20190225 Ver 2_401 Application_20210521

3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 1/19

Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
October 26, 2020 Ver 3.3
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk * below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Also, if at any point you wish to print a copy of the E-PCN, all you need to do is right-click on the document and you can
print a copy of the form.
Below is a link to the online help file.
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/0/edoc/624704/PCN%20Help%20File%202018-1-30.pdf
County (or Counties) where the project is located:*
Is this a NCDMS Project *
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Is this a NCDOT Project?*
A. Processing Information
Wake
Yes No
Click Yes, only if NCDMS is the applicant or co-applicant.
Yes No
This is any publicly funded by municipal,state or federal funds road, rail, airport transportation project.
Yes No
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 2/19
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:*
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?*
This form may be used to initiate the standard/individual permit process with the Corps. Please contact your Corps
representative concerning submittals for standard permits. All required items that are not provided in the E-PCN can
be added to the miscellaneous upload area located at the bottom of this form.
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?*
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:*
Pre-Filing Meeting Information
Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Yes
No
Nationwide Permit (NWP)
Regional General Permit (RGP)
Standard (IP)
Yes No
42 - Recreation Facility
List all NW numbers you are applying for not on the drop down list.
check all that apply
401 Water Quality Certification - Regular 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit Riparian Buffer Authorization
Individual Permit
Before submitting this form please ensure you have submitted the Pre-Filing Meeting Request Form as we will not be
able to accept your application without this important first step. The Pre-Filing Meeting Request Form is used in
accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section 121.4(a) “At least 30 days prior to submitting a certification request, the project
proponent shall request a pre-filing meeting with the certifying agency” and in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 3/19
1e. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
*
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
1f. Is this an after-the-fact permit application?*
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Acceptance Letter Attachment
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?*
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?*
Link to trout information: http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Agency-
Coordination/Trout.aspx
121.5(b)(7), and (c)(5) all certification requests shall include documentation that a pre-filing meeting request was
submitted to the certifying authority at least 30 days prior to submitting the certification request. Click here to read more
information on when this form is needed prior to application submission or here to view the form.

ID#Version
Pre-fling Meeting or Request Date *
Attach documentation of Pre-Filing Meeting Request here:*
20190225 2
2/17/2021
DWR Pre-Filing Meeting Request Form.pdf 50.52KB
DWR Pre-Filing Meeting_30 Days Reached Email.pdf 178.42KB
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program.
Yes No
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
FILE TYPE MUST BE PDF
Yes No
Yes No
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 4/19
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
1b. Primary Contact Email:*1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
1d. Who is applying for the permit?*
1e. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
2. Owner Information
B. Applicant Information
James Mason, PWS
james.mason@threeoakse
ngineering.com
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[phone]
Owner Applicant (other than owner)
(Check all that apply)
Yes No
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:*
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Responsible party:
2d. Address *
2e. Telephone Number:*
Town of Apex, ATTN: Angela Reincke
(for Corporations)
City
Apex
State / Province / Region
NC
Postal / Zip Code
27502
Country
USA
Street Address
PO Box 250
Address Line 2
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[phone]
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 5/19
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
2f. Fax Number:
2g. Email Address:*
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[e-mail]
4a. Name:*
4b. Business Name:
4c. Address *
4d. Telephone Number:*
4e. Fax Number:
4f. Email Address:*
Agent Authorization Letter *
James Mason, PWS
(if applicable)
City
Durham
State / Province / Region
NC
Postal / Zip Code
27701
Country
USA
Street Address
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Address Line 2
[phone]
(xxx)xxx-xxxx (xxx)xxx-xxxx
[e-mail]
Please provide the Agent Authorization Letter if you are submitting this document.
Middle Creek_AGENT_AUTHORIZATION_FORM_Flat-signed.pdf 419.33KB
FILE TYPE MUST BE PDF
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 6/19
1a. Name of project:*
1b. Subdivision name:
1c. Nearest municipality / town:*
2a. Property Identification Number:2b. Property size:
2c. Project Address
2d. Site coordinates in decimal degrees
Please collect site coordinates in decimal degrees. Use between 4-6 digits (unless you are using a survey-grade GPS
device) after the decimal place as appropriate, based on how the location was determined. (For example, most mobile
phones with GPS provide locational precision in decimal degrees to map coordinates to 5 or 6 digits after the decimal
place.)
Latitude:*Longitude:*
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Town of Apex - Phase I, Middle Creek Greenway -
Miramonte to Holly Springs Connector
(if appropriate)
near Sunset Hills
Apex
2. Project Identification
(tax PIN or parcel ID)
0750129771, 0750221956
(in acres)
2.73
City State / Province / Region
Postal / Zip Code Country
Street Address
Address Line 2
35.681393
ex: 34.208504
-78.825405
-77.796371
Middle Creek
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 7/19
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
Surface Water Lookup
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.*
River Basin Lookup
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the
time of this application:*
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the
past?*
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the
location of the project site. (for DWR)
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map
depicting the project site. (for DWR)
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
C; NSW
Neuse
030202010901
The project study area consists of forested areas and maintained utility easements. Land use in the vicinity of
the project consists of residential, commercial, and recreation uses, including the Holly Springs Greenway
Trial directly across Sunset Lake Rd from the project.
Yes No Unknown
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
ApexGreenway_Permit_Fig1_Topo.pdf 3.04MB
File type must be pdf
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
ApexGreenway_Permit_Fig2_Soil.pdf 808.42KB
File type must be pdf
0.20
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 8/19
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
Comments:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
Corps AID Number:
(intermittent and perennial)
80
Phase I of the Town of Apex’s Middle Creek Greenway - Miramonte to Holly Springs Connector Project is
comprised of the greenway connection that runs between the northern right-of-way boundary of future NC
Highway 540 (Complete 540, also southern property boundary of the Reunion Pointe subdivision) to the
southern right-of-way of SR 1301 (Sunset Lake Road)/ the Town of Holly Springs border at Sunset Lake Road
in Apex, Wake County, North Carolina. The portion of the project that ties into NCDOT's Complete 540 project
(TIP Nos. R-2721 A/B, R-2828) has been permitted and will be constructed by NCDOT.
The project intends to construct a 0.34-mile-long greenway that will disturb 1.55 acres of lands. Drainage area
impacts will be minimized and be maintained as close to preconstruction conditions as possible. There are
currently no stormwater treatment devices, and none are being proposed. There is one stream crossing
location that will require a new pipe crossing, which will cause a stream impact. All stream impacts will be
kept within the limits of disturbance during construction. Additionally, an equalizer pipe will be constructed
where a wetland is being crossed. The fill slopes and erosion and sediment control devices have been
minimized to reduce impacts within buffer zones and wetlands to the greatest extent practical. A portion of this
greenway is within the Complete 540 right-of-way and has been permitted by and will be constructed by
NCDOT; the remainder of the greenway will be constructed by the Town. Equipment to be used will include
typical construction equipment, such as trucks and dozers.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Apex Greenway_Permit Drawings_FINAL.pdf 2.59MB
10. C-9 Details.pdf 491.45KB
File type must be pdf
Yes No Unknown
Preliminary Approved Not Verified Unknown N/A
Example: SAW-2017-99999
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 9/19
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant
Company:
Other:
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
7b. If yes, explain.
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to
authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity? This includes other separate and distant
crossing for linear projects that require Department of the Army authorization but don’t require pre-
construction notification.
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
Nathan Howell, PWS
Three Oaks Engineering
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Apex Greenway_PJD_March 2021.pdf 5.54MB
File type must be PDF
Yes No
This is Phase 1 of the Town’s Middle Creek Greenway plan. Additional sections of greenway will be built in the
future as funding allows. As noted, NCDOT is building a portion of the greenway as part of Complete 540.
Since they have already started construction on the I-540 project, they may complete their portion of the
greenway before the Town completes theirs.
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
Wetlands Streams-tributaries Buffers
Open Waters Pond Construction
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 10/19
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland
area impacted.
"W." will be used in the table below to represent the word "wetland".
2a. Site
#*(?)
2a1 Reason *
(?)
2b. Impact
type *(?)
2c. Type of W.*2d. W. name *2e.
Forested *
2f. Type of
Jurisdicition *
(?)
2g.
Impact
area *
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
1 Greenway -
Fill
P Headwater Forest WE Yes Both 0.005
(acres)
1 Greenway -
Mech
Clearing
P Headwater Forest WE Yes Both 0.000
(acres)
2 Greenway -
Fill
P Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
WN (540)Yes Both 0.050
(acres)
2 Greenway -
Mech
Clearing
P Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
WN (540)Yes Both 0.004
(acres)
4 Greenway -
Fill
P Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
WL (540)Yes Both 0.010
(acres)
4 Greenway -
Mech
Clearing
P Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
WL (540)Yes Both 0.002
(acres)
5 Greenway -
Fill
P Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
WL (540)Yes Both 0.010
(acres)
5 Greenway -
Mech
Clearing
P Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
WL (540)Yes Both 0.003
(acres)
0.000
0.084
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 11/19
2g. Total Wetland Impact
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on
the site, then complete this question for all stream sites impacted.
"S." will be used in the table below to represent the word "stream".
3a. Reason for
impact *(?)
3b.Impact
type *
3c. Type of
impact *3d. S. name *3e. Stream
Type *(?)
3f. Type of
Jurisdiction *
3g. S.
width *
3h.
Impact
length *
S1
S2
** All Perennial or Intermittent streams must be verified by DWR or delegated local government.
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
0.084
Mechanized clearing of Site 1 is 12 square feet, which is 0.00027 acre. Difference in
summary table here and in permit drawings is due to rounding. Impacts to wetlands
delineated as part of I-540 shown above are only those that are unique to the Town's
greenway construction. All other impacts to those wetlands were already permitted under
the I-540 permit and are not included in this permit application.
Greenway
Crossing
Permane
nt
Culvert SA Perennial Both 7
Average
(feet)
66
(linear
feet)
Greenway
Crossing
Temporar
y
Dewatering SA Perennial Both 7
Average
(feet)
8
(linear
feet)
0
66
8
74
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 12/19
3j. Comments:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWR)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. Individually list
all buffer impacts below.
6a. Project is in which protect basin(s)?*
6b. Impact Type *(?)6c. Per or
Temp *(?)
6d. Stream name *6e. Buffer mitigation
required?*
6f. Zone 1
impact *
6g. Zone 2
impact *
6h. Total buffer impacts:
Zone 1 Zone 2
Total Temporary impacts:
Zone 1 Zone 2
Total Permanent impacts:
Zone 1 Zone 2
Check all that apply.
Neuse Tar-Pamlico
Catawba Randleman
Goose Creek Jordan Lake
Other
Site 3, Allowable Upon
Authorization
P SA No 1,377
(square feet)
465
(square feet)
Site 5, Allowable Upon
Authorization
P Middle Creek No 44
(square feet)
1,701
(square feet)
0.00 0.00
1,421.00 2,166.00
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 13/19
Total combined buffer
impacts:
6i. Comments:
Supporting Documentation - i.e. Impact Maps, Plan Sheet, etc.
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:*
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction
techniques:*
1,421.00 2,166.00
Site 3 BZ 2 contains 3 sq ft of wetlands in buffers.
Site 5 BZ1 contains 11 sq ft of wetlands in buffers. BZ2 contains 878 sq ft of wetlands in
buffers.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Apex Greenway_Buffer Drawings_FINAL.pdf 6.9MB
10. C-9 Details.pdf 491.45KB
File must be PDF
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
Drainage area impacts will be minimized and be maintained as close to preconstruction
conditions as possible. There are currently no stormwater treatment devices, and none
are being proposed. There is one stream crossing location that will require a new pipe
crossing, which will cause a stream impact. All stream impacts will be kept within the
limits of disturbance during construction. Additionally, an equalizer pipe will be
constructed where the wetland is being crossed. The fill slopes and erosion and sediment
control devices have been minimized to reduce impacts within buffer zones and wetlands
to the greatest extent practical.
Erosion and sedimentation BMPs will be installed prior to construction. Construction has
been sequenced and designed to avoid/minimize impacts by locating temporary diversion
channels away from features. Water will be diverted around the work area to prevent
sedimentation of downstream aquatic resources. Impacts will be minimized by strict
enforcement of Best Management Practices for the protection of surface waters,
restrictions against the staging of equipment in or adjacent to waters of the US and
coordination with appropriate environmental staff.
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 14/19
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of theState
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
NC Stream Temperature Classification Maps can be found under the Mitigation Concepts tab on the Wilmington
District's RIBITS website.
*** Recent changes to the stormwater rules have required updates to this section .***
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC
Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. All buffer impacts and high ground impacts require diffuse flow or other form of stormwater treatment. If
the project is subject to a state implemented riparian buffer protection program, include a plan that fully
documents how diffuse flow will be maintained.
All Stormwater Control Measures (SCM)s must be designed in accordance with the NC Stormwater Design
Manual. Associated supplement forms and other documentation shall be provided.
What type of SCM are you providing?
For a list of options to meet the diffuse flow requirements, click here.
Yes No
Since the proposed impacts are minimal (<0.10 ac. wetland impacts and 150 linear feet of stream),
compensatory mitigation is not proposed at this time. However, if either USACE or NCDWR require mitigation,
the Town will pursue mitigation through NCDMS.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required
by DWR)
Yes No
Level Spreader
Vegetated Conveyance (lower SHWT)
Wetland Swale (higher SHWT)
Other SCM that removes minimum 30% nitrogen
Proposed project will not create concentrated stormwater flow through the buffer
(check all that apply)
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 15/19
Diffuse Flow Documentation
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT’s Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?*
To look up low density requirement click here 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2).
Comments:
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?*
1b. If you answered “yes” to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document
pursuant to the requirements of the National or State (North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
*
1c. If you answered “yes” to the above, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House?
(If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.)*
NEPA or SEPA Final Approval Letter
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
File type must be PDF
Yes No
Yes No
G. Supplementary Information
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
_C540_FEIS_Dec_21_2017_online.pdf 25.9MB
FILE TYPE MUST BE PDF
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 16/19
( q )
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland
Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC
2B .0200)?*
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
3b. If you answered “no,” provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (CorpsRequirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?*
Yes No
Yes No
The proposed project an existing stretch of greenway, which is a minor project that is not
anticipated to result in additional development. The undeveloped areas surrounding the
project area consist of Middle Creek and its floodplain, so there is not opportunity for
development in the vicinity.
Yes No N/A
Yes No
Yes No
Raleigh
Yes No Unknown
Yes No
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 17/19
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?*
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?*
Link to the NLEB SLOPES document: http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NLEB/1-30-17-signed_NLEB-SLOPES&apps.pdf
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?**
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by
machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?*
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or
Designated Critical Habitat?*
Consultation Documentation Upload
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
Link to the State Historic Preservation Office Historic Properties Map (does not include archaeological data:
http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
IPAC; A Self-Certification Package was submitted to USFWS on 3/26/2021. An email
from USFWS confirming receipt was received and is attached. The project is not located
within a green highlighted county or red HUC for NLEB.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Town of Apex_Middle Creek Greenway_USFWS Self-Certiciation P…3.49MB
USFWS Self Certification_Receipt Email.pdf 121.61KB
File type must be PDF
Yes No
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 18/19
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as
having historic or cultural preservation status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties
significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)?*
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological
resources?*
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Link to the FEMA Floodplain Maps: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
Comments
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Yes No
HPOWEB, SHPO correspondence
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Apex_Greenway_SHPO_Response_No_Resources.pdf 290.75KB
File must be PDF
Yes No
A No-Rise certification is being pursued.
FEMA Floodplain Maps
Miscellaneous
Part of the Middle Creek Greenway is being constructed as a part of the Complete 540 (I-540) Project. That
portion of the project is covered under the Complete 540 FEIS and has been permitted and will be
constructed by NCDOT. The remaining portion of the project, while publicly funded through the Town of Apex,
does not require an environmental document.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
File must be PDF or KMZ
3/26/2021 Submission Completed
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Form/Submit 19/19
*
· The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete
to the best of my knowledge and belief’; and
· The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401
certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
· I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
· I agree that submission of this PCN form is a “transaction” subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC
General Statutes (the “Uniform Electronic Transactions Act”);
· I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC
General Statutes (the “Uniform Electronic Transactions Act”);
· I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as
a written signature; AND
· I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:*
Signature *
Date
Signature
By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
James Mason
3/26/2021
DWR Pre-Filing Meeting Request Form
Contact Name *
Contact Email Address *
Project Owner *
Project Name *
Project County *
Owner Address:*
Is this a transportation project?*
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
Does this project have an existing project ID#?*
Do you know the name of the staff member you would like to request a meeting with?
Please give a brief project description below.*
Please give a couple of dates you are available for a meeting.
James Mason
[e-mail]
Town of Apex
Middle Creek Greenway
Wake
City
Apex
State / Province / Region
NC
Postal / Zip Code
27502
Country
USA
Street Address
73 Hunter Street
Address Line 2
P.O. Box 250
Yes No
401 Water Quality Certification -
Regular
401 Water Quality Certification -
Express
Individual Permit Modification
Shoreline Stabilization
Yes No
Phase I of the Town of Apex’s Middle Creek Greenway - Miramonte to
Holly Springs Connector Project is comprised of the greenway
connection that runs between the northern right-of-way boundary of
future NC Highway 540 (also southern property boundary of the
Reunion Pointe subdivision) to the southern right-of-way of Sunset
Lake Road/ the Town of Holly Springs border at Sunset Lake Road. A
portion of the greenway within the I-540 right-of-way has been
permitted by and will be constructed by NCDOT; the remainder of the
greenway will be constructed by the Town.
Please attach the documentation you would like to have the meeting about.
Signature *
Submittal Date
2/24/2021
3/3/2021
3/10/2021
pdf only
By digitally signing below, I certify that I have read and understood that per the Federal Clean Water Act Section
401 Certification Rule the following statements:

