedestrian culvert
under NC 98 Bypass (Dr. Calvin Jones Highway) to the north and west which will
connect the Cardinal Park and Deacons Ridge subdivisions. The trail will also
provide a spur that will connect with town property and the future Smith - Dunn
Creek Greenway.
The current Dunn Creek trail begins at the Smith Creek Soccer Center (Town of
Wake Forest Park) and terminates at the pedestrian culvert Linder NC 98 Bypass
(Dr. Calvin Jones Highway). The proposed new 0.3-mile section of greenway
will extend the existing I0-foot paved path from the culvert and connect with the
Cardinal Park and Deacons Ridge subdivisions. The project will support bicycle
and pedestrian travel between residential, employment, commercial, and
institutional centers, as well as provide a connector to the downtown area by
connecting to the existing sidewalk network within the subdivisions.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE I (A) NO BOXES Checked
X TYPE I (B) ANY BOX Checked
TYPE II(A) NO BOXES Checked.
'TYPE II(B) ANY BOX is Checked
FUTV "NUTIN
02/17/2014 Michael Taylor, PE
Date Senior Roadway Engineer
Stewart 919-866-4736
Company/Agency,'I'elephone #
NOTE: Form needs to be completed by either aProfessional Engineer (PE),
Biologist, Planner, or AICP
Prepared Para
I eviewed:
Date
Town of Wake Forest
,oval Government Agency
Project Dev. Sec on I-lead
NCDOT - PDEA
NOTE: NCDOT Review may occur at either PDEA or the Division Office.
Mark through non-applicable position.
A
rovers : For Type I(P) or H(B) -
__Upro I _9jects only:
1?-:-_-
L(
0* C". L
3 4
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
13