20191233 Ver 1_2017Version_C-5604-OD PCE_Signed Approved_20190913

A.
Q
C.
For use by a Local Government Agency
TIP Project No.
WBS Element
Federal Project No.
C-5604-OD
43714.3.8
CMAQ-0520(37)
Project Description: (Include project scope and location, including Municipality
and County. Refer to the attached project location map and photos.)
The City of Raleigh proposes to construct approximately 1.8 miles of
greenway along Crabtree Creek from Ebenezer Church Road at Umstead
State Park to the terminus of the existing Crabtree Creek greenway on
Lindsay Drive in Raleigh, Wake County, NC. Beginning under the Ebenezer
Church Road Bridge and tying into the Turkey Creek trail within Umstead
State Park, the greenway heads east following Crabtree Creek to the
confluence with Richland Creek. The greenway will then follow along Richland
Creek then cross over to tie into the existing multi -use path along Duraleigh
Rd. The trail will utilize this existing multi -use path as It heads north along
Duraleigh where the greenway will go underneath Duraleigh Road and then
pick back up following along Crabtree Creek to Lindsay Drive.
Trail construction will involve clearing and grubbing, grading, asphalt,
concrete, erosion control, retaining walls, signing, striping, bridges and
boardwalk. Five bridges will be used to cross Crabtree and Richland Creeks.
Purpose and Need:
Raleigh's Capital Area Greenway Master Plan was first adopted by City Council
in 1976 and includes over 270 miles of stream corridors identified for
protection and the development of a greenway trail. Sixty-three miles of
greenway trails have been constructed. This final segment of Crabtree
Greenway will provide a full cross city trail connecting Umstead Park to
Anderson Point Park and the Neuse River Greenway.
Greenway trails are consistently the most requested recreation amenity from
the citizens of Raleigh. Additionally, it has been increasingly a mechanism for
non -motorized commuting, resulting in decreased congestion on roads and
noxious emissions.
Proposed Improvements — Select ALL Activities that apply to the Project, regardless of
TYPE
Circle one or more of the following Type I activities:
2.
9
Non -construction activities (program activities).
Approval of utility installations along or across a transportation facility.
of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities.
Activities included in the State's "highway safety plan" under 23 USC 402
(programs administered by the Division of Motor Vehicles).
PCE-TOOL 1 June 2013

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.
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 II activities:
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
PCE-IDOL 2 June 2013

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
g. 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
g. 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
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.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-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.
8. 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.
PCE-1001, 3 June 2013

NCDOT PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (PCE)
ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
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.
D. Special Project Information: (Provide a description of investigations and findings
concerning Threatened and Endangered Species, National Historic Preservation Act,
Right of Way/Easements, Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) as described in the Local
Programs Management Handbook. Also include Environmental Commitments and
Permits Required)
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
As of April 2, 2015, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists five federally protected species for Wake County (Table 1). A brief
description of each species' habitat requirements follows, along with the
biological conclusions rendered based on habitat and survey results in
the study area. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the
current best available information from referenced literature and/or
USFWS.
PCE-100L 4 June 2013

NCDOT PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WE)
ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
Table 1. Federally Protected Species Listed for Wake County
:�,_ientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat
Status Present
Haliaeetus Bald Eagle BGPA No
�o 1
Not Required
leucocephalus
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's
Endangered
Yes
No Effect
sumac
Alasmidonta
Dwarf
Endangered
Yes
May Affect,
heterodon
wedgemussel
Not Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Picoides borealis
Red-
Endangered
No
No Effect
cockaded
woodpecker
Myotis
Northern
Threatened
Yes
May Affect,
septentrionalis
long-eared
Not Likely to
bat
Adversely
Affect
Bald eagle
Optimal Survey Window: year round; November - March (optimal to observe
birds and nests); February - May(optimal to observe active nesting)
Habitat Description: 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 1.0
mile of open water.
Biological Conclusion: Not Required
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area
within a 1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits,
was performed in September, 2014 using 2013 color aerials. There are no
water bodies large enough and sufficiently open to be considered a
potential feeding source within this radius; please refer to Figure 3.
Because there was no potentially suitable foraging habitat adjacent to
the study area, no nest survey was conducted. A review of NC Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) records dated October 2016 revealed no known
occurrences of this species within 1.13 miles of the project study area.
The proposed trail will utilize, to the extent practicable, existing
cleared corridors such as sewer lines and rights -of -way, avoiding tree
clearing in those areas. Due to the lack of suitable foraging habitat,
the lack of known occurrences, and the minimal impact anticipated for
this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect
this species.
Michaux's sumac
OSFWS Optimal Survey Window: May -October
Habitat Description: Michaux's sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain
and lower Piedmont, grows in sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic
or circumneutral, well -drained sands or sandy loam soils with low cation
exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy or submesic loamy
swales and depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well as in
openings along the rim of Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside,
PCE-100L 5 June 2013