· This form completes the requirement of the Pre-Filing Meeting Request in the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification
Rule.
· I understand by signing this form that I cannot submit my application until 30 calendar days after this pre-filing
meeting request.
· I also understand that DWR is not required to respond or grant the meeting request.

Your project’s thirty-day clock started upon receipt of this application.  You will receive notification regarding meeting location
and time if a meeting is necessary.  You will receive notification when the thirty-day clock has expired, and you can submit an
application.
2/17/2021
1
Jim Mason
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 12:01 AM
To:Jim Mason
Cc:[e-mail]
Subject:Pre-Filing Time Clock has been reached for Middle Creek Greenway - 20190225 Ver 2
Attachments:DWR Pre-Filing Meeting Request Form.pdf
The North Carolina Division of Water Resources has received the Pre-Filing Meeting Request Form for Middle Creek
Greenway that you submitted on 2/17/2021. The ID number for that project is 20190225, Version 2.  

Your Pre-Filing Meeting Request has now reached the 30 calendar days’ requirement and your application can now be
accepted.   

When you submit your application please upload a copy of the attached document in this email.   

This email was automatically generated by Laserfiche workflow. Please do not respond to this email address, as
responses are not monitored.  
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
0750129771, 0750139122
0750230303, 0750221956, 0750146262
LOT NO. PLAN NO. PARCEL ID:
s REET AppREsS: off the north side of Sunset Lake Road, between Stonecreek Dr
and Black Forest Dr/River Falls ❑r at the pump station
Please print: Town of Apex, North Carolina
Property Owner:
Property Owner: Contact: Angela Reincke, Parks and Greenways Planner
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
James Mason, PWS
of Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
(Contractor / Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
73 Hunter St, PO Box 250, Apex, NC 27502
Telephone: [phone]
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
�7 James Three oaks Engineering, Inc
/.�I��`�� AssiF ln:rk r�..�r� Mason W.��;„�,...�
Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
Date: 2/21/2021
Date: 2-23-7

1Figure
Topographic Map - Apex, NC 2019
Wake County, North Carolina
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation
Program, Geographic Names Information System, National
Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National
Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global
Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data;
Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State Humanitarian Information
Unit; and NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S.
Coastal Relief Model. Data refreshed May, 2020.
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:
¯
February 2021
17-017
NMSO JSM
0 300150 Feet
Project Study Area
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
2Figure
USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Map
Wake County, North Carolina
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User
Community
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:
¯
February 2021
17-017
NMSO JSM
0 15075 Feet
Project Study Area
USDA-NRCS Soil Survey
ChA: Chewacla/Wehadkee, 0-2% slope
HrB: Herndon silt loam, 2-6% slope
HrC: Herndon silt loam, 6-10% slope
NaD: Nadford silt loam, 10-15% slope
NaE: Nadford silt loam, 15-25% slope
Ur: Urban land
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
(Version 2.04; Released November 2015)TIP No.:APEX GWYCounty(ies):Wake Page 1 of 1TIP Number:Date:Phone:Phone:Email:Email:County(ies):CAMA County?YesDesign/Future:Year:Existing:Year:Aquatic T&E Species?NoComments:NoN/ANoN/ADeck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the General Project Narrative)(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)ac.New construction, no existing greenway on existing project [e-mail] Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer?Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?NRTR Stream ID:Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hr/day):Existing SiteProject Length (lin. miles or feet): ac.Surface Water Body (1): Class CNCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water BodyNeuseBuffer Rules in Effect:N/ANone10' greenway with grassed shoulders and a 30' crossingWaterbody InformationNCDWR Stream Index No.:Impairments:Other Stream Classification: Primary Classification: Project Built-Upon Area (ac.)NoneTown of Apex proposes a new greenway that begins at Sunset Lake Drive and crosses over Middle Creek. Apex Middle Creek Greenway is a new construction project. The project intends to construct a 0.34-mile-long greenway that will disturb 1.55 acres of lands. Drainage area impacts will be minimized and be maintained as close to pre-construction conditions as possible. There are currently no stormwater treatment devices, and none are being proposed. There is one stream crossing location that will require a new pipe crossing which will cause a stream impact. All stream impacts will be kept within the limits of disturbance during construction. Additionally, an equalizer pipe will be constructed where the wetland is being crossed. The fill slopes and erosion and sediment control devices have been minimized to reduce impacts within buffer zones and wetlands to the greatest extent practical.Summit Design and Engineering ServicesTown of ApexHighway Stormwater Program STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANProject Type:Address:General Project InformationAPEX GWYWBS Element:OtherWBS Element:Jason Patskoski, PhD, P.E.NCDOT Contact:1110 Navaho Drive, Suite 600Raleigh, NC 27609Contractor / Designer:[phone]Address:3/4/2021WakeApexRiver Basin(s): City/Town:1.3Typical Cross Section Description: Surrounding Land Use: General Project Narrative:(Description of Minimization of Water Quality Impacts)NoUrban Area with Residential Land UsesTributary to Middle Creek27-43-15-(1)0.0.34 mileProject DescriptionProposed ProjectNeuseNoneSupplemental Classification: Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)Wetlands within Project Limits?
PROJECT
BEGIN
PROJECT
END
VICINITY MAP
LOCATION:
TYPE OF WORK:
RIVER BASIN: NEUSE RIVER
MIDDLE CREEK GWY
0
0
0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
PROJECT LENGTH
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
LETTING DATE:
STATE NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
SHEET
1
DESIGN DATA
SIGNATURE:
SIGNATURE:
P.E.
P.E.
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
PROJECT ENGINEER
GRAPHIC SCALES
PLANS
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
ENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN09/08/990
00
04-MAR-2021 16:262017-135_hyd_prm_tsh.dgnhe.yangCONTRACT:SUMMIT PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
Prepared in the Office of:
PROJECT DESIGNERSUM MIT PROJECT:TOWN OF APEX CONTACTMIDDLE CREEK GWYFut
ure
N
C-540Sunset La
ke Rd Middle Creekof Apex
Town
GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND PAVING
PROJECT LOCATION
SUNSET LAKE DRIVE AND MIDDLE CREEK
TOWN OF APEX
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
V
FUNC CLASS =
MPH=
FIRM NO. P-0339
50 25 50 100
50 25 50 100
10 5 10 20
SUB REGIONAL TIER
www.summitde.net
Fax: [phone]
Voice: [phone]
Hillsborough, NC 27278-8551
320 Executive Ct.
N/A
LOCAL URBAN
TOTAL LENGTH PROJECT = 0.340 MILES
SHEET 1 OF 13
PERMIT DRAWING
Angela Reincke
P372
Rd.CNAD 83/ 2011
S
unset
L
akePineElmDr.Ln.Dr.BlackForestCo
lon
ia
lOa
ksKingsMonarch
B
irch
Dutch
27.1 LF 18" RCP-IV
68.8 LF 24" RCP-IV
30.3 LF 24" RCP-IV
34.3 LF 24" RCP-IV
FILL IN WETLAND
MECHANIZED CLEARING MATCH LINE -L1- STA 20+50 (SEE SHEET 05)2
380
330
340
350
360
370
380
330
340
350
360
370
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2010 21
SHEET 2 OF 13
PERMIT DRAWING
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'50'100'50'
CLEARING
DENOTES MECHANIZED*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*REVISIONS DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
www.altaplanning.com
NC License #P-1301
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/9904-MAR-2021 16:262017-135_hyd_prm_psh_2.dgnhe.yangDurham, North Carolina 27701
111 S. Main Street
Suite 100
p:919.484.8448
GR60" CONCSR 1301 SUNSET LAKE RD 62'
BST30" C&G30" C&GLOCATI
ONAPPRX DI
101520SITE 1
JB w/MH
2GI-D1015 20C
FC
CCCC
F
VC = 30'
PI = 10+48.09
EL = 357.43'
PI = 10+54.10
EL = 357.54'
(-)8.0402%PI = 10+60.07
EL = 357.06'
(-)1.5986%
PI = 11+07.43
EL = 356.30'EL = 351.05'STA 12+50 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADEEL = 352.33'STA 14+25 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADEEL = 352.05'STA 14+00 -L- LTDITCH PIEL = 351.55'STA 13+00 -L- LTDITCH PIEL = 350.43'STA 12+81 -L- LTEND DITCH GRADE2
.0%5.9%0.5%EL = 353.07'STA 14+50 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADE1.1%0.5%EL = 354.00'STA 15+50 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADEEL = 352.71'STA 15+21 -L- LTEND DITCH GRADE4.4%EL = 352.88'STA 17+25 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADEEL = 352.26'STA 17+50 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADEEL = 353.92'STA 16+50 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADEEL = 352.16'STA 16+82 -L- LTEND DITCH GRADEEL = 352.75'STA 17+00 -L- LTDITCH PI3.3%5.5%D0.5%0.54%EL = 351.04'STA 19+75 -L- LTDITCH SECTION CHANGE0.54%
PI = 11+88.20
EL = 352.35'(-)5.3833%
EL=357.34
-L1- STA. 10+34.59
TIE TO EXISTING
BEGIN GRADE
EL = 357.23'
PI = 10+36.59
EL = 357.34'
PI = 10+34.59
PI = 12+60.00
EL = 355.58'
PI = 13+79.73
EL = 352.34'
PI = 15+70.01
EL = 357.86'
VC = 170'PI = 18+20.09
EL = 352.61'
VC = 60'VC = 60'VC = 50'
(+)1.7193%(+)4.5000%(-)2
.7000%(+)2.9000%(-)2.1000%
(+)1.8303%
PI = 20+60.00
EL = 352.40'
VC = 60'(-)4
.
90
0
0
%(-)0.0888%
SEE SHEET 6 & 7 FOR ENLARGED PLANS
LEFT DITCHRFH
27.1 LF 18" RCP-IV
68.8 LF 24" RCP-IV
30.3 LF 24" RCP-IV
34.3 LF 24" RCP-IV
FILL IN WETLAND
MECHANIZED CLEARING MATCH LINE -L1- STA 20+50 (SEE SHEET 05)3
380
330
340
350
360
370
380
330
340
350
360
370
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2010 21
SHEET 3 OF 13
PERMIT DRAWING
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'50'100'50'
CLEARING
DENOTES MECHANIZED*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*REVISIONS DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
www.altaplanning.com
NC License #P-1301
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/9904-MAR-2021 16:272017-135_hyd_prm_psh_3.dgnhe.yangDurham, North Carolina 27701
111 S. Main Street
Suite 100
p:919.484.8448
GR60" CONCSR 1301 SUNSET LAKE RD 62'
BST30" C&G30" C&GLOCATI
ONAPPRX DI
101520342342343343343343
3
4
4344
345345345345
345
345346346
346
346346347347347347347347
347
347347 347347347347347347 347347347347347347347
348348348
348
348
34
8
348
348348348348
348348
3483
4
8 348348
3
4
8
3483483483483
4
8
3483483483483483483
4
9
349349
349
349349349349349349349
349
349 34934934
9 349349349349349349 349349349349
34934934934934934935
0
3
5
0
350
350350350
350
350
350
350350
350
35
0 350350
3
5
0
350
350350
35035035
0350 350350350350350350350350350351351
351351
351 351351351
351
351351352352352352
352
352 352352
35235235235235
2
35
2
353
353
353
353
353353353353353353 3533
53 354
354
354
354
35435435
4
3
54
354
354
3
5
4
355
355
355
355
355
355
355
355
355
355355355
35
5
355
355
356
356356
356
356
35635
6
356
357
357357
357
357357357
357358
358
358
358
358358
358 359359
359
359
359
35
9
359 359359360
360
360360360
360
360
360360360
3
6
0
360
360 3603
6
1
361361
361361
361
361
362362362
362362
362
36
2 36236
3
3633
63
363
363
363
363364
364
364364364364364
36
4
364
365
365365
365
365365365
365365365365
365
36536536536
5
365
3653663
6
63
6
6
366
366366
366366
366366366366366366367367367
367367367367367 367367368
3
6
8
368
368368368368
368
368368368368368368369
369
369
369369
369369
369
369 369370370
3
7
0
3
70
370
370
370
370370
370370370
3
70
3
7
0
37
0
370 370371
371
371
371371
371
371 371372372
372372372372
372
372
373
373
373373
373 373374374
374374374374
374
374
3753
7
5
375375
375
375375375375375
375
375
375376
376376376 376377377
37
7
37
7
377 378378378
378
379
379379379
379
379 380380
380380380
380380 380381381381381381381382382382
382
382382382382383 383383383384
384
385
385
3
8
5
386
3863883
8
9
389
SITE 1
JB w/MH
2GI-D1015 20C
FC
CCCC
F
VC = 30'
PI = 10+48.09
EL = 357.43'
PI = 10+54.10
EL = 357.54'
(-)8.0402%PI = 10+60.07
EL = 357.06'
(-)1.5986%
PI = 11+07.43
EL = 356.30'EL = 351.05'STA 12+50 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADEEL = 352.33'STA 14+25 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADEEL = 352.05'STA 14+00 -L- LTDITCH PIEL = 351.55'STA 13+00 -L- LTDITCH PIEL = 350.43'STA 12+81 -L- LTEND DITCH GRADE2
.0%5.9%0.5%EL = 353.07'STA 14+50 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADE1.1%0.5%EL = 354.00'STA 15+50 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADEEL = 352.71'STA 15+21 -L- LTEND DITCH GRADE4.4%EL = 352.88'STA 17+25 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADEEL = 352.26'STA 17+50 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADEEL = 353.92'STA 16+50 -L- LTBEGIN DITCH GRADEEL = 352.16'STA 16+82 -L- LTEND DITCH GRADEEL = 352.75'STA 17+00 -L- LTDITCH PI3.3%5.5%D0.5%0.54%EL = 351.04'STA 19+75 -L- LTDITCH SECTION CHANGE0.54%
PI = 11+88.20
EL = 352.35'(-)5.3833%
EL=357.34
-L1- STA. 10+34.59
TIE TO EXISTING
BEGIN GRADE
EL = 357.23'
PI = 10+36.59
EL = 357.34'
PI = 10+34.59
PI = 12+60.00
EL = 355.58'
PI = 13+79.73
EL = 352.34'
PI = 15+70.01
EL = 357.86'
VC = 170'PI = 18+20.09
EL = 352.61'
VC = 60'VC = 60'VC = 50'
(+)1.7193%(+)4.5000%(-)2
.7000%(+)2.9000%(-)2.1000%
(+)1.8303%
PI = 20+60.00
EL = 352.40'
VC = 60'(-)4
.
90
0
0
%(-)0.0888%
SEE SHEET 6 & 7 FOR ENLARGED PLANS
LEFT DITCHRFH
COIR FIBER MATTINGCOIR FIBER MATTING
35.8 LF 3@48" RCP-IV
EQUALIZER PIPE
36 LF 12" RCP-IV
BURIED 20%
PROP 3 @ 48" CMP
MECHANIZED CLEARING
IMPACT
STREAM
TEMPORARY
IMPACT
STREAM
TEMPORARY
MECHANIZED CLEARING
MECHANIZED CLEARING
MECHANIZED CLEARING
I-540
IMPACTED DURING
WETLAND AREA TO BE
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
GREENWAY CURRENTLY
I-540
IMPACTED DURING
WETLAND AREA TO BE
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
GREENWAY CURRENTLY
PI = 27+12.70
EL = 350.00'
PI = 27+94.85
EL = 351.29'
(+)1.5723%(-)0.0293%
VC = 60 VC = 60'REVISIONS DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
www.altaplanning.com
NC License #P-1301
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/9904-MAR-2021 16:272017-135_hyd_prm_psh_4.dgnhe.yangDurham, North Carolina 27701
111 S. Main Street
Suite 100
p:919.484.8448
MATCH LINE -L1- STA 20+50 (SEE SHEET 04)4
330
340
350
360
370
330
340
350
360
370
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2820
SHEET 4 OF 13
PERMIT DRAWING
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
CLEARING
DENOTES MECHANIZED*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'50'100'50'
S S SURFACE WATER
DENOTES IMPACTS IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
PERMITTED FOR R-2721
PERMANENT IMPACTS9' BST TRAIL25GREU TL-3SITE 2
SITE 3
SITE 4 GREU TL-3HW
GRADE TO DRAIN
(LEFT TO RIGHT LOOKING DOWNSTREAM)
NOT TO SCALE
EST TONS CLASS 'I' = 16 TONS