NCDOT PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WE)
ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
power line,and utility rights -of -way; areas where forest canopies have
been opened up by blowdowns and/or storm damage;small wildlife food
plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to moderately dense pine or
pine/hardwood 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 best where disturbance (e.g.,
mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains its open habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area was performed in
September, 2014 using 2013 color aerials. Areas with an open canopy such
as utility line and sewer rights -of -way, old road beds, forest clearings,
and road edges were identified as potentially suitable habitat for
Michaux's sumac and targeted for field survey. A review of NCNHP records
dated October 2016 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1
mile of the project study area. Visual inspection of the project area
determined that suitable habitat is limited. Most of the open canopy
areas identified by desktop assessment were observed in the field to be
generally too moist to support this species, and were within the active
floodplain of Crabtree Creek. Plant -by -plant surveys were conducted
within potentially suitable habitat by two biologists on September 22 and
23, 2014, with the result that no specimens of Michaux's sumac were
located.
Due to the lack of observed specimens, the limited amount of suitable
habitat, the lack of known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area,
and the minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been
determined that this project will not affect this species.
Dwarf wedgemussel
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: Year-round
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the dwarf wedgemussel is known
from the Neuse 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.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The study area is located in the Neuse River basin. NCNHP records dated
October 2016 show the closest documented population of the dwarf
wedgemussel in the Neuse basin is located approximately 14 river miles
downstream of the study area in the main stem of the Neuse River,
upstream and downstream of its confluence with Crabtree Creek. The record
for this population is categorized as "historical". The record is dated
1951, and nomore recent information on the population is available in the
NCNHP database.
Marginally suitable habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel exists within
Crabtree Creek and Richland Creek within the project area. However,
within the study area, Crabtree Creek, Richland Creek and their
tributaries have been impaired by development, channel relocation,
channel revetments, and subsequent runoff and pollutants. Additionally,
Richland Creek is impounded upstream of the study area. Approximately 80
PCE-1001, 6 June 2013

percent of the contributing upstream watershed is comprised of suburban,
commercial and light industrial development. condition of these reaches
and habitats is further described below.
Crabtree Creek originates approximately 14 river miles west and upstream
of the study area in western Wake County, and flows north and east
through primarily residential and commercial areas in Cary and
Morrisville. The creek is impounded by Lake Crabtree approximately 5.75
river miles upstream of the project area, and then continues east into
the primarily forested William B. Umstead State Park and onto the study
area. The Crabtree Quarry, a long -running surface mining operation, is
located adjacent to Crabtree Creek within the study area. Stream
substrate within the study area is variable, with areas consisting of
primarily bedrock, cobble, gravel, sand, and silt. Baseflow within the
study area is approximately 60 feet wide. Downstream of the study area,
the creek continues through residential, commercial, and industrial areas
in Raleigh, to its confluence with the Neuse River in eastern Raleigh.
Richland Creek originates approximately 4.87 river miles south and
upstream of the study area in west -central Wake County, and flows north
through residential and forested areas in Raleigh. The creek flows
through the Carl Alwin Schenck memorial forest, and is impounded by a
small lake near Reedy Creek Rd., and then continues north through
forested areas and onto the study area. Richland creek reaches its
confluence with Crabtree Creek on the study area. Stream substrate within
the study area is variable, with areas consisting of primarily bedrock,
cobble, gravel, sand, and silt. Baseflow within the study area is
variable, but is generally between approximately 25 and 40 feet wide.
The greenway will be designed as a multi -use bicycling and pedestrian
trail. This type of trail is typically constructed as a 10-foot wide
asphalt path, with an aggregate base, and two -foot wide shoulders on
either side. Land disturbance for the construction of these trails is
generally 15 to 20 feet wide. The project will require two bridges
across Crabtree Creek and three bridges across Richland Creek. The
current design calls for bridges to be single span structures, with no
temporary or permanent impacts to the stream bed as a result of
construction. No stream bed disturbance will take place which could
affect mussels. Tributaries to Crabtree and Richland Creeks will be
crossed with boardwalk structures. Please refer to Figure 5 for a
depiction of measures utilized to avoid impacts to potential dwarf
wedgemussel habitat. Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled by the
use of silt fencing along the corridor. If land disturbance is required
near a stream, straw wattles and/or temporary rock silt checks may be
used to treat water from disturbed areas. Several factors including
drainage area, steepness of slope, and site -specific field conditions
will dictate the actual device(s) used for sedimentation and erosion
control. Due to the lack of proposed impacts to streams associated with
the current project design, a mussel survey was not conducted.
Given the nature of the project, the distance from known populations, the
degraded condition of potentially suitable habitat, and the avoidance of
channel impacts to be employed during project construction, the
biological conclusion for this species is "May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect". A letter from the USFWS dated November 21, 2016 is
provided, documenting concurrence with this conclusion.
PCE-100L 7 June 2013

NCDOT PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WCE)
ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
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 (Pinus
palustris), for foraging and nesting/roosting habitat. The RCW excavates
cavities for nesting and roosting in living pine trees, aged 60 years or
older, which are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age to
provide foraging habitat. The foraging range of the RCW is normally no
more than 0.5 miles.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area was performed'in
September, 2014 using 2013 color aerials. Areas which appeared to be
dominated by pine trees were identified as potentially suitable habitat
for redcockaded woodpeckers and targeted for field survey. A field survey
of the study area was conducted on September 22 and 23, 2014.
Additionally, a review of NCNHP records dated October 2016 revealed no
known occurrences of this species within 1 mile of the project study
area. All NCNHP RCW records within a 30 mile radius of the study area are
either historical records or RCWs have been documented extirpated from
these areas. The closest historical/extirpated RCW record to the study
area is approximately 11.6 miles away. Visual inspection of the project
area determined that most areas dominated by pine do not constitute
suitable nesting or foraging habitat due to the relatively young age
(under 30 years), dense spacing, and tall understory. An area
approximately 1 acre in size consisting of loblolly pines between 30 and
56 years old was found in the floodplain near the confluence of Crabtree
and Richland Creeks. A comparison of historic aerial imagery shows that
this area was bare of trees in 1959, but was forested in 1971; please
refer to Figure 2 and the attached aerial images. Although pines in this
area are old enough to be considered foraging habitat, the understory
consists of tall shrubs and lacks grasses and other herbs characteristic
of good quality foraging habitat. All areas of potentially suitable
habitat were traversed on foot by two biologists. No potentially suitable
nesting habitat was encountered, and no areas of good quality foraging
habitat were identified within the study area.
Due to the lack of nesting habitat and good quality foraging habitat, the
lack of known occurrences within 1 mile of the study area, the apparent
extirpation of RCWs from the surrounding area, and the minimal impact
anticipated for this project, Ecological Engineering is seeking
concurrence with a "No Effect" biological conclusion for this species.
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: June 1 - August 15
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the northern long-eared bat
(NLEB) occurs in the mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont
and coastal plain. In western North Carolina, NLEB spend winter
hibernating in caves and mines. Since this species is not known to be a
long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean mines are extremely
rare in eastern North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or where NLEB
hibernate in eastern North Carolina. During the summer, NLEB roost
singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of
PCE-100L 8 June 2013

NCDOT PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WE)
ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
both live and dead trees (typically 23 inches dbh). Males and non -
reproductive females may also roost in cooler places, like caves and
mines. This bat also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like
barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, in
bridges, and in bat houses. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and
ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings, over water, and along
tree -lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important habitat type
for foraging.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect (Incidental
Take Addressed by PBO)
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 NLEB 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 in Divisions 1-
8 is "May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect." The PBO will provide
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 Wake County, where
the project is located. This level of incidental take is authorized from
the effective date of final listing through April 30, 2020.
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
The project has been reviewed by the North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO). In their
response letter dated May 23, 2016, they have reviewed the project and
are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the
project. (FIGURE 7)
RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS
The City of Raleigh has acquired the majority of right of way for the
project. There are a few outstanding easements needed in order to
complete the project. The City will be following the Uniform Act as part
of the acquisition which is considered minor. The project will not
require the relocation of any families of businesses.
PARKS - SECTION 4(f)
This project connects Umstead State Park to the existing sections of
Crabtree Greenway. This greenway trail was identified in the original
Raleigh Greenway Plan in 1976 and again in subsequent updates.
Construction of the trail will be a recreational amenity for the City of
Raleigh and surrounding communities. In addition to the greenway trail
the City will be constructing a parking lot on the adjacent property
which will indirectly support users of Umstead Park. The trail and
parking lot would be considered an enhancement to Umstead State Park.
Representatives of Umstead Park have been involved since early on in the
design process of this trail.
LWCF & NATIONAL PARKS - SECTION 6(f)
The project will not have any impacts on 6(f) properties.
PCE-100L 9 June 2013