EST GEOTEXTILE = 24 SY
EST COIR FIBER MATTING = 13 SY
DDE = 19 CY
(LEFT TO RIGHT LOOKING DOWNSTREAM)
NOT TO SCALE
EST TONS CLASS 'I' = 17 TONS
EST COIR FIBER MATTING = 15 SY
DDE = 13 CY
EST GEOTEXTILE = 23 SY
W/ GEOTEXTILE
CL 1 RIP RAP
W/ GEOTEXTILE
CL 1 RIP RAP
1.5'
1.5'
KEY IN 1.0'
KEY IN 1.0'
1:1 OR FLATTER 1:1 OR FLATTER
COIR FIBER MATTING
1.5'
1.5'
KEY IN 1.0'
KEY IN 1.0'
1:1 OR FLATTER 1:1 OR FLATTER
COIR FIBER MATTING
W/ GEOTEXTILE
CL 1 RIP RAPW/ GEOTEXTILE
CL 1 RIP RAP
INLET TYPICAL US 3@48" RCP INLET TYPICAL US 3@48" RCP
EL=351.28
-L1- STA. 28+46.58
TIE TO EXISTING GREENWAY
END GRADE
EL=350.00
-L1- STA. 26+82.70
TIE TO PROPOSED NC-540 GREENWAY
BEGIN GRADE
EL=350.00
-L1- STA. 23+35.75
TIE TO PROPOSED NC-540 GREENWAY
END GRADE
PI = 20+60.00
EL = 352.40'
PI = 21+20.50
EL = 349.67'
PI = 21+80.00
EL = 352.35'
PI = 22+41.24
EL = 349.40
PI = 23+15.75
EL = 350.00'
VC = 60'
VC = 40'VC = 40'VC = 40'VC = 40'
(+)1.5723%
(+)1.5723%(-)0.0293%351.28(-)0.0888%
0.0000%(-)4
.500
0
%(+)4.5000%(-)4
.5000
%(+)0.5422%
SEE SHEET 8 & 9 FOR ENLARGED PLANS
SEE SHEET 10 & 11 FOR ENLARGED PLANS
SITE 5
0 TO 6'
VARIES
0 TO 3'
VARIES
0 TO 9'
VARIES
0 TO 5'
VARIES
COIR FIBER MATTINGCOIR FIBER MATTING
35.8 LF 3@48" RCP-IV
EQUALIZER PIPE
36 LF 12" RCP-IV
BURIED 20%
PROP 3 @ 48" CMP
MECHANIZED CLEARING
IMPACT
STREAM
TEMPORARY
IMPACT
STREAM
TEMPORARY
MECHANIZED CLEARING
MECHANIZED CLEARING
MECHANIZED CLEARING
I-540
IMPACTED DURING
WETLAND AREA TO BE
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
GREENWAY CURRENTLY
I-540
IMPACTED DURING
WETLAND AREA TO BE
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
GREENWAY CURRENTLY
PI = 27+12.70
EL = 350.00'
PI = 27+94.85
EL = 351.29'
(+)1.5723%(-)0.0293%
VC = 60 VC = 60'REVISIONS DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
www.altaplanning.com
NC License #P-1301
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/9904-MAR-2021 16:272017-135_hyd_prm_psh_5.dgnhe.yangDurham, North Carolina 27701
111 S. Main Street
Suite 100
p:919.484.8448
MATCH LINE -L1- STA 20+50 (SEE SHEET 04)5
330
340
350
360
370
330
340
350
360
370
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2820
SHEET 5 OF 13
PERMIT DRAWING
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
CLEARING
DENOTES MECHANIZED*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'50'100'50'
S S SURFACE WATER
DENOTES IMPACTS IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
PERMITTED FOR R-2721
PERMANENT IMPACTS9' BST TRAIL2534
3
3433433
4
4 344344344
344
344 344344
344345345
345
345
345
345345345345345345345345345
345
345
345
345
3
4
5
345345
34534534534
6
346346
346
3463
4
6 346346 346346346
346
346
3463463
4
7
347347347
3473
4
7 3473473
47347 347347
347
347
3
4
7 347347347
3473
4
7347347 3473
4
8
348
348
348
34834834834834
8 348348348
348
348
348
348
348348348348348 348348349349349349
349
349
349
34934
934
9349
3
4
93493493493493493493
4
9
349
349
34934
9 349349349349349
349349349349349349349 349349349349349349349 349349349350350
350
350350350350
3
50
350
350
350350350350350
35035
0
350350 3503503
5
0350350
350
35035035035
0
35035035035
0
350350350350
350 350350350
350 35035035035035
0
350
35035035
0
3
5
0
350
3
5
0
35
0 35035
0 350350350
350350350350350350350351
351
351351351 351351351351
351351351351 351
351
351 351351351351351
3
5
1 351351351351351
351
3
5
1
3513513513513513513 51351351351
351352
352
352352352352
352
352352352352352352352352352352352352
35
2
3523523523523
5
2 352352352352352
352 352352352352
35235235235235235335335335
3
35
3353
353353
353
353
353
353353353354
354
354
3
5
4 354354
354
354354354 355355355
355
35
5
355
355355 355355355
355355 356356356356356356
357
357
357357357
358
35
8
358 358358358
359
359359359359359360360360360360
360360 360360360
360
360360361361
361361361
361
36236236
2362362
363
363
363 363363363
363
364
3
6
4364364
364 364365
365
365365365365
365
366366366 367367367
367
368
368
3
6
9
369 370
370370
371
371
372
372372372373373374374374
375375GREU TL-3SITE 2
SITE 3
SITE 4 GREU TL-3HW
GRADE TO DRAIN
(LEFT TO RIGHT LOOKING DOWNSTREAM)
NOT TO SCALE
EST TONS CLASS 'I' = 16 TONS
EST GEOTEXTILE = 24 SY
EST COIR FIBER MATTING = 13 SY
DDE = 19 CY
(LEFT TO RIGHT LOOKING DOWNSTREAM)
NOT TO SCALE
EST TONS CLASS 'I' = 17 TONS
EST COIR FIBER MATTING = 15 SY
DDE = 13 CY
EST GEOTEXTILE = 23 SY
W/ GEOTEXTILE
CL 1 RIP RAP
W/ GEOTEXTILE
CL 1 RIP RAP
1.5'
1.5'
KEY IN 1.0'
KEY IN 1.0'
1:1 OR FLATTER 1:1 OR FLATTER
COIR FIBER MATTING
1.5'
1.5'
KEY IN 1.0'
KEY IN 1.0'
1:1 OR FLATTER 1:1 OR FLATTER
COIR FIBER MATTING
W/ GEOTEXTILE
CL 1 RIP RAPW/ GEOTEXTILE
CL 1 RIP RAP
INLET TYPICAL US 3@48" RCP INLET TYPICAL US 3@48" RCP
EL=351.28
-L1- STA. 28+46.58
TIE TO EXISTING GREENWAY
END GRADE
EL=350.00
-L1- STA. 26+82.70
TIE TO PROPOSED NC-540 GREENWAY
BEGIN GRADE
EL=350.00
-L1- STA. 23+35.75
TIE TO PROPOSED NC-540 GREENWAY
END GRADE
PI = 20+60.00
EL = 352.40'
PI = 21+20.50
EL = 349.67'
PI = 21+80.00
EL = 352.35'
PI = 22+41.24
EL = 349.40
PI = 23+15.75
EL = 350.00'
VC = 60'
VC = 40'VC = 40'VC = 40'VC = 40'
(+)1.5723%
(+)1.5723%(-)0.0293%351.28(-)0.0888%
0.0000%(-)4
.500
0
%(+)4.5000%(-)4
.5000
%(+)0.5422%
SEE SHEET 8 & 9 FOR ENLARGED PLANS
SEE SHEET 10 & 11 FOR ENLARGED PLANS
SITE 5
0 TO 6'
VARIES
0 TO 3'
VARIES
0 TO 9'
VARIES
0 TO 5'
VARIES
30.3 LF 24" RCP-IV
27.1 LF 18" RCP-IV
FILL IN WETLAND
MECHANIZED CLEARING
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'20'40'20'
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/99DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
SHEET 6 OF 13
PERMIT DRAWING
6
www.altaplanning.com
NC License #P-1301
Durham, North Carolina 27701
111 S. Main Street
Suite 100
p:919.484.8448
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
CLEARING
DENOTES MECHANIZED*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
JB w/MH
2GI-D
O
O
O
CGREX P/L+06.84 -Y3-EX P/L+06.94 -Y3-SITE 1
C
F
NC GRI
DNAD 83 NA 2011
30.3 LF 24" RCP-IV
27.1 LF 18" RCP-IV
30.3 LF 24" RCP-IV
FILL IN WETLAND
MECHANIZED CLEARING
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'20'40'20'
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/99DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
SHEET 7 OF 13
PERMIT DRAWING
7
www.altaplanning.com
NC License #P-1301
Durham, North Carolina 27701
111 S. Main Street
Suite 100
p:919.484.8448
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
CLEARING
DENOTES MECHANIZED*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
JB w/MH
2GI-D
O
O
O
CGR346347 347 347347348
348
348
34
8
348348348348348348349
349
349349349349349349349
34934934
9
349349349349350350350
350
350
350
350350
350
3
5
0 35035035
0350 350350350350351
351 351351351
351352
352
352
35235235235235
2
352353
353
353353353353353354
354
354354354
355
355
355
355
355
355355356
356
356357
357357358
358
358359
359
359 359359360360
360
360360360 360361361 362362
362
363
363
363 364364364 365365
365
365365366
366366366367367367368368
368 368369369 370370370
37
0 371371 372372 373373 374374375
SITE 1
C
F 12" DI
PGRLI
FT STATI
ONSANI
TARYGATEINV=342.14'
INV=341.98'INV=342.91'INV=342.91'8" PVC
24" PVC
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'20'40'20'
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/99DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
SHEET 7 OF 13
PERMIT DRAWING
7
www.altaplanning.com
NC License #P-1301
Durham, North Carolina 27701
111 S. Main Street
Suite 100
p:919.484.8448
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
CLEARING
DENOTES MECHANIZED*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*NC GRI
DNAD 83 NA 2011NC GRI
DNAD 83 NA 2011
IMPACT
STREAM
TEMPORARY
IMPACT
STREAM
TEMPORARY
www.altaplanning.com
NC License #P-1301
Durham, North Carolina 27701
111 S. Main Street
Suite 100
p:919.484.8448
CLEARING
DENOTES MECHANIZED*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
TS TS
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/99DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
8
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
S S SURFACE WATER
DENOTES IMPACTS IN
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'10'20'10'
SHEET 8 OF 13
PERMIT DRAWING
PERMITTED FOR R-2721
PERMANENT IMPACTS
HW
SITE 2
SITE 3NC GRI
DNAD 83 NA 2011
IMPACT
STREAM
TEMPORARY
IMPACT
STREAM
TEMPORARY
www.altaplanning.com
NC License #P-1301
Durham, North Carolina 27701
111 S. Main Street
Suite 100
p:919.484.8448
CLEARING
DENOTES MECHANIZED*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
TS TS
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/99DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
S S SURFACE WATER
DENOTES IMPACTS IN
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'10'20'10'
SHEET 9 OF 13
PERMIT DRAWING
9
PERMITTED FOR R-2721
PERMANENT IMPACTS
HW
344
344 344345
345
345346
346347
347348
34834834934
9 349349349
349349349350
SITE 2
SITE 3NC GRI
DNAD 83 NA 2011
MECHANIZED CLEARING
MECHANIZED CLEARING
MECHANIZED CLEARING
MECHANIZED CLEARING
I-540
IMPACTED DURING
WETLAND AREA TO BE
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
GREENWAY CURRENTLY
I-540
IMPACTED DURING
WETLAND AREA TO BE
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
GREENWAY CURRENTLY
www.altaplanning.com
NC License #P-1301
Durham, North Carolina 27701
111 S. Main Street
Suite 100
p:919.484.8448
CLEARING
DENOTES MECHANIZED*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/99DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'10'20'10'
SHEET 10 OF 13
PERMIT DRAWING
10
PERMITTED FOR R-2721
PERMANENT IMPACTS
9' BST TRAILSITE 4 NC GRI
DNAD 83 NA 2011SITE 5
MECHANIZED CLEARING
MECHANIZED CLEARING
MECHANIZED CLEARING
MECHANIZED CLEARING
I-540
IMPACTED DURING
WETLAND AREA TO BE
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
GREENWAY CURRENTLY
I-540
IMPACTED DURING
WETLAND AREA TO BE
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
GREENWAY CURRENTLY
www.altaplanning.com
NC License #P-1301
Durham, North Carolina 27701
111 S. Main Street
Suite 100
p:919.484.8448
CLEARING
DENOTES MECHANIZED*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/99DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'10'20'10'
SHEET 11 OF 13
PERMIT DRAWING
11
PERMITTED FOR R-2721
PERMANENT IMPACTS
9' BST TRAIL345345345
345
345 345346346
346 347347
347347347348348
348 348349 349349349350
350
35035035035035035
0
350350
350 350350351351351 351351352352SITE 4 NC GRI
DNAD 83 NA 2011SITE 5
RIGHT TB
LEFT TB
LEFT TB
RIGHT TB
SLOPE = 0.005 FT/FT
3@48" CMP BURIED 20%EXISTING CHANNEL
PROPOSED GREENWAY
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION5/14/99SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
04-MAR-2021 16:282017-135_hyd_prm_psh_12.dgnhe.yangDOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
340
350
12
SHEET 12 OF 13
PERMIT DRAWING
STA 22+81 -L1-
3 @ 48" RCP BURIED 20%
HandExisting Existing Permanent Temp. Excavation Mechanized Clearing Permanent Temp. Channel Channel Natural SiteStationStructureFill In Fill In in Clearing in SW SW Impacts Impacts StreamNo. (From/To)Size / TypeWetlands Wetlands Wetlands in Wetlands Wetlands impacts impacts Permanent Temp. Design(ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ft) (ft) (ft)114+40 to 14+95 RTGreenway<0.01*<0.01**221+20 to 22+18 LT & RTGreenway0.05<0.01***322+63 to 22+96 LT & RT3@48" RCP0.02 <0.01****668427+35 to 27+81 LT & RTGreenway0.01<0.01*****528+08 to 28+47 LT & RTGreenway0.01<0.01******TOTALS*:0.08<0.01*******0.02 <0.01****668Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts***Greenway Mechanized Clearing in Wetlands = 165 sf****3@48" Crossing Temporary Stream Impact = 59 sf*****Greenway Mechanized Clearing in Wetlands = 76 sf******Greenway Mechanized Clearing in Wetlands = 117 sf*******Total Mechanized Clearing in Wetlands = 370 sfRevised 2013 10 24SHEET 13OF 13WAKE COUNTYSUNSET LAKE ROADTOWN OF APEXMIDDLE CREEK GREENWAY**Greenway Mechanized Clearing in Wetlands = 12 sf*Greenway Permanent Fill in Wetlands = 226 sfSTREAM PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARYSURFACE WATER IMPACTSWETLAND IMPACTS3/4/2021
5 '5 '
5 '5 '
Alta Engineering SE, PLLC
| altago.com | NC License #P-1301919-484-8448
111 E Chapel Hill Street, Suite 100 | Durham, NC 27701
C-9
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1
GRADE
POINT
GRADE TO THIS LINE
0.02
CJ2
0.02
T T
CL
2:1 MAXVAR SEE X-SECTI
ONS2:1 MAX
VAR SEE X-SECTIONS 2:1 MAXVAR SEE X-SECTI
ONSSEPERATOR FABRIC
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1:
-L1- STA. 23+35.75 TO STA. 26+82.70
-L1- STA. 22+40.00 TO STA. 23+35.75
-L1- STA. 11+07.38 TO STA. 21+50.00
'2 '2
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2
GRADE
POINT
GRADE TO THIS LINE
0.02
CJ2
0.02
T T
CL
2:1 MAX
VAR SEE X-SECTIONS 2:1 MAXVAR SEE X-SECTI
ONSSEPERATOR FABRIC
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2:
'2 '2
-L1- STA. 21+50.00 TO STA. 22+40.00
48" UNDERCUT WITH CLASS IV SUBGRADE STABILIZATION
J1 J1
J1 J1
2' GRANITE SCREENINGS SHOULDER MATCHES THE CROSS SLOPE OF TRAIL.1)
NOTES:$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$5/14/99SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.

DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED

ENGINEER
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
PROP. 6" AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
C
EARTH MATERIALT
NOTE: ALL PAVEMENT EDGE SLOPES ARE 1:1.
S
AVERAGE RATE OF 110 LBS PER SQ. YD. IN EACH OF TWO LAYERS
PROP. APPROX. 2" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SF 9.5A, AT AN
PER CITY STD DWG NO. 300.08
PROP. 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK
J1
J2
PROP. 2" GRANITE SCREENINGS

Mailing Address:
TOWN OF APEX
PO BOX 250
APEX, NC 27502

Telephone: [phone]

Website: www.apexnc.org
Physical Address:
73 HUNTER STREET
APEX, NC 27502

March 10, 2021

United States Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587

SUBJECT: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package for the following Town of Apex
project: Phase I, Middle Creek Greenway - Miramonte to Holly Springs Connector in
Apex, Wake County, North Carolina.

To Whom It May Concern:

Phase I of the Town of Apex’s Middle Creek Greenway - Miramonte to Holly Springs Connector
Project is comprised of the greenway connection that runs between the northern right-of-way boundary
of future NC Highway 540 (also southern property boundary of the Reunion Pointe subdivision), which
is currently under construction, to the southern right-of-way of SR 1301 (Sunset Lake Road)/ the Town
of Holly Springs border at Sunset Lake Road in Apex, Wake County, North Carolina. A portion of the
project within the road right-of-way is being built as part of the N.C. Department of Transportation’s
(NCDOT) Complete I-540 Project (STIP Nos. R-2721A, R-2721B, and R-2828). Below and attached
are a brief description of the project, figures depicting all features, and appropriate forms.

On August 1, 2017, June 4, 2018, and April 7, 2020, Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. (Three Oaks) staff
conducted site investigations (Appendix A, Figures 1 – 4). Three potential jurisdictional features unique
to the project (one stream and two wetlands) were identified within the study area (Tables 1-3). No
surface waters (i.e., ponds, basins, or tributaries) were identified. The portion of this project that
overlaps with Complete I-540 has already been delineated and verified as part of that project.
Additionally, some of these features will be impacted by the Complete I-540 project and have already
been permitted by NCDOT. Therefore, for the areas of overlap, the NCDOT delineation was used to
show the NCDOT delineation, pre-impact, and these features are symbolized differently on the mapping.
NCDOT features do not have a feature name associated with them. All features are located in the Neuse
River Basin (U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Determination forms (wetland and upland) are
included for each potential jurisdictional wetland. North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
(NCWAM) forms were not completed since no wetlands unique to this project exhibited characteristics
of disturbed, low-quality wetlands. A N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Stream
Identification form is also included for Stream SA, along with a North Carolina Stream Assessment
Method (NCSAM) form (Appendix B). A USACE ORM Data Entry form, USACE Jurisdictional
Determination Request form, USACE PJD Form, Agent Authorization Form, and a USACE Waters
Upload spreadsheet are also included with this submittal (Appendix C). Please see the following PJD
Package:

Table 1. Potential jurisdictional streams unique to this project
Stream Name Map ID
NCDWR
Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Bank
Height
(ft.)
Bankfull
width
(ft.)
Depth
(in.)
Unnamed
Tributary (UT)
to Middle Creek
SA 27-43-15-
(1) C; NSW 3-4 6-8 0-4

Table 2. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams unique to this project
Map ID Length (ft.) Classification NCSAM Rating River Basin Buffer
SA 80 Perennial Medium Subject
Total 80

Table 3. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional wetlands unique to this project
Map
ID1 NCWAM Classification NCWAM Rating Hydrologic
Classification Area (ac.)
WE Headwater Forest *2 Riparian 0.02
WF Bottomland Hardwood
Forest *2 Riparian <0.013
Total 0.02
1 Wetlands WA – WD and a portion of WE were within the area already delineated as part of NCDOT project R-2828.
Therefore, the NCDOT delineation was used and those wetlands were removed from this project’s delineation.
2 * – NCWAM forms were not completed for wetlands possessing characteristics conducive to them receiving higher mitigation
ratios and functional rating values.
3 An additional 0.02 ac. of this wetland was delineated as part of the Complete I-540 project and is not included here.

If you have any questions, require additional information, or would like to schedule a site visit, please
contact me at [phone] or by email at [e-mail]. Alternatively, you can also
contact James Mason at Three Oaks, who is the Authorized Agent managing the PJD for this project,
either by phone at [phone] or by email at [e-mail]. This is a
request for concurrence with our assessment. Three Oaks is submitting this request on behalf of the
Town. We appreciate your assistance on this project.

Sincerely,

Angela Reincke
Parks and Greenways Planner
Town of Apex Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources

Cc: NCDWR Raleigh Regional Office
For James
Mason
Digitally signed by
James Mason
Date: 2021.03.05
11:59:26 -05'00'

Appendix A

Figures
1Figure
Vicinity Map
Wake County, North Carolina
Storemon t W ay
FountainSpringsRdArborCreek Dr
Str
aywhite
A
v
e
Reunion
WoodsTrlWil
l
i
amsSt Gallent Hedge TrlHyannis Dr
Trellis P ointeD r
FireflyRd BlackFo
r
e
s
t
D
rWindcapDrSto
n
ecre
ekDrSunshi
neCrest
Ct
Arbor Crest RdOsterville Dr
HazelmereDr ThorncrestDr
Sunset L ak e R d
Wellspri
ngDr
DovesH a v e n D r
Katha Dr
Ed d ie Cre ek Dr
VineSt MerionSt
ati
o
n
D
r
DaneswayDrVine
St
LindellDr
C re e k H a v e n D r
Ballytore Dr
Goos
e
b
e
r
ryDrReunionMeadows Ln
Ridge

L
akeDr
ColonialOaks
DrKings Pine LnCabanaDr
Reunion CreekPkwy
FloriansDr
MorenaDrMain StHollyho ck Ln
ArborCrest
RdDutch E lm D rReunio n P arkDr
Fairford
DrCommonsDrAdefieldLnEd
dieCreekDr SmithRdMonarchBirchDr
Mi
d
d
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
NCCGIA
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:WAKECHATHAMWAK
E
HARN
E
T
T
© OpenStreetMap (and)
contributors, CC-BY-SA
¯
February 2021
17-017
CMR JSM
0 420210 Feet
Study Area
Stream
Streets
^_
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
2Figure
Topographic Map
Wake County, North Carolina
RidgeLakeDr
FireflyRdGreycrest CtThorncrestDr
StonecreekDrLindell Dr
Florians Dr
Hollyhock L n
SunsetLakeRd
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:
¯
February 2021
17-017
CMR JSM
0 13065 Feet
Study Area
NCDOT R-2828 Wetlands
Potential Wetland WOUS
Potential Non-wetland WOUS (Stream)
Streets
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
2Figure
Topographic Map
Wake County, North Carolina
Wetland
WE
Wetland WF
Sunset Lake Rd
Firefly RdRidg e L a k e D rSources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:
¯
February 2021
17-017
CMR JSM
0 5025 Feet
Study Area
NCDOT R-2828 Wetlands
Potential Wetland WOUS
Potential Non-wetland WOUS (Stream)
Streets
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
Zoom 1 of 2
2Figure
Topographic Map
Wake County, North Carolina
Holly hock Ln St
reamSA
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:
¯
February 2021
17-017
CMR JSM
0 5025 Feet
Study Area
NCDOT R-2828 Wetlands
Potential Wetland WOUS
Potential Non-wetland WOUS (Stream)
Streets
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
Zoom 2 of 2
3Figure
Aerial Map
Wake County, North Carolina
RidgeLakeDr
FireflyRdGreycrest CtThorncrestDr
StonecreekDrLindell Dr
Florians Dr
Hollyhock L n
SunsetLakeRd
NCCGIA, NC911 Board
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:
¯
February 2021
17-017
CMR JSM
0 13065 Feet
Study Area
NCDOT R-2828 Wetlands
Potential Wetland WOUS
Potential Non-wetland WOUS (Stream)
Streets
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
3Figure
Aerial Map
Wake County, North Carolina
Wetland
WE
Wetland WF
Sunset Lake Rd
Firefly RdRidg e L a k e D rNCCGIA, NC911 Board
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:
¯
February 2021
17-017
CMR JSM
0 5025 Feet
Study Area
NCDOT R-2828 Wetlands
Potential Wetland WOUS
Potential Non-wetland WOUS (Stream)
Streets
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
Zoom 1 of 2
3Figure
Aerial Map
Wake County, North Carolina
Holly hock Ln St
reamSA
NCCGIA, NC911 Board
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:
¯
February 2021
17-017
CMR JSM
0 5025 Feet
Study Area
NCDOT R-2828 Wetlands
Potential Wetland WOUS
Potential Non-wetland WOUS (Stream)
Streets
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
Zoom 2 of 2
4Figure
LiDAR Map
Wake County, North Carolina
RidgeLakeDr
FireflyRdGreycrest CtThorncrestDr
StonecreekDrLindell Dr
Florians Dr
Hollyhock L n
SunsetLakeRd
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:
¯
February 2021
17-017
CMR JSM
0 13065 Feet
Study Area
NCDOT R-2828 Wetlands
Potential Wetland WOUS
Potential Non-wetland WOUS (Stream)
Streets
Value High : 499.973
Low : 336.476
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
4Figure
LiDAR Map
Wake County, North Carolina
Wetland
WE
Wetland WF
Sunset Lake Rd
Firefly RdRidg e L a k e D rPrepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:
¯
February 2021
17-017
CMR JSM
0 5025 Feet
Study Area
NCDOT R-2828 Wetlands
Potential Wetland WOUS
Potential Non-wetland WOUS (Stream)
Streets
Value High : 499.973
Low : 336.476
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
Zoom 1 of 2
4Figure
LiDAR Map
Wake County, North Carolina
Holly hock Ln St
reamSA
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:
¯
February 2021
17-017
CMR JSM
0 5025 Feet
Study Area
NCDOT R-2828 Wetlands
Potential Wetland WOUS
Potential Non-wetland WOUS (Stream)
Streets
Value High : 499.973
Low : 336.476
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
Zoom 2 of 2

Appendix B

Stream and Wetland Data Forms

NC D Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: t-j /"t
Evaluator:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if'i!:. 19 or erennial if'i?. 30*
A. Geomoroholoav (Subtotal = I t,
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
rioole-nnol sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control ' 10. Natural valley
11 . Second or greater order channel
)
a artificial ditches are not rated, see d1scuss1ons In manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = q,5 ) .
12. Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?
C. Biology (Subtotal = ·+~ )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
21. Aquatic Mollusks
22. Fish
23. Crayfish ·
24. Amphibians
25.Algae
26. Wetland plants in streambed . •
Latitude: YJ: t t215'
County:
Stream Determination (cl1p;1A-•11et--1-..Other A
Ephemeral lntermltten Perennlal .g. Quad Name:
Absent Weak Moderate Strong
0 1 2 ( .3 )
0 c.1 ...) ( 2 3
0 1 -~ 3
0 1 C 2 .) 3
0 1 2 cv
0 1 rc 2 ..J 3
0 r 1
) , 2 3
t"O ) 1 2 3
UL.) 0.5 1 _i..5_
0 . 0.5 1 I,,._~
No=0 Y¥=3 ,) -
0 1 2 C~3"\
0 ,/,:1 __,,.} 2 3
/f.5 J 1 0.5 0 '-'tF /P.5 _;:; 1 I 1.5
o . r JJ,:i __.) 1 1.5
No=0 Yesr 3 ~-
,/' 3 .,) 2 1 0
/3 / -
2 1 0
F:(J~ 1 2 3
T O~
1 2 3
0 r u.:i _) 1 1.5
0 t' U.::),.,d 1 1.5
0 C 0.5 ) 1 1.5 ,....-u 0.5 1 1.5 -FACW=0.75; OBL= 1.5 Other= 0
*perennial streamAi may ~o be identified using other methods . See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: r ---r~?)-/rt, rfirt:J ~ ,/-/,.~,,,,, /,.._ :;~ .
Sketch:
Bank Height:~ r f I
Bank Width: C. ,-'fl
tA~s -No Water Depth: 0 -"f Ir
Channel Substrate~. Silt, Sand , Graveo;obble, rJ/l..t~ -ye,,f Bedrock z:::
Velocity,$/~ e,.J
Clarity : c,. /e11r
SA
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same prope rty, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Apex Greenway 2. Date of evaluation:08/01/2017
3. Applicant/owner name:Town of Apex 4. Assessor name/organization:Nathan Howell & Chris Sheats
5. County:Wake 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Middle Creek 7. River basin:Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):35.682753, -78.824363
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream SA 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):200
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):3 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):6 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam?Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates , debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access , disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting i n accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contribute s to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proport ions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Stream SA has a wooded riparian buffer. Stream SA is an unnamed tributary that flows into Middle Creek, which is classified as a Nutrient
Sensitve Water (NSW).
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Apex Greenway Date of Assessment 08/01/2017
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization Nathan Howell & Chris
Sheats

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW (4) Channel Stability MEDIUM (4) Sediment Transport LOW (4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM (2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA (2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM (2) Baseflow HIGH (2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM (2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA (3) Flow Restriction NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA (2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall MEDIUM

WE
WE
WE
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
0
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Proposed Middle Creek Greenway Wake
WD-2 Wet
04/072020
Town of Apex NC
No
Section, Township, Range: ApexNathan Howell & Lillian Lovingood
0ConcaveFloodplain
Datum: NAD 83-78.82468435.682704LRR P, MLRA 136
PFO1ANWI classification:Chewacla and wehadkee soils, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
NCWAM: Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Wetland WF share similar characteristics to this wetland; therefore, this form also applies to that wetland
Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
4
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Wetland WF
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X10
=Total Cover20
Bignonia capreolata
10 Yes
Yes
FAC
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5' radius
=Total Cover
FACW
OBL
Yes
4
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
35 14
10
Yes
Yes
FACW
FAC
Multiply by:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Prevalence Index worksheet:
FACW
Total % Cover of:
(A)
(B)
(A)
8
410
20
15' radius
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FAC
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30' radius )
Toxicodendron radicans
40
Yes
Yes
10
20
Saururus cernuus
20Carex sp.
Juncus effusus 10
20
Carpinus caroliniana
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Quercus phellos
Quercus michauxii
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
30' radius )
70
Indicator
Status
30
30
No
Dominant
Species?
Yes FAC
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
10
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
87.5%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
WD-2 Wet
7
8
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Wetland WF
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
80
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
90 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
C10YR 4/1
10YR 4/3 10YR 4/6
7.5YR 4/63-12
0-3
WD-2 Wet SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M20
Distinct redox concentrations
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
10 M
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Wetland WF
WE
This upland form also covers Wetland WF
/WF
WE /WF
WE /WF

Appendix C

ORM Data Entry Form
JD Request Form
PJD Form
Agent Authorization Form
Waters Upload Spreadsheet

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW – 20Ϯ Ͳ BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder
1.Project Name [PCN Form A2a]:
2.Work Type: Private Commercial
4.Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
5.Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 – or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
6.Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]:
8.Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B1a]:
9.Project Location – County [PCN Form A2b]:
10.Project Location – Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]:
11.Project Information – Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form B2a]:

12. tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚͬϴͲŝŐŝƚ,LJĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐhŶŝƚŽĚĞ[PCN Form B2c]:
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit #
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Revised 20150602
3.Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and B3e]:
7.Project Location - Coordinates͕^ƚƌĞĞƚĚĚƌĞƐƐ͕ĂŶĚͬŽƌ>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ[PCN Form B1b]:
/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶĂů Government
Section 10 & 404
Pre-Application Request
Unauthorized ĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ
Compliance
EŽWĞƌŵŝƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
1
Town of Apex Project – Middle Creek Greenway, Phase I
Phase I of the Town of Apex’s Middle Creek Greenway - Miramonte to Holly Springs Connector Project is comprised of the greenway connection that runs
between the northern right-of-way boundary of future NC Highway 540 (also southern property boundary of the Reunion Pointe subdivision) to the southern
right-of-way of Sunset Lake Road/ the Town of Holly Springs border at Sunset Lake Road
Town of Apex, ATTN: Angela Reincke
James Mason - Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
Lat: 35.681393 Long: -78.825405
Multiple PINs
Wake
Apex
Middle Creek
03020201
42X
X
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 1

This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELDOFFICES
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue,Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina28801-5006
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGHREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina27587
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina27889
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
GeneralNumber:910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D – PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 2
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: _______________________________________________
City, State: _______________________________________________
County:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN):
B. REQUESTORINFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
________________________________________
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant
1
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain. ________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
2
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
off the north side of Sunset Lake Road, between Stonecreek Dr and Black Forest Dr/River Falls Dr
Apex, NC
Wake
Multiple PINs
James Mason,PWS
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
[phone]
[e-mail]
Town of Apex
ATTN: Angela Reincke, Parks and Greenways Planner
PO Box 250, Apex, NC 27502
[phone]
[e-mail]
✔
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 3

D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION
3,4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Print Name
Capacity: Owner Authorized Agent5
Date
Signature
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST:(Check as many as applicable)
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources underCorpsauthority.
I intendto construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcelwhich may
require authorization from the Corps, andthe JDwould beusedto avoid and minimize
impacts tojurisdictional aquatic resources and as aninitialstep in a future permitting
process.
I intendto construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcelwhich may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
I intendto construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
Other:___________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
3 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
4 If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
5 Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
James Mason, PWS
3/10/2021
✔
✔
James Mason Digitally signed by James Mason
Date: 2021.03.05 11:36:30 -05'00'
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 4

F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United States”on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional “waters of
the United States”. PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
“preliminary” in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United
States” are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other “affected
party” (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
Size of Property or Review Area acres.
The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
2.73
✔
✔
✔
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 5

H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude: ______________________
Longitude: ______________________
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
ƒNorth Arrow
ƒGraphical Scale
ƒBoundary of Review Area
ƒDate
ƒLocation of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
ƒJurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
ƒJurisdictional non-wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non-Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
ƒIsolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non-
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non-Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non-jurisdictional (i.e.
“Isolated”, “No Significant Nexus”, or “Upland Feature”). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
ƒWetland and non-wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non-wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
____________________________________________________________________________
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled “Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations” to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards.http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Program/Jurisdiction/
35.681393
-78.825405✔
✔
✔
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 6

Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
•PJDs,please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form7 and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
•AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
8
Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
USGS Topographic Map
Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
Other Assessment Forms
_____________________________________________________________________________
7 www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/JD/RGL_08-02_App_A_Prelim_JD_Form_fillable.pdf
8 Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose:The information thatyouprovide will beusedinevaluating your requestto determine
whether thereareany aquatic resources within the project areasubjecttofederaljurisdictionunder the regulatory
authorities referencedabove.
RoutineUses:Thisinformation maybeshared with the Departmentof Justice andotherfederal, state,and local
government agencies, and the public,andmaybe made available aspartof a public notice as required byfederal
law. Your nameandproperty location wherefederal jurisdiction is to bedetermined will beincluded in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD),which will bemade available tothe public on the District's website
andontheHeadquartersUSAGEwebsite.
Disclosure:Submission ofrequested information is voluntary; however, ifinformation is notprovided, the
requestforanAJD cannot beevaluatednorcananAJD be issued.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B.NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
C.DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D.PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.:Long.:
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody:
E.REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE”SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
See Attached List
James Mason, 324 Blackwell St, Suite 1200, Durham, NC 27701
NC Wake Apex
35.681393 -78.825405
17
Middle Creek
Aquatic resources in the review area which “may be” subject to regulatory jurisdiction
Site Number Latitude Longitude
Estimated amount of
aquatic resource in review
area (lin. ft. or ac.)
Type of aquatic
resource
Geographic
authority to which
the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject
SA 35.682753 -78.824363 50 lin. ft. Non-wetland
WOUS (Per. Str.) Section 404
WE 35.681104 -78.825287 0.02 ac. Wetland WOUS Section 404
WF 35.680313 -78.825107 <0.01 ac. Wetland WOUS Section 404
Note: Wetlands WA – WD and a portion of WE were already within areas delineated as part of NCDOT project R-2828. Therefore, the
NCDOT delineation was used and those wetlands were removed from this project’s delineation.
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit)or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be”navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: _______BBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Corps navigable waters’ study: ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: _________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
State/local wetland inventory map(s): ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
FEMA/FIRM maps: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ____BBBBBBBBBBBB.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
or Other (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:__________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Other information (please specify): ______________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Vicinity Map, Topo Map, Jurisdictional Resources Map, LiDAR Map
2019 Apex, NC, 1:24,000
Wake County, 1970
James Mason Digitally signed by James Mason
Date: 2021.03.05 11:37:45 -05'00'
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
0750129771, 0750139122
0750230303, 0750221956, 0750146262
LOT NO. PLAN NO. PARCEL ID:
s REET AppREsS: off the north side of Sunset Lake Road, between Stonecreek Dr
and Black Forest Dr/River Falls ❑r at the pump station
Please print: Town of Apex, North Carolina
Property Owner:
Property Owner: Contact: Angela Reincke, Parks and Greenways Planner
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
James Mason, PWS
of Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
(Contractor / Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
73 Hunter St, PO Box 250, Apex, NC 27502
Telephone: [phone]
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
�7 James Three oaks Engineering, Inc
/.�I��`�� AssiF ln:rk r�..�r� Mason W.��;„�,...�
Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
Date: 2/21/2021
Date: 2-23-7

Waters_NameStateCowardin_Code HGM_Code Meas_TypeAmountUnits Waters_Type NWPR_Determine_CodeLatitudeLongitudeLocal_WaterwaySANorth CarolinaR2UBRIVERINE Linear50 FOOT PJD40435.682753-78.824363 Middle CreekWENorth CarolinaPFORIVERINE Area0.02 ACRE PJD40435.681104-78.825287 Middle CreekWFNorth CarolinaPFORIVERINE Area0.01 ACRE PJD40435.680313-78.825107 Middle Creek
STATE
SUMMIT PROJECT REPERENCE NO.
SHBET
NQ
TOTAL
HBBT5
1
.C.
N.C.L
Fa".NC„t) yr /
m
ofAp x
TOWN OF APEX
BUFFER DRAWING
SHEET 1 OF 5
Birch
END
MIDDLE
C
CRIK
K GWY
Y
\
aG co
RROJECT rnv
W
S
�c� °`r -
S
CLJ
°�°"'a S
LOCATION: SUNSET LAKE DRIVE AND MIDDLE CREEK
ser<a6PRa
OF
L
�,� or.
\1 j
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND PAVING
RIVER BASIN: NEUSE RIVER
LE
Rd...)
PROJECT OCATION
VICINITY MAP
pay
("..'•
Pt
NAD 83/2011
SUMMIT PROJECT
I w� CC]
(Thole <S:) .4 C-3 0
0 ED
;, __
!III --- ')' 0°
ill--,.-------
Alialull...... \ 41 iiiiiiial
(E \ ,
jr 1111V
.
-.Mk „•,,,,',
\
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
Eillill
V
GRAPHIC SCALES
50 25 0 50 100
DESIGN DATA
PROJECT LENGTH
Prepared
14 SUM
DESIGN AND
FIRM NO. P-0339
ENGINEERING
in the
SERVICES
Office
IT
of:
320 Executive Ct.
Hillsborough, NC 27278-8551
Voice:19)7 6 -3883
776
Fax: [phone]
www.summitde.net
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
1
20I8 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
PLANS
V = WA MPH
P.E.
Ellail
SIGNATURE:
50 25 0 50
100
FUNC CLASS =
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
LOCAL URBAN
TOTAL LENGTH PROJECT 0.340 MILES
PROJECT ENGINEER
ROAENAY DEIGN
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
=
ER
O
10 5 0 10
20
LETTING DATE:
Angela Reincke
DESIGNER
""
C.)
SUB REGIONAL TIER
TOWN OF APEX CONTACT
F
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
SIGNATURE:
J

5
ϱ
SiteStationStructureNo.(From/To)Size / Type3 22+10 to 22+85 -L1- LT & RT#5&3X1377 465 184227+42 to 28+47 -L1- LT & RTGREENWAYX 44 1701 17451421 2166 3587 0 0 0 0 0NOTES:Revised 2018 Feb SHEET 4 OF 5BUFFER REPLACEMENTIMPACTSRIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARYTOWN OF APEX3/4/2021TOTALS*:ROAD CROSSINGCULVERTPARALLEL IMPACTZONE 1(ft2)ZONE 2(ft2)TYPESUNSET LAKE ROADMIDDLE CREEK GREENWAYALLOWABLEMITIGABLEWAKE COUNTYZONE 2(ft2)ZONE 1(ft2)TOTAL(ft2)ZONE 2(ft2)ZONE 1(ft2)TOTAL(ft2)
ZONE 1 (ft2)ZONE 2 (ft2)322+10 to 22+85 -L1- LT & RT0327+42 to 28+47 -L1- LT & RT11 87811 881NOTES:Revised 2018 Feb SHEET 5 OF 5MIDDLE CREEK GREENWAYWETLANDS IN BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARYTOWN OF APEX1/29/2021WETLANDS IN BUFFERSSITE NO. STATION (FROM/TO)TOTAL:SUNSET LAKE ROADWAKE COUNTYRev. Jan 2009
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726











































Self-Certification Letter

Project Name______________________________

Dear Applicant:

Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.

The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:

“no effect” determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or

“may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or

“may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination for the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;

“no Eagle Act permit required” determinations for eagles.

3/25/2021
Town of Apex - Middle Creek Greenway Phase I
✔
✔
✔

Applicant Page 2

We certify that use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the
instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package results in
reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore, we concur with the “no effect” or
“not likely to adversely affect” determinations for proposed and listed species and
proposed and designated critical habitat; the “may affect” determination for Northern
long-eared bat; and/or the “no Eagle Act permit required” determinations for eagles.
Additional coordination with this office is not needed. Candidate species are not
legally protected pursuant to the ESA. However, the Service encourages consideration
of these species by avoiding adverse impacts to them. Please contact this office for
additional coordination if your project action area contains candidate species.
Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of
proposed or listed species, proposed or designated critical habitat, or bald eagles
becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. This certification letter is
valid for 1 year. Information about the online project review process including
instructions, species information, and other information regarding project reviews
within North Carolina is available at our website http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pp.html.
If you have any questions, you can write to us at [e-mail] or please contact
Leigh Mann of this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 10.

Sincerely,

/s/Pete Benjamin

Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services

Enclosures - project review package

Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. 324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
[phone]
March 25, 2021

Town of Apex
Angela Reincke, Parks and Greenways Planner
Town of Apex Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 250
Apex, NC 27502

SUBJECT: Town of Apex, Phase 1 – Middle Creek Greenway – Miramonte to Holly Springs
Connector– Protected Species Survey Report

Dear Ms. Reincke:

Phase 1 of the Town of Apex’s Middle Creek Greenway – Miramonte to Holly Springs Connector project
is comprised of the greenway connection that runs between the northern right-of-way boundary of future
N.C. Highway 540 (also southern property boundary of the Reunion Pointe subdivision) to the southern
right-of-way of SR 1301 (Sunset Lake Road)/ the Town of Holly Springs border at Sunset Lake Road in
Apex, Wake County, North Carolina. A portion of the project is being built as part of the N.C. Department
of Transportation’s (NCDOT) Complete I-540 Project (STIP Nos. R-2721A, R-2721B, and R-2828). Three
Oaks Engineering, Inc. (Three Oaks) has been contracted, as a sub-consultant to Alta Planning + Design,
Inc. (Alta), to perform protected species surveys within the project study area. These surveys were
completed to satisfy Section 404/401 permitting requirements.

Please see the following memorandum for details regarding our survey efforts:

METHODOLOGY
Field work was conducted for terrestrial species on April 7 and June 2, 2020. Aquatic species were assessed
February 25, 2021. The principal personnel contributing to the field work and document were:
Principal Investigator: James Mason Education: M.S. Biology/Ecology, UNC – Charlotte, 2004 B.A. Biology, Colby College, 2000 Experience: Senior Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, April 2018-Present Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT, 2006-2018 Responsibilities: Terrestrial species surveys, GIS mapping, document preparation and review

Principal Investigator: Tim Savidge, USFWS Permit No. TE075920-0; N.C. Permit No. NC-2020 ES 34 Education: B.S. Biology, Guilford College, 1987 M.S. Marine Biology/Biological Oceanography, University of North Carolina – Wilmington, 1998 Experience: Environmental Manager & Aquatic Biologist, Three Oaks Engineering, June 2015-present Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, 1992-2002 Responsibilities: Aquatic species surveys Investigator: Nathan Howell Education: B.S. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, North Carolina State University, 2013 M.S. Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, 2015 Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, October 2015 – Present Responsibilities: Terrestrial and aquatic species surveys
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY RESULTS
As of July 17, 2020, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists six federally protected
species, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for Wake County. Three additional species – one listed
as Proposed Endangered and two listed as Proposed Threatened – have been included due to the potential
that they will be listed during the life of this project. The bald eagle is listed by the USFWS under the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration –
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) lists one federally protected species, Atlantic sturgeon, for
Wake County. For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is included below along
with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results.

Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for Wake County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle BGPA No Not Required
Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Atlantic sturgeon E No No Effect
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E No No Effect
Noturus furiosus Carolina madtom PE No No Effect
Necturus lewisi Neuse River waterdog PT Yes MANLTAA
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E No No Effect
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe PT Yes MANLTAA
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedgemussel E Yes MANLTAA
Parvaspina steinstansana Tar River spinymussel E No No Effect
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance T Yes MANLTAA
Rhus michauxii Michaux’s sumac E Yes No Effect
Note: BGPA – Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; E – Endangered; PE – Proposed Endangered; PT – Proposed Threatened;
T – Threatened; MANLTAA – May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Bald eagle
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: Not Required

The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and enforced by the
USFWS. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests 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.

A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.13-mile radius of
the project limits, was performed on April 7, 2020, using the most recently available orthoimagery.
Water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were not
identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the project study
area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not required. Additionally, no nests,
nesting habitat, or individuals were identified within the study area. A review of the January 2021
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) dataset revealed no known occurrences of this species
within the study area or within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of nests, nesting habitat,
known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this
project will not affect this species.

Atlantic sturgeon
USFWS/NMFS Recommended Survey Window: surveys not required; assume presence in appropriate
waters
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Suitable habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon does not exist within the study area. Additionally, a review
of the January 2021 NCNHP dataset indicates no known Atlantic sturgeon occurrences within the
study area or within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Cape Fear shiner
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Carolina madtom
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Neuse River waterdog
USFWS optimal survey window: winter months
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Red-cockaded woodpecker
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round; November – early-March (optimal)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Suitable nesting (open to semi-open pine stands ≥ 60 years of age) and foraging (open to semi-open
pine stands ≥ 30 years of age) habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) does not exist in the
study area. The predominant pine species in the study area is loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and stands
are too young and/or too tightly spaced to be considered foraging habitat. The small pine stand is
also completely surrounded by either maintained/disturbed habitat or deciduous forest. Due to the
absence of suitable foraging habitat, nesting habitat surveys within a 0.5-mile radius of the project
study area were not conducted. Additionally, no extant RCW occurrences exist within Wake
County. A review of the January 2021 NCNHP dataset identified no known RCW occurrences of
this species within the study area or within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Atlantic pigtoe
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Dwarf wedgemussel
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Tar River spinymussel
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Yellow lance
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Michaux’s sumac
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May – October
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Marginal habitat is present for this species along roadsides and the sewer line easement. A survey
was conducted by Three Oaks staff on August 1, 2017 and June 2, 2020. No Michaux’s sumac were
identified. A review of the January 2021 NCNHP dataset indicates no known Michaux’s sumac
occurrences within the study area or within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the results of the protected species assessment or
if you require any additional information.

Sincerely,

James Mason, PWS
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Mobile: [phone]

James Mason Digitally signed by James
Mason
Date: 2021.03.25 20:27:47
-04'00'

Appendix A
Figures

1Figure
Vicinity Map
Wake County, North CarolinaSTRAYWHITEAVE
REUNIONCREEK
PK
W
Y
FOUNTAINSPRINGSRDARBORCREEK DR
OLD SMITHFIELD RD
H YANN IS D RREUNIONPARK
D
REWILLIAMSSTFIREFLYRD BLACKFORES
T
DRREUNIONPA RKDRWINDCAPDRL O C K L E Y R D
S
T
O
N
E
CREEKDRSUNSET LAKE RD
MYSTICPINEPLDINSORETTELNR
IV
E
R
FALLS
D
RCOMMONSDRCOLBY CHASE DR
OS TERVILLE DR
C R E E K H A V E N D R
HAZELMEREDRTH ORNCRESTDR
OCTOBER GLORY LN
DOVESHAV E N D R
VINEST MERI
ONST
ATI
ONDRDANESWAYDRLINDELL DR
EDD I E CR E E K D REASTON ST
A N C H OR CREEK W A Y
RIDGELAKEDR
KATHA DR
GOO
S
E
B
E
R
R
Y
D
RFORAKER ST
C OLONIALOAKSDR
NMAINSTCABANADR
LIANFAIRLN
MORENA DRW IL L O W V IE W L NHOLLYHOC K LN
WELL
SPRINGDR
STR AY WH IT E AV E
DUTCH E L M D R
ARBOR
C
R
E
STRDFAIRFOR
D
DRRICHARDSON STCRITTENDEN LN
ADEFIE
LDLNFLORIANSDR
R ESTO N W O O D D R
R O S EWOOD CENTRE DR
MONARCHBIRCHDRSMITHRDMiddleCreek
NCCGIA
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:WAKECHATHAMWAK
E
HAR
N
E
T
T
© OpenStreetMap (and)
contributors, CC-BY-SA
¯
April 2020
17-017
CMR JSM
0500250Feet
Study Area
Stream
Streets
^_
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector

March 25, 2021

Town of Apex
Angela Reincke, Parks and Greenways Planner
Town of Apex Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 250
Apex, NC 27502

SUBJECT: Protected Aquatic Species Survey Report for Town of Apex Middle Creek
Greenway – Phase 1 – Miramonte to Holly Springs Connector; Wake County,
North Carolina

Dear Ms. Reincke:

Project Description
The Town of Apex, North Carolina proposes to construct Phase 1 of the Middle Creek Greenway –
Miramonte to Holly Springs Connector (Project) in western Wake County, North Carolina (Appendix A;
Figure 1). The project involves a crossing of an unnamed tributary (UT) to Middle Creek, of the Neuse
River Basin. The project crossing of the UT is approximately 200 linear feet upstream of the confluence
with Middle Creek. Given the close proximity of the project crossing to Middle Creek, potential effects of
the project could extend into Middle Creek. As such, the UT and a portion of Middle Creek were surveyed
for the presence/absence of protected aquatic species (Appendix A; Figure 2). Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
(Three Oaks) was contracted to perform protected species assessment/surveys for the project. This memo
presents the findings of Three Oaks’ field visit, conducted on February 25, 2021. The surveys were
conducted by Three Oaks employees Tim Savidge and Nathan Howell. Qualifications for personnel who
performed the surveys are as follows:

Investigator: Tim Savidge
Education: B.S. Biology, Guilford College, 1987
M.S. Marine Biology/Biological Oceanography, University of North Carolina –
Wilmington, 1998
Experience: Environmental Manager & Aquatic Biologist, Three Oaks Engineering, June 2015-
present
Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, 1992-2002
Responsibilities: Aquatic T&E species assessments/surveys, document preparation

Investigator: Nathan Howell, PWS
Education: B.S. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, North Carolina State University,
2013
M.S. Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, 2015
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, October 2015 – Present
Responsibilities: Aquatic T&E species assessments/surveys

Protected Aquatic Species List and Occurrence Data in Relation to Project

As of July 17, 2020, the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists seven federally protected aquatic
species (either listed or proposed for listing), under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for Wake County
(Table 1). For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is included below along with
the Biological Conclusion rendered based on habitat assessments/survey results in the study area.

Table 1. ESA federally protected aquatic species listed for Wake County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Potential
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf Wedgemussel E Yes MANLTAA
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow Lance T Yes MANLTAA
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic Pigtoe PTCH Yes MANLTAA
Necturus lewisii Neuse River Waterdog PTCH Yes MANLTAA
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E No No Effect
Noturus furiosus Carolina Madtom PECH No* No Effect
Parvaspina steinstansana Tar River Spinymussel E No** No Effect
Notes: T – Threatened, E – Endangered, PTCH – Proposed Threatened with Critical Habitat Designation, PECH – Proposed Endangered with Critical Habitat
Designation; MANLTAA –May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect; * considered extirpated from Middle Creek, ** not present in project area portion
of the Neuse River Basin Five of the species listed in Table 1 have been reported from Middle Creek, including Dwarf Wedgemussel, Yellow Lance, Atlantic Pigtoe, Neuse River Waterdog, and Carolina Madtom. Cape Fear Shiner and Tar River Spinymussel do not have habitat ranges that overlap the project per the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/). The distances from the confluence of the UT with Middle Creek to records and/or Proposed Critical Habitat Designation are provided below in order of closest records for respective species:
Atlantic Pigtoe-less than six miles to currently occupied habitat and approximately 13 miles upstream of proposed Critical Habitat,
Neuse River Waterdog-approximately 13.5 miles to currently occupied habitat and Proposed Critical Habitat,
Dwarf Wedgemussel-approximately 20 miles upstream to currently occupied 1closest occurrence,
Yellow Lance- approximately 26 miles upstream from currently occupied habitat,
Carolina Madtom-greater than 30 miles to historic record.

1 Dwarf Wedgemussel has potentially been extirpated from Middle Creek; however, not enough time has lapsed since most recent
occurrence to be considered a historic record.

Survey Methodology and Results
Freshwater mussel surveys targeting Dwarf Wedgemussel, Atlantic Pigtoe, and Yellow Lance were conducted within Middle Creek beginning at the Sunset Lake Road crossing and proceeding upstream into the UT to Middle Creek and to a point approximately 100 meters upstream of the project crossing (Appendix A, Figure 2). Areas of appropriate habitat were searched, concentrating on the stable habitats preferred by the target species. The survey team spread out across the creek into survey lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using glass bottom view buckets (bathyscopes). Tactile methods were employed, particularly along streambanks under submerged rootmats. All freshwater bivalves were recorded and returned to the substrate. Timed survey efforts provided Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data for each species. Relative abundance for freshwater snails and freshwater clam species were estimated using the following criteria:
¾ (VA) Very abundant > 30 per square meter
¾ (A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter
¾ (C) Common 6-15 per square meter
¾ (U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter
¾ (R) Rare 1-2 per square meter
¾ (P) Ancillary adjective “Patchy” indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the sampled
site. A total of 2.10 person hours of mussel survey time were spent in the Middle Creek and UT to Middle Creek portions of the survey reach, with one species of mussel, the Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio complanata), being found (Table 2). Other mollusk species located included the aquatic snail Pointed Campeloma (Campeloma
decisum) and the invasive Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea).
Table 2. Mussel Survey Results
Scientific Name Common Name Number CPUE (#/hr)
Freshwater Mussels
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 2 0.95/hr.
Freshwater Snails and Clams Relative
Abundance
Campeloma decisum Pointed Campeloma ~ PC
Corbicula fluminea Asian Clam ~ C

Electro-shocking surveys targeting the Neuse River Waterdog and Carolina Madtom were conducted within Middle Creek beginning at the Sunset Lake Road crossing and proceeding upstream into the UT to Middle Creek to a point approximately 100 meters upstream of the project crossing (Appendix A, Figure 2). Equipment included one Smith Root LR-24 backpack electrofishing unit and dip nets. All habitat types in the survey reach (riffle, run, pool, slack-water, etc.) were sampled. Stunned fish and amphibians were placed into buckets and were identified, counted, assigned a relative abundance, and released live onsite. Relative abundance reported was estimated using the following criteria:
¾ (VA) Very abundant: > 30 collected at survey reach
¾ (A) Abundant: 16-30 collected at survey reach
¾ (C) Common: 6-15 collected at survey reach
¾ (U) Uncommon: 3-5 collected at survey reach
¾ (R) Rare: 1-2 collected at survey reach

¾ (P) Ancillary adjective “Patchy” indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the
sampled site.
It should be noted that relative abundances of particular species can be affected by survey methodologies and site conditions. Thus, some species, particularly those that are found in deeper pools and runs and those that can seek cover quickly, may be under-represented, or not detected within the survey reach. A total of twelve fish and one salamander species were captured during the efforts in 1,734 seconds of intermittent shocking time (Table 3). The Carolina Madtom and Neuse River Waterdog were not observed.
Table 3. Electroshocking Survey Results: Middle Creek and UT
Scientific Name Common Name Relative
Abundance
Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead R
Clinostomus funduloides Rosyside Dace R
Erimyzon oblongus Creek Chubsucker C
Etheostoma nigrum Johnny Darter C
Eurycea cirrigera Southern Two-lined
Salamander A
Gambusia holbrooki Eastern Mosquitofish U
Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish A
Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed U
Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill VA
Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish R
Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass U
Nocomis leptocephalus Bluehead Chub A
Semotilus atromaculatus Creek Chub U

Species Conclusions of Effects

Dwarf Wedgemussel
Optimal Survey Window: Year-round (low flow and clear water conditions)
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

This species’ status in Middle Creek is uncertain, as it has not been seen in the creek since the mid 1990’s.
It was not found during the survey efforts and is very unlikely to occur in the project area. However, its
presence cannot be entirely ruled out based on a one-time survey. As such, adverse effects cannot be
discounted entirely. As such, it is concluded that the project Biological Conclusion is “May Affect, Not
Likely to Adversely Affect” for the Dwarf Wedgemussel.

Atlantic Pigtoe
Optimal Survey Window: Year-round (low flow and clear water conditions)
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

This species is present in Middle Creek less than six miles downstream of the project. It was not found
during the survey efforts and is unlikely to occur in the project area. However, its presence cannot be
entirely ruled out based on a one-time survey. Given this and the fact that the species is present further
downstream, adverse effects cannot be discounted entirely. As such, it is concluded that the project
Biological Conclusion is “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for the Atlantic Pigtoe.

Yellow Lance
Optimal Survey Window: Year-round (low flow and clear water conditions)
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

This species is present in Middle Creek, with the closest record being approximately 26 miles downstream.
It was not found during the survey efforts and is unlikely to occur in the project area. However, its presence
cannot be entirely ruled out based on a one-time survey. Given this and the fact that the species is present
further downstream, adverse effects cannot be discounted entirely. As such, it is concluded that the project
Biological Conclusion is “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for the Atlantic Pigtoe.

Neuse River Waterdog
Optimal Survey Window: late fall to early spring
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Suitable habitat for this species is not present in the UT Middle Creek, as the stream is too small.
Furthermore, habitat in the surveyed portion of Middle Creek is only marginally suitable for the species, as
it is at the small end of suitability, but more importantly, the substrate is extremely scoured in this section
of the creek. The most often used sampling technique for the Neuse River Waterdog is to conduct baited
trap sampling during colder water temperatures (late fall to early spring). This involves setting 10 baited
traps for four consecutive nights (40 trap nights) within a given site.

Given the low level of habitat suitability, electro-shocking surveys were chosen as the sampling method in
lieu of time intensive trapping protocol, as Neuse River Waterdogs are often captured incidentally while
conducting fish surveys using electro-shocking methods.

This species is present in Middle Creek, with the closest record being approximately 13.5 miles
downstream. It was not found during the survey efforts and is unlikely to occur in the project area. However,
its presence cannot be entirely ruled out based on a one-time survey. Given this and the fact that the species
is present further downstream, adverse effects cannot be discounted entirely. As such, it is concluded that
the project Biological Conclusion is “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for the Neuse River
Waterdog.

Cape Fear shiner
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: Year-round (large rivers); April – June or periods of high flow
(tributaries)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

This species is listed by the USFWS as a “range by basin” species. This project does not occur within this
species’ range per the USFWS IPaC website, as it is restricted to the Cape Fear River Basin. Therefore, a
Biological Conclusion of “No Effect” has been rendered for this species.

Carolina Madtom
Optimal Survey Window: Year-round (low flow and clear water conditions)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
There is only one record of this species in Middle Creek, a lone individual collected in 1961 at the NC 210 crossing in Johnston County more than 30 miles downstream of the project. The species has not been recorded in subsequent targeted surveys, including N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) monitoring (NCWRC Unpublished Aquatics Database) and a range-wide status survey. Additionally, visual surveys for the Carolina Madtom are often conducted in conjunction with freshwater mussel surveys and the species has never been observed during any of these survey in Middle Creek. The species is considered to be extirpated from Middle Creek; thus, it can be concluded that the project will have “No Effect” on the Carolina Madtom.
Tar River Spinymussel
Optimal Survey Window: Year-round (low flow and clear water conditions)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
This species has never been found in the Middle Creek subbasin. It is believed that the Little River Sub-basin is the only place where this species occurs within the Neuse River Basin. Additionally, this species does not have a range that overlaps the project footprint per the USFWS IPaC website. Thus, it can be concluded that the project will have “No Effect” on the Tar River Spinymussel.

Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information.

Sincerely,

James Mason
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Mobile: [phone]

James
Mason
Digitally signed by James
Mason
Date: 2021.03.25
19:59:28 -04'00'

Appendix A
Figures

1Figure
Vicinity Map
Wake County, North CarolinaSTRAYWHITEAVE
REUNIONCREEK
PK
W
Y
FOUNTAINSPRINGSRDARBORCREEK DR
OLD SMITHFIELD RD
H YANN IS D RREUNIONPARK
D
REWILLIAMSSTFIREFLYRD BLACKFORES
T
DRREUNIONPA RKDRWINDCAPDRL O C K L E Y R D
S
T
O
N
E
CREEKDRSUNSET LAKE RD
MYSTICPINEPLDINSORETTELNR
IV
E
R
FALLS
D
RCOMMONSDRCOLBY CHASE DR
OS TERVILLE DR
C R E E K H A V E N D R
HAZELMEREDRTH ORNCRESTDR
OCTOBER GLORY LN
DOVESHAV E N D R
VINEST MERI
ONST
ATI
ONDRDANESWAYDRLINDELL DR
EDD I E CR E E K D REASTON ST
A N C H OR CREEK W A Y
RIDGELAKEDR
KATHA DR
GOO
S
E
B
E
R
R
Y
D
RFORAKER ST
C OLONIALOAKSDR
NMAINSTCABANADR
LIANFAIRLN
MORENA DRW IL L O W V IE W L NHOLLYHOC K LN
WELL
SPRINGDR
STR AY WH IT E AV E
DUTCH E L M D R
ARBOR
C
R
E
STRDFAIRFOR
D
DRRICHARDSON STCRITTENDEN LN
ADEFIE
LDLNFLORIANSDR
R ESTO N W O O D D R
R O S EWOOD CENTRE DR
MONARCHBIRCHDRSMITHRDMiddleCreek
NCCGIA
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:WAKECHATHAMWAK
E
HAR
N
E
T
T
© OpenStreetMap (and)
contributors, CC-BY-SA
¯
April 2020
17-017
CMR JSM
0500250Feet
Study Area
Stream
Streets
^_
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
Lindell DrSunset Lake RdHollyhock LnGreycrest CtRidge
Lake
Dr NCCGIA, NC911 BoardFigure 2. Middle Creek Greenway - Aquatic Survey Extent¯2400240120FeetLegendApex_Greenway_2020_Revised_CorridorApexGreenway_Streams_April2020Survey_Area100M Upstream400M DownstreamISRN_Roads
February 22, 2021
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2021-SLI-0731
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577
Project Name: Town of Apex - Middle Creek Greenway

Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally-listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally-protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
02/22/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577   2

evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally-protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/
towers/comtow.html.
Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office at [e-mail].
02/22/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577   3

▪
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
02/22/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577   1

Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]
02/22/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577   2

Project Summary
Consultation Code:04EN2000-2021-SLI-0731
Event Code:04EN2000-2021-E-01577
Project Name:Town of Apex - Middle Creek Greenway
Project Type:RECREATION CONSTRUCTION / MAINTENANCE
Project Description:Middle Creek Greenway in Apex from Sunset Lake Rd to I-540
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@35.682021750000004,-78.82525767660984,14z
Counties:Wake County, North Carolina
02/22/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577   3

1.
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 7 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Birds
NAME STATUS
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
Endangered
Amphibians
NAME STATUS
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not
available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772
Proposed
Threatened
Fishes
NAME STATUS
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not
available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528
Proposed
Endangered
1
02/22/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577   4

Clams
NAME STATUS
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not
available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Proposed
Threatened
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784
Endangered
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not
available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511
Threatened
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Endangered
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
NCNHDE-14028
February 22, 2021
Three Oaks
Three Oaks Engineering
324 Blackwell Street
Durham, NC 27701
RE: Middle Creek Greenway
Dear Three Oaks:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached ‘Documented Occurrences’ tables and map.
The attached ‘Potential Occurrences’ table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one-mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally-listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one-mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund
easement, or an occurrence of a Federally-listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Middle Creek Greenway
February 22, 2021
NCNHDE-14028
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the
NCNHP database does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project
area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our
database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area*
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Triangle Greenways Council Preserve Triangle Greenways Council Private
Town of Holly Springs Greenway Town of Holly Springs Local Government
*NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve
(DNP), Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally-listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on February 22, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q4 January 2021.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Middle Creek Greenway
February 22, 2021
NCNHDE-14028
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
Group
EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last
Observation
Date
Element
Occurrence
Rank
Accuracy Federal
Status
State
Status
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Dragonfly or
Damselfly
32043 Coryphaeschna ingens Regal Darner 2004-Pre H? 5-Very
Low
--- Significantly
Rare
G5 S2?
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Town of Holly Springs Open Space - Future Park
Site
Town of Holly Springs Local Government
Triangle Greenways Council Preserve Triangle Greenways Council Private
Town of Holly Springs Greenway Town of Holly Springs Local Government
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on February 22, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q4 January 2021.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 4 of 4
1
Jim Mason
From:Raleigh, FW4 <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, March 26, 2021 1:17 PM
To:Jim Mason
Subject:Automatic reply: [EXTERNAL] Town of Apex - Middle Creek Greenway - Phase 1, USFWS Online
Project Review Certification Letter
Thank you for submitting your online project package. We will review your package within 30 days of
receipt. If you have submitted an online project review request letter, expect our response within 30
days. If you have submitted an online project review certification letter, you will typically not receive a
response from us since the certification letter is our official response. However, if we have additional
questions or we do not concur with your determinations, we will contact you during the review period. 
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona NI. Barton, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and 1 Iistary
Secretary Susi II. 1 lamiltan Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
November 6, 2017
Angela Reincke
Town of Apex
P.O. Box 250
Apex, NC 27502
[e-mail]
Re: Phase I — Middle Creek Greenway, Apex and Holly Springs, Wake County, ER 17-1957
Dear Ms. Reincke:
Thank you for your letter of August 30, 2017, concerning the above project.
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,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
6'
amona M. Bartos
Location: 109 I0, t Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 ma Scn-ice Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599