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
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
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
PCE-1001, 10
June 2013

NCDOT PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (PCE)
ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
(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
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ❑
roads, staged construction, or on -site detours? X
(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? NA
(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 of Historic Places? X
PCE-100L 11 June 2013

(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
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)? 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? 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? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Kesponses in Fart t
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided below.
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Response to question 2:
A natural resources investigation was conducted in the project
study area. Information regarding these investigations and
biological conclusions concerning project effects on Threatened
and Endangered Species are provided in the Section D.
Response to Question 30:
This project creates a recreational amenity for the City of
Raleigh and surrounding communities. The greenway trail creates
an essential regional connection to Umstead State Park, improving
connectivity on an already outstanding network of trails. The
connection to the park will be to Turkey Creek trail which is
located within the existing NCDOT Right -of -Way of Ebenezer Church
Road. Even though a connection will be made, no construction
will occur within the park boundaries.
Response to Question 13:
A CLOMR is being prepared of behalf of the City of Raleigh for
floodplain modifications of Richland and Crabtree Creek.
The following permits and authorizations may be required for the
project:
• USACE 404 permit
• NCDWR 401 Water Quality Certification
• NCDEMLR Land Quality permit
• Neuse Riparian Buffer authorization
• City of Raleigh
PCE-IDOL 12 June 2013

G
NCDOT PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (PCE)
ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
PCE Approval
TIP Project No.
WBS Element
Federal -Aid Project
C-5604-OD
43714.3.E
CMAQ-0520(57)
Proiect Description: (Repeat all information from Page 1)
The City of Raleigh proposes to construct approximately 1.8 miles of greenway along
Crabtree Creek from Ebenezer Church Road at Umstead State Park to the terminus of the
existing Crabtree Creek greenway on Lindsay Drive in Raleigh, Wake Comity, NC.
Beginning under the Ebenezer Church Road Bridge and tying into the Turkey Creek trail
within Umstead State Park, the greenway heads east following Crabtree Creek to the
confluence with Richland Creek. The greenway will then follow along Richland Creek
then cross over to tie into the existing multi -use path along Duraleigh Rd. The trail
will utilize this existing multi -use path as it heads north along Duraleigh where the
greenway will go underneath Duraleigh Road and then pick back up following along
Crabtree Creek to Lindsay Drive.
Trail construction will involve clearing and grubbing, grading, asphalt, concrete,
erosion control, retaining walls, signing, striping, bridges and boardwalk. Five
bridges will be used to cross Crabtree and Richland Creeks.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE I (A) NO BOXES Checked
X TYPE I (B) ANY BOX Checked
refer to Section E
TYPE 11(A) NO BOXES Checked
TYPE II(B) ANY BOX is Checked
Prepared By:
3/28/2017 Edmund F. Lynch, AICP
Date Name, Title
Stewart Inc. [phone]
Company/Agency, Telephone #
Prepared For: City of Raleigh, North Carolina
Local Government Agency
Reviewed:
ae 491
PDEA / NCDOT
NOTE: NCDOT Review may occur at either PDEA or the Division Office.
Mark through non -applicable position.
Approved: For Type I(B) or II(B) projects only:
Date �4 Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
PCE: IDOL 13 June 2013

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Crabtree Creek Greenway — Ebenezer Church Road to Lindsay Drive
Raleigh, Wake County, NC
WBS Element 43714.3.8
Federal Aid Project No. CMAQ-0520 (37)
TIP Project No. C-5604-OD
All commitments developed during the project development and design phase are listed below.
City of Raleigh:
Project requirement for PBO compliance: After project completion, the contract
administrator for construction must submit the actual amount of tree clearing reported in
tenths of acres. This information should be submitted at:
https•//connect.ncdot.gov/site/coiistructioo/biosurveys/Lists/NTortliern4%2OLon�,)%2OEare(I
°/u20Bat/Al l Items.aspx
C-5604-OD Commitment Sheet

andero
later
it Park n
I
Stud A a�f/��
A0 ��
1 �l
3 A D f^
r
`pox ,-1 / \ ) Inset: 1" = 10,000'
s° r SR 4225
82
S e\Ct OR
K Z
K w O N O\
r Stoner3dge q Study Area z
1440
oNpY WOODSD R �mv /9O/q ,\ �...�"'y ptp
Le end SR'304`1 sR) s
9 Study Area ��� NC 541 1 `y - '��6 SR 309 SR 1 ,28'
i
Prepared By: Prepared For: n
Fig. 1: USGS Vicinity Map
Crabtree Creek Trail
ECOL GIC L Wake County, NC
0 0 1.000 2.000
ENGINCERI�G S T E WA R T 2013 Raleigh West USGS Quadrangle �
...... ..,� .� .
r•=x,oao•

j
Crabtree Quarry, /
vSurface Mine -X 1
\ l
i r
'T r
Legend
Study Area
NOTE: NC Natural Heritage Program records dated
3 Mile Radius of Investigation - NHP Records October 2016 show no records of Northern long-
eared bats within three miles of the Study Area. The
0 5 Mile Radius of Investigation - Mines closest documented occurrence based on these
A Mines in 5 Mile Radius records is more than four miles from the Study Area.
Prepared By: Prepared For: Fig. 4: Northern Long-eared
N
Batlnvrestigations
W F.
Crabtree Creek Trail
&COL��GCA�f� wake County, NC S
NGIE I S T E WA RT Mlnesryl. f. G,y, L.kal Resources Data System. 0 4,000 8,000
1073 Bayleaf, Cary, lake Wheeler, Raleigh East,
.a.., w,,..m �.,�„�;.sn Raleigh West, SE Durham, and Wake Forest USGS ^=a,000'
Quadrangles shown.

Crabtree Creek Trail — Lindsay Drive to Ebenezer Church Road
Site Photographs — Taken September 2014
Wedgemussel Habitat
Wedgemussel Habitat
Habitat Bat Habitat

Figure 7 - SHPO Approval
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Maltz
May 23, 2016
Michael Taylor
Stewart
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27601
Re: Crabtree Creek West Greenway, Raleigh, Wake County, ER 16-0801
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Thank you for your letter of May 5, 2016, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review(o)ncdcr.eov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
PL� Wd�Wtt
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
' Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
November 21, 2016
David Cooper
Ecological Engineering
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Dear Mr. Cooper:
This letter is in response to your letter of November 10, 2016 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion that the proposed Crabtree Creek Trail
from Linsay Drive to Ebenezer Church Road in Wake County (TIP No. C-5604-01D) may affect,
but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasinidonta
heterodon) and federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myoris septentrionalis). In
addition, you have determined that the project will have no effect on the federally endangered
Michaux's sumac (Rhos michauxii) and red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). These
biological conclusions are submitted on behalf of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT). The following response is provided in accordance with Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The project will require the construction of pedestrian bridges over Crabtree Creek and Richland
Creek, and much of the trail will occur along these two streams. Although marginally suitable
habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel occurs in these streams, the streams are degraded by adjacent
urbanization. The dwarf wedgemussel has not been observed from either stream. No stream
channel work is planned, and potential sedimentation impacts to the stream appear to be
minimal. Given the nature of the project, the distance of the project from any known
occurrences of the dwarf wedgemussel, and the degraded nature of the habitat, the Service
concurs with your conclusion that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
dwarf wedgemussel.
The northern long-eared bat was previously addressed through a programmatic formal Section 7
consultation. The Service issued a programmatic biological opinion (adopted April 10, 2015)
which provides incidental take coverage for this species within NCDOT Divisions 1-8. Also,
based on the information submitted and other available information, the Service concurs with
your conclusion that the project will have no effect on Michaux's sumac and the red -cockaded
woodpecker.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind
you that obligations under Section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information

reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
itp&WIT
— Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Electronic copy:
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Wake Forest, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC