19920149 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19920423

April 21, 1992
MEMORANDUM
To:
Through:
John Dorney
Arthur Mouberry? P.E.- Regional
1 ? b
APR 2 3 x
im Donnelly, P.E.- Regional Water Quality
Supervisor
From: 16 Karl Shaffer- Soil Scientist
Subject: Triangle Central Park, NW 26
Project No. 92149
Wake County
Enclosed are two rating sheets for the wetland types
encountered on this tract. Also enclosed is a copy of memo sent
to S&EC after site evaluation was performed but before the design
was complete.
The wetlands to be impacted are low-value and essentially
serve no value in pollutant removal. The wetlands which are to be
avoided with the exception of a road crossing are of moderate
value. A buffer is maintained from these wetlands. Stormwater is
to be_controlled with a dissipator-type structurs to slowly
release the water into the lowlands and wetlands adjacent to the
developed area.
It appears that reasonable concessions with wetlands
avoidance and water quality concerns have been addressed. The RRO
recommends issuance of a water quality certification. Please note
that the applicant has concerns of the nature of this permit
which will have to be answered by you.
The package you sent is being returned with this memo for
your files.

MEMORANDUM
TRIANGLE.DOC
1/23/92 - SHAFFER
To: SOILS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS- Kevin Martin,
Larry Sink
Through: Arthur Mouberry, P.E.- Regional Supervisor
Tim Donnelly, P.E.- Regional Water Quality Supervisor
From: ,;/'Karl Shaffer- Soil Scientist
Subject. 401 Water Quality Certification Review
Triangle Central Park Facility
Wake/Durham Counties
On January 10, 1992, I met with Larry Sink on the project
site for a preliminary review of the wetlands and potential water
quality impacts associated with the project. Two major wetland
types exist on the site. Total acreage was not noted.
One wetland type is characterized by narrow stream channels,
mainly intermittent, with high gradients and steeply sloping
watersheds. This wetland type rated as having low value. If a
majority of the watershed which feeds these tributaries is
impacted with development and/or impervious surfaces, small
detention or sedimentation structures would be needed.
The other wetland type is characterized by a broader
floodplain situation with meandering channels and slower water
movement. This area is on the northern and eastern edge of the
tract. This wetland rated as having moderate value. Any
construction in the vicinity of this area would require buffers
between the disturbance and the wetland area. Road crossings, if
required, should not pose a problem. Stormwater detention may
again be necessary depending on percent development in the
upslope watershed and other factors.
I will hold my information on this project until more
definite plans concerning site disturbance and stormwater control
have been addressed. At that time, I will review the additional
information with you and request modifications as appropriate.
Once the concerns are addressed, I will make recommendation to
John Dornev's office for the certification with the required site
constraints.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 571-4700.
cc: John Dojr?ney
..? /?CQ.+"z. QS,? C?f??r..? ''7?'1.c:? ?'..?.:? -•- ?i ???/J?Lt?c? !.? ! !t-?L?,;? 7? G1i" ? °?+- ?' ? G
WETLAND RATING SYSTEM W
?/'? ORKSHEET
roject No. or description
jocation
County ,??j Nearest road or town
AM A r?Y
River basin
Nearest stream and classification e,{/
valuator
gency and address D641- q )CO
ate and time evaluated ?// ors f
ajor Wetland Type ?l?zterl ??na?tDa ??,?
Approximate size of wetland system / acres
Approximate extent of wetlands in area &,y acres
within miles
Three most common plant species (in order) :
v ?u 1k-6,P-7-',1, s/.moo
ail Series ( ' f known) yy,,X? A'h ?.
(drologic indicators
Direct surface hydrologic connection? ? Ec-FNO
:isting Conditions
Drainage ILIA
Disturbance ?n2
Restoration potentia
Restoration value 22srrY,
site known to provide habitat for rare, endangered or
ened species?_..,,(? If so, list species observed or recorded.
em No.
ation/Landscape
1 Natural area buffer
2 Sensitive watershed
3 Dispersal corridor system
logical Values
4 Special ecological attributes
5 Wildlife habitat
6 Aquatic life
7 Water storage
3 Streambank stabilization
9 Removal of pollutants
Human Values
10 Outdoor recreation/education
11 Economic value
Score (circle one)
5:
4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2(D 0
5 4 3 2 1D(0)
5 4 3 2 1 `--6 -
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1 0
5 4 --3. 2 1
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2 1
Total score
Site d
.Le-Qj "-Z. 111611 o J Sta?iri2 (?Ju ? ?'X/ n a-Q /k Q? G?e4?. 7?

A /7 ct a?uJ?c n? GA G 6Z t yl aitlo -
dt?rc(?•
J4;
13
escription and notes:
WETLAND RATING SYSTEM WORKSHEET
Project No. or descri tion
Location
County a,+„ GU Nearest road or town? ct
River basin
t Nearest stream--E-;e,. and classification
Evaluator
Agency and address ?E?"'?f?D
Date and time evaluated 9Z-
Major Wetland Type &T-1-fm G,q-;V P bOJ66b
Approximate size of wetland system :2 acres oti ?;k
Approximate extent pf wetlands in area_,'?'acres
within miles
Three most common plant species (in order)
Soil Series (if known) a).0-/u,
Hydrologic indicators ?n
Direct surface hydroloEic conne?zion?
NO
Existing Conditions
Drainage
Disturbance
Restoration potential
Restoration value
Is site known to provide habitat for rare, endangered or
threatened species?/(/6 If so, list species observed or recorded.
Item No.
I. Location/Landscape
1 Natural area buffer
2 Sensitive watershed
3 Dispersal corridor system
II. Ecological Values
4 Special ecological attributes
5 Wildlife habitat
6 Aquatic life
7 Water storage
8 Streambank stabilization
9 Removal of pollutants
III. Human Values
10 Outdoor recreation/education
11 Economic value
Total score
Score (circle one)
5
0
4
3
2 1 0
0
5 4 3 1 0
5 4 3 1 0
5 4 2 1 0
5 4 3 2 0
5 4 ® 2 1 0
5 4 2 1 0
5 4 ? 2 1 0
5 4© 2 1 0
5 4 3 2 0 0
Site description and notes: 13 ??

? Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc..
3818 Bland Road ¦ Raleigh, North Carolina 2,7609 ¦ [phone] ¦ Fax [phone]
arch 27, 1992
NC DEH&NR, DEM D ? ? ? U U ? ; 11, ;
Water Quality Planning -''
Attn : Mr. John Dorney APR 61992
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626 p(
Dear Mr. Dorney:
The purpose of this letter is to request a 401 Water Quality
Certification for the project known as the Triangle Central
Park owned by the City of Raleigh. The project is located in
Western Raleigh on the Durham County Wake County line as
shown on the enclosed plans. Larry Sink of our firm
previously met with Karl Schafer of your staff, on-site to
review the wetland areas. The detailed wetland delineations
are shown on the attached map. We have applied to the Corps
for Nationwide Permits and copied other agencies necessary
with this application.
The small finger (.079 acres) in the northwest section of the
tract will need to be impacted to allow for future
development of the tract. No "exact" plans have been
developed for this parcel as yet due to the uncertainty of
the ability to obtain other approvals necessary to develop
it. It will likely be a boccer field. However, due to the
low value/significance of the area and the Corps "policy" of
allowing only one Nationwide 26 Permit per project, we are
considering this area in the current application in order to
avoid complications at a later date. We would also like to
note that if possible (depending on land aquistion and other
approvals) this project may be expanded into Durham County in
other areas. However, at this time we are uncertain of the
feasibility/time frame for this. We would hope that we would
be eligible for other general certifications in the future if
this expansion is possible. Please inform us in writing
(prior to final action on this application) if we will be
eligible for additional general certifications in the future
to cover this expansion since impacts at this time (while
minimal) are over 1/3 acre.
Since the proposed road crossing in the northern end of the
property is only 10,100ft2 of impact and is less than 200
Soil/Site Evaluation ¦ Mapping and Physical Analysis ¦ Wetlands Mapping and Mitigation ¦ Environmental Audits
On-Site Waste Treatment Systems, Evaluation and Design
0': V
linear feet across the wetland area (see plan) we will
utilize a Corps Nationwide 14 "road crossing" permit for this
work. We would also like to note that the blue prints.end to
the north of the site at a DOT right of way for a proposed
DOT road that will be built and funded thru DOT. DOT will
handle any permits if necessary for this project.
Fill in some other wetlands will be required under Corps
Nationwide 26 to utilize the property for a combination of
Parking areas, athletic fields, other roads and a stadium
complex. (See attached map). As you can see, available
uplands have been utilized as much as possible and wetland
impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent possible
especially in the wetland areas of high value. However, due
to the central location of some small gullies, the planners
and engineers could not avoid these areas completely.
However, every attempt was made to minimize impacts in the
areas of highest "value" (i.e. the intermittent stream and
floodplain at the northern end of the project). Further
details of the project and reasons for the necessary impacts
are described in the attached letter from the project
engineer (Envirotek). I would like to note that the areas
containing the majority of the impacts are little more than
old agricultural gullies and are of little water quality as
wildlife value. As soon as you have the opportunity to
review this application please call so we can discuss this
project further.
It will be necessary to fill 1.4 acres (see map) of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. above headwaters for
placement of the currently proposed facilities utilizing
Nationwide Permit 26.
We have completed enough work to determine that we should be
eligible for Nationwide Permits 26 and 14 from the Corps
considering current "policy" of total allowable impacts.
Please call us immediately if this application is not
complete, as per the current requirements.
Please note that stormwater from the facility will not be
"piped" directly into the stream. It will be discharged at
or near the wetland edges onto an energy dissapator so that
the stormwater can filter thru the wetlands adjacent to the
stream prior to entering it (see plans). Also only the
roadways will be paved. The parking areas will be grassed
similar to those at Carter Finely Stadium. No retention
basins are proposed at this time.

Please call if you have any questions or require further
information. We appreciate your willingness to work with us
toward the economical and timely completion of this project.
Sincerely,
cp?- (2- " q4 LN-
Kevin C. Martin
President
Enclosures
cc: With Enclosures
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgt., Water Quality
Planning Regional Office
NC Dept. of Cultural Resources
USF&WS
USA COE
40
? Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc..
3818 Bland Road ¦ Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 ¦ [phone] ¦ Fax [phone]
March 27, 1992
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch, Raleigh Regional Office
Attn: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
1141,x, Falls of the Neuse Road
Wake rest, NC 27587
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
,The purpose of this letter is to request Nationwide Permits
for the project known as the Triangle Central Park owned by
the City of Raleigh. The project is located in Western
Raleigh on the Durham County Wake County line as shown on the
enclosed plans. Larry Sink of our firm previously met with
you, on-site to review the wetland Delineations. These
detailed wetland delineations are shown on the attached map.
We have applied to DEM for our 401 Water Quality
Certification and copied other agencies necessary with this
application.
The small finger (.079 acres) in the northwest section of the
tract will need to be impacted to allow for future
development of the tract. No "exact" plans have been
developed for this parcel as yet due to the uncertainty of
the ability to obtain other approvals necessary to develop
it. It will likely be a soccer field. However, due to the
low value/significance of the area and the Corps "policy" of
allowing only one Nationwide 26 Permit per project, we are
considering this area in the current application in order to
avoid complications at a later date. We would also like to
note that if possible (depending on land aquistion and other
approvals) this project may be expanded into Durham County in
other areas. However, at this time we are uncertain of the
feasibility/time frame for this. We would hope that we would
be eligible for other nationwide permits in the future if
this expansion is possible. Please inform us in writing
(prior to final action on this PDN) if we will be eligible
for additional nationwide permits in the future to cover this
expansion since impacts at this time (while minimal) are over
1 acre.
Since the proposed road crossing in the northern end of the
property is only 10,100ft2 of impact and is less than 200
Soil/Site Evaluation ¦ Mapping and Physical Analysis ¦ Wetlands Mapping and Mitigation ¦ Environmental Audits
On-Site Waste Treatment Systems, Evaluation and Design

linear feet across the wetland area (see plan) we will
utilize a Corps Nationwide 14 "road crossing" permit for this
work. We would also like to note that the blue prints end to
the north of the site at a DOT right of way for a proposed
DOT road that will be built and funded thru DOT. DOT will
handle any permits if necessary for this project.
Fill in some other wetlands will be required under Corps
Nationwide 26 to utilize the property for a combination of
Parking areas, athletic fields, other roads and a stadium
complex. (See attached map). As you can see, available
uplands have been utilized as much as possible and wetland
impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent possible
especially in the wetland areas of high value. However, due
to the central location of some small gullies, the planners
and engineers could not avoid these areas completely.
However, every attempt was made to minimize impacts in the
areas of highest "value" (i.e. the intermittent stream and
floodplain at the northern end of the project). Further
details of the project and reasons for the necessary impacts
are described in the attached letter from the project
engineer (Envirotek). I would like to note that the areas
containing the majority of the impacts are little more than
old agricultural gullies and are of little water quality as
wildlife value. As soon as you have the opportunity to
review this application please call so we can discuss this
project further.
It will be necessary to fill 1.4 acres (see map) of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. above headwaters for
placement of the currently proposed facilities utilizing
Nationwide Permit 26.
We have completed enough work to determine that we should be
eligible for Nationwide Permits 26 and 14 from the Corps
considering current "policy" of total allowable impacts.
Please call us immediately if this application is not
complete, as per the current Corps requirements.
0%
Please call if you have any questions or require further
information. We appreciate your willingness to work with us
toward the economical and timely completion of this project.
Sincerely,
Kevin C. Martin
President
Enclosures
cc: With Enclosures
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgt., Water Quality
Planning
NC Dept. of Cultural Resources
USF&WS
DEM ID: ?Z ?
ACTION ID:
JOINT APPLICATION FORM FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS. SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: City of Raleigh
2. OWNERS ADDRESS: Attn: Citv Tan v7P-r, Mr. Dempsey Benton
222 '1. 1'_araett Ft.
Ral.eiah, ?C 27x02
3. OWNERS PHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK) : (91-9) 8 0- 070
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: Soil and Environmental Consultants
Attn: N?r. Kevin Martin
3818 a .
Raieigh NC 27b09
5. LOCATION OF PLANNED WORK (ATTACH MAP).
COUNTY : W a k P
NEAREST TOWN OR CITY:
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Rourded by Page Road (SR1 971) nn thA GTAGt' and C,1 nhA Rnad
(SR1644) on h northeast corner (GAP Ai-t-AnhAd plan.)
6. NAME OF CLOSEST STREAM/RIVER: Unnamed.,-,' tribLtary of Rri r .r k
7. RIVER BASIN: Neuse
8. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, SA, HQW, ORW,
WS I, OR WS II? YES [ ] NO [x]
9. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x]
IF YES, EXPLAIN..
Surveyed
10. EST444A-TER TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:

-2-
11. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTED BY THE- PROPOSED PROJECT:
FILLED: 1.4 acres under NWP#26 and .23 acres under NWP#14
DRAINED:
FLOODED :
EXCAVATED:
TOTAL IMPACTED: .63
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK (ATTACH PLANS) : Construction required
for roadway system, parking, stadium s orts fields,*etc.-
assoctatea wi sports complex (see attached plans and letter
from Envirotek.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Provide sports/recreation complex
(see attached Envirotek 1 Pt-tPr)
14. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS. Prior to design of the facility i e d
and the site plan developed in a f
especia y to "higher qualit wetlands from
Enviro e an of and Environmental Consultants.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) REGARDING THE PRESENCE
OR ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED
SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES [x] NO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
?OWSEe copied with this application and we are awaiting their
16. YWi ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT?
HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES [x] NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM ?HE SthPO SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
They were copse wi this application and we are awaiting their
Mp1b6fT'IONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY DEM:
A. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND LAKES ON
THE PROPERTY.
B. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE. ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
D. IF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, ATTACH
COPY.
E. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Currently P'ooded Rural
Setting
F. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
Setting Municipal Sewer. C/>,?
(L . &'
OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE
/ - ? JI ?ii3'_-!`--, -I . ???iT"? - f • ?. 1 Ill , ,.?? \ ??I? /\ `??.; :?.`?./
SUBJECT PROPERTY - ??• ' / ?? _ U , '"?? \<?
4 : / _ • ??-,?: 'ice - ? , ? I ?, ?`? ~MJ % • ? } ? ?,? -?/ ? ? ./ '`? \\?? J ^? /- ;.
01
- - =t969," , ,?' _ .=/?i;, '??. ?? . \ :/ 1 ? !• via
CIS
fir
J \ (\(\ _ _ `/• . 350' f ` "? .'\?^ •(_
BM 55
va?
164
12
p two
- JCL
MCI
t-' Res
1974 ? _.... _
i?83
1 SCALE 1:24 000
1 2 0 1 MILE
MN 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
GN
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER
7 MILS • 1°17' CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
124 23 MILS
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
I GRID AND 1987 MAGNETIC NORTH THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS
ECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET FOR SALE BY U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DENVER, COLORADO 80225 OR RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092
SOUTHEAST DURHAM, N. C. FOLDER DESCRIBING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
.
NE/4 DURHAM SOUTH 15' QUADRANGLE
35078-H7-TF-024
FIGURE 2. TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF
1973 STTR.TRCT PROPERTY
nWu I IIVC W17.71 c aics?rsnr...-••--- -----
4rCrrf_
DOO S ??,IY
1
e?
COORDINATOR: TIME : _ _ DATE : I / 2 5 /92-- COUNTY: A A J5
NEAREST TOWN:p „- „-012. WATERWAY: rnned
4 C
QUAD : ?.?v. em.S k "OCATION
PROPERTY OWNER:(N 4E/ADDRESS PAR Y DOING WORK:(NAME/ADDRESS)
F s?trin Air?ir?sP,?o s 'r Fu S I- G lhL - Rsrlt;CA; NC,
PHONE: [phone]
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM ? OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
---------------------------------------------------
Do norma Anvironmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes V No (If no, explain on back)
,,wits, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Has the vegetation,
Yes No ? (If yes, explain on back)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-Y COVER-INDICATOR
I P/afGnus tk?identa(:xjo7o Ff}CUl- 1. S%!f ?'??. ?( Z ° F46
2?i?u:slt..L?v c. e- Zo'7a FACE 2•?4h?as ?O F?ICW
3.,4 e e r- t o 17. F,44( 3. M: C r o des i k,? 3 0 ha rAC+
4. f a N;P% s /0 90 FTIc. W U
5.Re- I-,- /* ?V,yv..- /07p 5
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
1:.Z a:da,.L.r ?fy ??e;?Itia ID FAG+ 7.
3.APr /O FAC WOODY VINES :
4. 1.
5. 2.
Percent of dominant spaces that are 091., FACW, and/or FAC
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes ? No
Rationale:
SOILS Ic
Series/phase: Wei ee- Subgroup:2.Y?aVf1%kC iia4U20?
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? lies ? No Undetermined
Yes No
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No ? Histic spipedon present No
Is the soil: Mottled? Ygs No ? Gleyed? Yes ??__
Matrix Color: io V2 % e Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale:
L?-'hw. A rv+- -re- soy-l i saCu..A ,64 o. Or ACSr 1Ln7CLlC
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No ? Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes ,/ No p/& es
Depth to free-standing water in pit/scii probe hole: o - S
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
f!ni,1eeZ ', 4 Xdex - l./.rAe- !-d 4r.; 42.(i' LY17 C?enn//! ?I-t I'n,
Is the wetland hydros Orion met? Yes No
Rationale: r
? Ny ??n/n a % ??n I1 ?i,M? oy?%i[? hour I?i e,U?/S C?i t.in? ? f??b?S
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes ? No /
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: t e r 1,') e l ?n..or7'' a.-f/er.
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUTIjARITY: 10 404 10/404_ NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED_ ADJACENT NWP #
DETERMINED BY:
PHONE : (61 ),24c'- 9yov
O'j"HER 1'.NDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
V , - M%JUIan= Vn171 Ici/c?cs?ww•^---
•
l?k'r` COORDINATOR: TIME: __ DATE: I /Z-1) /51-COUNTY: byokt
,r NEAREST TOWN: ?110rti ydlk- WATERWAY: ?fiw a -?-?--
Q[1A0: SeAL" thtekftt? LOCATION :a r P Wry DOING WORK: (NAME/ADDRESS) _
t, PROPERTY OWNER: (NAj9F/ADDRLSS
9 * 'J Al C'
u
K e V
jet, sS t9-
-;?- S40 DD PI TUNE : (9
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
- _ _ - - - - -
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM-.,/ OR SEPARATE DISCRETE -!VEGETATIVE UNITS
Do norm>3? environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes ??/ No (H no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soi and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No (If yes, explain on back)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES—% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-Y. COVER-INDICATOR
1•L%CGtu?+?++`qr J f?.q?/T/ka 3U ?n
2.r„?X?h kf - z o I' +2. Is.aC FC
3. Mfg.-6.4 f-J, kwN Ffi•e, r
4.9??r /ohb FAC 4.
5. 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
I. S p/,'x /? J r 1 09l 8.
3. M tis h p/• H t/'.3 ih ,'n FACW+ WOODY VINES :
4. /let. F 1.
5. 2• y
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, anc kr FAC U 6
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes v No
Rationale:
7 3?a '2w fac 01 L [ tf'-
A SOILS l 'I 1
Series/phase: LAIc 4.dAc Subgroup:2 , ?NV??I )C ?fap ??JT
is the soil on the hydria soils list? Yes No Undetermined
is the soil a Histosol? Yes No ? Histic spipedon present? Yes No
is the soil: Mottled? Ye? No ? Gieyed? Yes - --/ No
Matra Color: Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil indicators. t)v: ,lrL c, I- c-rr
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Y Surface water depth: 2
„
is the soil saturated? Yes No ,e
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: 2 - s
List other field evidence of surface J' undation or soil sat ration.
6X./?i zf N s?s V Gvrf'rr 17?
is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: ,J?c Je,'I o/.. -/a-
JURiSDICTIONAt? DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes v/ No ( \
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: 44 cQ
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUTI?ORITY: 10_ 404 10/404 NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS / ISOLATED- ADJACENT NWP U
DETERMINED BY:
COUNTY: IN a ?-
r?ICOORDINATOR: TIME: DATE: L/ I-? /Dr
NEAREST TOWN: rri t v•"1! d WATERWAY:
e 1'F QIIAD : LOCATION : 4' -? i; e '
)
p TY DUING WORK: (NAME /ADDRESS
?? art s PROPERTY OWNER: (NAM :/ Mir ESS )
S D }Nn a M6 S F O-
Irv% D
10 r 1A C41 -
sL Su WA
NE PItUNE : t5?>7 s a - 5! ??
PHO fi
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESEN'r:
?typ fr-
---------------------_ .
IS pItUPE1tTY UNIFORM ?/OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
Do normal onvironmental conditions exist at the plant community?-* N°fd ' r4 s A '", ..fie /'? c a fY
Yes `-,' No (If no, explain on back) ,i e,r.re,l .1 ? the rA & hnC j
tiL N1, Has the vegetation, s ' . and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? - ?- -
Yes No (B yes, explain on back) o y H, fi4 s •„R t e ti.o., f??f , i
r -----------------------------------------------
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-Y COVER-INDICATOR
I Life. ??mS.r f?yr[?,' ?lkr? J d,?' 2.'10% F?4C?
2. d e .- o %o FA 3.
4. 4.
5. 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
S?/ix 03L 7-
2 8.
3. WOODY VINES:
4. 1.
5. 2.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW, and/or FAC iD 7D
is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes ,/ No
Rationale:
> SOU 7f /use, a-- wI4W -
a SOILS /I '' //
Sades/phase: t,4- e ?./•t''< G Subgroup:2 r 11Agdbt C ga Ia a uelok
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined
is the soil a Histosoi? Yes No ? Histic epipedon present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes v-1 No
Matrix Color: v 14A "T- ' - Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil indicators: °
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale:
Gt Fiat Au A; 14444- r.t-I ,.Z1 P/l aF lt,r fs tC Ga wf?i ?-Q e.
HYDR9LOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No L/ Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes ? No
Depth to free-standing water in p0soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inurldation pr soil saturation.
ti: I/i rF( u .t ?t r Sr•?m aG l?r /?? ?t
is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No \ -L
Rationale:
SQ <-G ?4 v?
JURISDICTIONAL MINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No -
Rationale S d \\ totem
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404_ NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS L/SOLATED_ ADJACENT- NWP #
DETERMINED BY:
ABU
ruv? of n
.r
r'
I
COORDINATOR: TIME: _ _ DATE: L_/_1J7 J L COUNTY: WA k?, -
NEAREST ?/?T,?OWNL`' M (7rr i v : tier WATERWY: ?
QUAD:"'r1,e4sl burkaw. LOCATION:?? PAtfY pUING -WORK: (NAME/ADDRESS)
pROPh:RTY OW14ER: (NAME:/AD=:Lt6L C Q
F fflY r e t r % H/ So 4 ?u? r SNP
i ? ass I b -
PHONE: (61? )9-qC--7 6Vb PHONE: (ell9 )7 So
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
IS PRUPE1ZfY UNIFORM ? OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
-----------------------------------------------------
Do norm aJ.emrironmentai conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes ?? No no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation ifs, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
-------------------------------
Yes--- No ---{ifyes,expiainon -back)
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-Y COVER-INDICATOR
1'P%n us fti?dk, fo'). FAnC? 1 771vea
?uPr2as ??? lj,, 2 D 0n F/?CU 2.
3. 3.
4.Ac?r /0'?. Ffj? 4.
5. (?r. c a a s ha6 ?,t , 9 ?, F,4C(k 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
1- A c, c'- F,4r 7.
2.sh.Rtl v?h1 FACIA 8.
WOODY VINES:
4. 1.L0ti: <<rti FAA
5. Z.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW, and/or FAC
ly-
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: G.Tb 7A hrc Ar wltl-?? /i1,. /tit Gfr_ G/-+m r
SOILS /?
Series/phase: f- re e W ty, n 0 ir - Subgroup:2 14 rt I G ttA u ?U I
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No - Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosoi? Yes No >_ Histic epipedon present? Yes No ?_
Is the soil: Mottled? Yses No Gleyed? Yes No?_
Matra Color. I h V n 1(, Mottle Colors: LIGQ 7? p ?? 'Tv" V'
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No -
Rationale: l _
?.? 1A r.? I-v 3 uHYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No \y Surface water depth: NIA
Is the soil saturated? Yes No . A ,
Depth to free-standing water in pittsoil probe hole: - 21
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. o +J L
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No -3e'_
Rationale:
t, - - ??
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No S' ?? ??
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404_ NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED- ADJACENT NWP #
DETERMINED BY:
ti
25 March 1992
Envirotek, Inc.
1111 Oberlin Road
Raleigh NC 27605 USA
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
3818 Bland Road
Raleigh NC
Attention: Mr. Kevin Martin
Reference: Triangle Central Park
Wetlands Permit
Dear Kevin:
Telephone: [phone]
Telefax: 919-839-2255
architects engineers planners
On 18 March 1992, we discussed the processing of the wetlands permit for the proposed
Triangle Central Park. During our review of the proposed development plan, it became
evident the design was carefully focused at minimizing the impact on wetland areas
located on the site. Unfortunately, certain extraneous circumstances prevented us from
impacting all of them. We would like to take this opportunity to explain our design
concepts, design restraints and methods we are implementing to reduce the overall
impact on wetland areas.
Triangle Central Park will consist of the construction of a 7,500 seat baseball stadium, a
6,000 seat soccer stadium, and six soccer practice fields. In an effort to minimize
impervious surface areas, we are implementing the use of specially designed grassed
parking areas, some of which will also serve double duty as the soccer practice fields.
This concept allows us to make efficient use of the available area, thereby reducing the
amount of developed area normally required for a facility of this size.
Unfortunately, the project has been forced to cut back in size due to extenuating
circumstances beyond its control. The current developable area has been reduced
dramatically by a conflict with Durham County. A large portion of the site is located in
Durham County but due to this conflict, the development has been forced to limit itself to
the portion located in Wake County. The Developers of the project have also been
unable to reasonably obtain ownership of certain tracts of adjacent land. This has also
forced the project to be cut down in size and together has required us to impact a larger
portion of the wetlands than originally intended. The project is now in a position where
it cannot be reduced further. Special exceptions are already being utilized which allow
us to minimize the amount of parking for the facilities required by local development
regulations. Additional cutbacks in parking areas are not feasible.

Kevin Martin
25 March 1992
Page 2
Triangle Central Park has been designed in a manner which is sensitive to the
environment. It is being developed as a park with open areas, extensive landscaping and
preserved wetland areas. As a measure of added security to insure the wetland areas
are preserved in accordance with the wetland permits, orange safety netting will be
installed along the entire perimeter of these areas prior to any work commencing around
them. We are confident that all reasonable measures have been taken to preserve
wetland areas.
Please let us know if you should have any questions or need additional information. We
would be glad to provide it for you.
Sincerely,
David Lasley
TCPWA JDL/eyb
DEM ID:
ACTION ID:
JOINT APPLICATION FORM FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS. SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: City of Raleigh
2. OWNERS ADDRESS: Attn: Citv 7ananer, Mr. Dempsey Benton
222 W. TTaraett St.
Raleigh, '?C 27002
3. OWNERS PHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: Soil and Environmental Consultants
n; 4r. Kevin Martin
3818 a
a ei.g
5. LOCATION OF PLANNED WORK (ATTACH MAP).
COUNTY: wake
NEAREST TOWN OR CITY:
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Rnurd -d by page Road (SR1 971) nn +-hr- cuacf- anA M nhp Rnar7
(SR1644) on the northeast corner (GPP attanhpol =1 ans)
6. NAME OF CLOSEST STREAM/RIVER: Unnamedc' tributary of ri r Creek
7. RIVER BASIN: Neuse
8. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, SA, HQW, ORW,
WS I, OR WS II? YES [ ] NO [x]
9. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x]
IF YES, EXPLAIN.
Surveyed
10. £&T-R4A-'ER TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
P/2/0?)
00por"_
-2-
11. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTED BY THE- PROPOSED PROJECT:
FILLED: 1.4 acres under NWP126 and .23 acres under NWP#14
DRAINED:
Ft00DED:
EXCAVATED:
TOTAL IMPACTED: .63
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK (ATTACH PLANS) : Construction required,
for roadway system, parking, stadium sports fields etc.
assoclatea wi spor s comp ex (see attached plans and letter
from Envirotek.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Provide sports/recreation complex
(see attached Envirotek 1PttPr)
14. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS. Prior to design of the faci ied
and the site plan developed in a
especia y to "higher quality wetlands from
Enviro e an of and Environmental Consultants.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) REGARDING THE PRESENCE
OR ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED
SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES (..v] NO ( ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
oWgge copied with this application and we are awaiting their
16. YOU'ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOUD PROJECT?
HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES (x] NO ( ]
RESPONSE FROM THE.S PO SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
They were copied with this application and we are awaiting their
Wsp1b6ffiONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY DEM:
A. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND LAKES ON
THE PROPERTY.
B. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE. ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
D. IF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, ATTACH
COPY.
E. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Currently Wooded Rural
Setting
F. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
Setting Municipal Sewer.
cfL. -- &. 91?
OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE
-- _ - \. _ \r / rte] ?"?'a? i'?\/r?\`?? `\?/i ;/N`/I? it •\- ~``
_.-_ _ ?___ __- ? ? ---?J, ?-- _ tom. - \? 'Y? \? ? ?? `v? \``J?1 ?? ? ?' • ;
it r7f • j. _ '.I'\ ./, .---? ?;.? . ?.. ( ?? ! = _ \ '?' a
4 r //.• psi
/' ^`- _ ^ Ji /.% -?-, ?r•.'?j?? '.?/ I ?.il Ill = „? •? `L,jr??? `? .??.`?/1 -
SUBJECT PROPERTY
0 'J
-_ ` y, - _ 350.• ? __ '"" ? ?7+ • .. ¦• ,\ V?\ 1,\ ? ? .t t? • ? ?. ?..._:
•d ,. ??-
. 1 =1469,_ rte.. .???, l ?? ??G=a`?
- f _ _ _ : _ =.? ? ? ? . .,?? j? ? .l . ?, _ X11 `?•
J _ , `. ? , - '_? J •` ?.•-?? ?J ?? 1 tom. f ? • ° ? -? ` _ 1 ?.`.
400.
cz-
3anale. V ter .?^
ank
350' J r\
1 8M
130
X1642 ?-l -
?'` . _ 2 . - _ -~_• Pleasant Grove f : r .-- 1 f
ch.
SO"
Res
1474 --....... !
pa3
1 SCALE 1:24000
1 i 0
* 1 MILE
MN 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000, 6000 7000 FEET'
GN
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER
t2a7MILS 1.17• CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
23 MILS NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
N GRID AND 1987 MAGNETIC NORTH THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS
ECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET FOR SALE BY U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DENVER, COLORADO 80225 OR RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092
SOUTHEAST DURHAM,1V.CA FOLDER DESCRIBING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
.
NE/4 DURHAM SOUTH 15' QUADRANGLE
35078-H7-TF-024
FIGURE 2. TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF
1973 gTTR.7V..rrr PROPERTY
LrCr r?
L
9
5 t! ! S COORDINATOR: TIME : DATE : I / 2- 4 /5?- C?UNTY: 19 k ? et`
r : e
?M NEAREST TOWN:A WATERWAY 3r, N
S? 8 QUAD : ,?,_k' ftmS' ? u _Cka*,J.OCATION: 4 C
00 ePROPERTY OWNER: IN ?E/ADDRESS PAR Y DOING WORK: (NAME/ADDRESS)
01 1P *
der S?tN1 Ai rl tS r'O S r G ru S
O}
y tL "w Or Q SS oG.
U r? cWA Zr !;.J- 1.00
e? :C. V 190 _
PHONE: (60 PHONE: (')15 )74;0 - 1! ?1_
0' HER (NDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM ? OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
---------------------------------------------------
Do norm aj environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation,soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No ? (If yes, explain on back)
-------------------------------------------------
VEGRTATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
1P14 fGA(AS Otc?dr„toli:3o7,cdF4CUI- f-5m ,,,e 2n MC
JZ00. FAC+ 2•,Thhca4 /O FgCW
17. 3'Rctr to FRC 4.MiCro?te`i?.w, 309a Ff?C+
4. f? G V;^ H S /O 90 0
5.Re f a/k ^/iyr?a /c%p F"C 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
1.Li U: dab. L <r shy <<c; ?1?4 /O FAC.+ 7.
3.RPr /O FAC WOODY VINES :
4. 1.
5. 2.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC -? o l6
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes ? No
Rationale:
SOILS
Series/phase: Subgroup:2 FJ14Vf1%+iC ?ef'a4ue(Q
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? lies ? No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosoi? Yes No ? Histic epipedon prevent? Yes No T
Is the soil: Mottled? Yqs No ? Gleyed? Yes ?,__ No
Matrix Color. io V2 ri / Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil indicators: o r: sI.-u ?C _ as r _-A.?N,. J
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
A io ?- 44 D/riL S o, / Seta.-? l ?.:? wwTr. rrsrc AT o? 6ca? lLA7l[C
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No ? Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes ? No 01a
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence Of surface inundation or soil saturation. /?
Qti?'-elite-'o ,'. ,ter Xdex - Wye. r,d er.',/,ZCsi' <?r-{ rLe..n?/t /)rer.i?
Is the wetland hydros ' erion met? Yes No
Rationale: r
? Nl. ??-/1 ?n <i!?r ?'?ii.t .r DY??Iil? taut I?e?, i,??S f?i t.tn? ? f?u N/S
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes ? No
f ?"/ >! e s hn.,orT- a,- f/.r
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: C .0 , S %on
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUT RITY: 10_ 404 10/404 NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS- ISOLATED- ADJACENT- NWP #
DETERMINED BY:
v7
Inc COORDINATOR:
?Oy NEAREST TOWN: 0
{C' QUAD:S
PROPERTY OWNER:(!
.t
Str
n?ru ? Inc vn.? ? c a?c¦ cssww•------
_ TIME: _ _ DATE: I /2-1 /ILCOUNTY: ANA k-
-?
?;) )` WATERWAY: TUT
5 LOCATION:', ?f Par .SiM?14 rf rMA 1E/ADDRESS P TWO.RK:(NAME/ADDRESS)
Ptt)NE : ( M ASS noo Pk1UNE : (9r S) 7S b- ! _
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
_! _-
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM-_,/_ OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
Oo nor environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No (H no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soi and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No t-f (If yes, explain on back)
---------------------------------------------------
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-Y COVER-INDICATOR
?'AC
2.r,.Axr., of - Lo 2.
F 4. /rif?rsifcJ? t.arV? C?
4.9 r-c r /010
5. 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
7.
2. OPL 8.
3. Fps W+ WOODY VINES :
4.11tFAr- 1.
5. 2.
percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW, ank?lor FAC U
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes L/ No
Rationale: r?
7 3"a /i. 'L. c. Gr _ e ti'-
series/phase: c `' °44C SOILS Subgroup:2 Ekytykl l )C PAPIA C?J
Is the soil on the hydriC soils list? Yes No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No ? Histic epipedon present? Yes No
is the soil: Mottled? Yep j_ No Gleyed? Yes . 1--' No
Matra Color. Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil Indicators: - )y ? drL c, P d_ A . _r . 1_1
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale:
r.,e 0,,z
HYDROLOGY
.,
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Y Surface water depth: 2
Is the soil saturated? Yes No ,e
Depth to free-standing water in pit/sail probe hole: 2 - ,-
List other field evidence of surface J. undation or soil satyration. ?
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No V
Rationale: r c !?,'l o1.4 a
JURISDICTIONA1? DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes 7 No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: - ?T---?--.
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUTI?ORITY: 10-ADJACENT- 404 10/404_ NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ,/ ISOLATED- NWP #
DETERMINED BY:
Law
V
COORDINATOR: TIME _ DATE: L/1?? -COUNTY: W e-
IT
NEAREST TOWN: rriJ V"11 WATERWAY: M / Sr
e 1k QUAD' LOCATION
P •rY DUING WORK: (NAME/ADDRESS )
PKUPh:(tTY UWIJER: (NAM :/ DL'SS )
f7 SOr F ?' e ,V rN 4,,t'?. N o '
5
S ?' Sad WR K-7 -
PHONE - ?? PtIUNE : (9?)7 t O - 51 t?
OTHER INDIVLDUALS PRESENT:
?typ
S ?a?Q.r I5 Pl(OPERTY UNIFORM ? / OR SEPARATE DISCRETE - - - VEGETATIVE UNITS- - - - - - -
Do normalamvironmental conditions exist at the plant community?l` /???? r? r s a:?, ,fie /'? ca fr ?(
Yes No (if no, explain on back) is ?r r?.• ?i • ?? the ?? h ne j
Has the vegetation, s ' and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No (If yes, explain on back) - a_ y _ w_t? -
r
LS --------------------- ------
Sc?VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES—% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-Y COVER-INDICATOR
1. ,'(AMOwr f(k? ?ACt1.Mie.et+e?Taa.? F140
70 2.
3.g?eA- i0 FA 3
4. 4.
5. 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
Z.SA/!')e A f? ry DBL 7.
$.
3. WOODY VINES:
4. 1.
5. 2•
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC ?D 7D
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes ? No
Rationale:
SOILS
Sodastphase: (,s' e Ap,4ee C Subgroup:2 F 1%V 0ZNt ? C /7 a La 4 uejoL
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined
'
Is the soil a Histosoi? Yes No ? Histic epipedon present? Yes No Lf
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes ? No
Matra Color: 4r- Mottle Colors,
other hydric soil indicators.
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: J
V- J.,. e. Gvwf"?
tsJ G.

HYDR9LOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No ?/ Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes ? No
0 - V
Depth to free-standing water in piVsoii probe hole:

ace inur]dation pr soil s turation.
List other field evidence of surf
Ir
/?
r
?
V ld
a
r /
roG >
u .. ." /t IL Sr•
y.
is the wet!and hydrology criterion met? Yes No
Rationale• .

JURISDICTIONAL MINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404_ NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS L/SOLATED_ ADJACENT NWP #
DETERMINED BY:
�Ari
COORDINATOR: TIME: _ _ DATE: / 1-5 /5L COUNTY: WA�t�
NEARL:ST TOWN WATERWAY: ` "u
51�� QUAD:-�ur�aw�
LO
CATION:+ di eta Qd• a .SU/►la of Wel, .c
PROPERTY OWN£R:(NA11ME/ADDRESS PA TY DOING WORK:(NAME/ADDRESS)
Fu f L^ G T.. r� Q 2 �c.', l r✓L
kcsoe
0vi Ga bWN r fw
4r_ 00
ass 018LO .
- /! _
PHONE: (0)) - S'!0� PHONE: 011 )7Sb
r rr r OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT :
T IS PROPERTY UNIFORM / OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
Do normajenvironmentai conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation pis, and/or hydrology been signfficantly disturbed?
Yes __, No (If yes, explain on back)
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES--- % COVER --INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES -Y COVER -INDICATOR
1.P:i► us /-,edk, Co 7. FAC I•�eAve.1
2. 3.(Puea-rAs �� Z 0 7n FACu 2.
3.
4. A c 10 1I., FAC- 4.
5.6)c. e. e- 4 a k'i16 rA. ) 9 io F U 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
1. A C' e r, FRC 7.
2.8.
3.s.,,"1l a•shl rACu
WOODY VINES:
4. L.L'on��cr•►. F�C
5. 2.
percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW, and/or FAC D %�
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No ly-
Rationale:c�b .7A
r'
SOILS ' I
Seriesiphaw. 1- Pe @ d M n 0 v Subgroup:2 1444 1 G HAd u JU
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No 1_ Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No >e Histic spipedon present? Yes No _I..,
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes NoGleyed? Yes Nox_
Matrix Cofor. 1 h VA_5 1&Mottle Colors: ! Ln 0 }� 194, ri
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No .
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No _ e Surface water depth: J✓IA
Is the soil saturated? Yes No e- A ,
Depth to free-standing water in pittsoil probe hofs:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. I/ 0 hl L
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No _._
Rationale:
C4 ;=T A,-
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO_1Z AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404 NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED_ ADJACENT NWP #
DETERMINED BY:

25 March 1992
Envirotek, Inc.
1111 Oberlin Road
Raleigh NC 27605 USA
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
3818 Bland Road
Raleigh NC
Attention: Mr. Kevin Martin
Reference: Triangle Central Park
Wetlands Permit
Dear Kevin:
Telephone: [phone]
Telefax: 919-839-2255
architects engineers planners
On 18 March 1992, we discussed the processing of the wetlands permit for the proposed
Triangle Central Park. During our review of the proposed development plan, it became
evident the design was carefully focused at minimizing the impact on wetland areas
located on the site. Unfortunately, certain extraneous circumstances prevented us from
impacting all of them. We would like to take this opportunity to explain our design
concepts, design restraints and methods we are implementing to reduce the overall
impact on wetland areas.
Triangle Central Park will consist of the construction of a 7,500 seat baseball stadium, a
6,000 seat soccer stadium, and six soccer practice fields. In an effort to minimize
impervious surface areas, we are implementing the use of specially designed grassed
parking areas, some of which will also serve double duty as the soccer practice fields.
This concept allows us to make efficient use of the available area, thereby reducing the
amount of developed area normally required for a facility of this size.
Unfortunately, the project has been forced to cut back in size due to extenuating
circumstances beyond its control. The current developable area has been reduced
dramatically by a conflict with Durham County. A large portion of the site is located in
Durham County but due to this conflict, the development has been forced to limit itself to
the portion located in Wake County. The Developers of the project have also been
unable to reasonably obtain ownership of certain tracts of adjacent land. This has also
forced the project to be cut down in size and together has required us.to impact a larger
portion of the wetlands than originally intended. The project is now in a position where
it cannot be reduced further. Special exceptions are already being utilized which allow
us to minimize the amount of parking for the facilities required by local development
regulations. Additional cutbacks in parking areas are not feasible.
f d
Kevin Martin
25 March 1992
Page 2
Triangle Central Park has been designed in a manner which is sensitive to the
environment. It is being developed as a park with open areas, extensive landscaping and
preserved wetland areas. As a measure of added security to insure the wetland areas
are preserved in accordance with the wetland permits, orange safety netting will be
installed along the entire perimeter of these areas prior to any work commencing around
them. We are confident that all reasonable measures have been taken to preserve
wetland areas.
Please let us know if you should have any questions or need additional information. We
would be glad to provide it for you.
Sincerely,
David Lasley
TCPWA JDL/eyb
s.
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Exec ipeet@f ri-?IrTI
MEMORANDUM t5 lei 15 t1 U lS
t
TO: John R. Dorney M
Division of Environmental M na ement
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager WuE
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 20, 1992
SUBJECT: Comments on Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
Section 404 Nationwide Permit Requests
Biologists on the Wildlife Resources Commission staff have
reviewed the permit applications listed and we are familiar with
habitat values of the project area. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U. S. C. 661-667d).
Based upon information provided, it is our opinion that
Section 401 Water Quality Certification can be issued without
significant impacts on fish and wildlife for the following
projects:
1. City of Raleigh, Triangle Central Park, Wake and
Durham County Line
2. Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc., Phoneline
Relocation, Johnston County
3. Town of Rockwell Gravity Sewer Line, Rowan Co.
4. Research Tricenter South Development, Durham Co.
5. Proctor and Gamble Manufacturing, Guilford Co.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on these
projects. If we can provide further assistance, please call on
us.
DLS/lp
cc: Stephen Pozzanghera, Habitat Conservation Biologist
L
>r State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
April 28, 1992
George T Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Mr. Dempsey Benton, City Manager
City of Raleigh
222 West Hargett Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Benton:
Subject: Proposed Fill in
Triangle Central
Wake County
DEM Project 92149
Headwaters or Isolated Wetlands
Park
upon review of your request for Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in 1.4 acres of wetlands for road
crossings and a sport complex located at Research Triangle Park
in Wake County, we have determined that the proposed fill can be
covered by General Water Quality Certification No. 2666 and 2671
issued January 21, 1992. A copy of the General Certification is
attached. This Certification may be used in qualifying for
coverage under Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit No. 26.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at
919/733-1786 or 919/733-1787.
Sincerely,
rge T. Everett
GTE:JD
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regional Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Kevin Martin.., Soil and Environmental Consultants
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900
Winston-Salem
919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Pn ,A n AUn...... c :Aa ism 6nPlow,
:
Soil & Eriwirorirnental Consultants, Inc.
..
3818 Bland Road ¦ Raleigh, North Carolina 27609- ¦ [phone] ¦ Fax `[phone]
rch ?27, 1992
NC DEH&NR,"DEM
water',Quality Planning
Attn Nix : John Dorney WETLANDS GROUP;
WATER UALITY SECTION '
P%0.;Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 2`7626
DearM.r Dorneys
The purpose of this letter is to request a"401 Water Quality
Cen't' cation for the project known as the Triangle Central
Park,
l% 7? n"ed by the City of Raleigh. The project is located in
Wester-,n,,Raleigh on the Durham County Wake'County line as
sh`own?T on the enclosed plans. Larry; Sink of our firm -
previously met_with Karl Schafer of your.staff, on-site to
revreV the wetland areas. The detailed wetland delineations
arm shown;; on the attached map. We have applied to the 'Corps,
for Nationwide Permits and copied other 'agencies necessary
with 'hi's'. application.
The" ,small'finger (.079 acres) in the northwest section of'the
trat'x{will need to be impacted to allow for future
dev?elppinent of the tract. No "exact" plans shave been
devehoped`-for this parcel as yet due to the uncertainty of
the ail:ity to obtain other approvals necessary to develop
t. -I will likely be a .soccer field... However, due to the
low; value/significance of the area and the Corps "policy!' of .'„
allowr4g only one Nationwide 26 Permit per project;, we are .
con?siad" ing this area in the current application in order to
avo?d-:?--i,-omp1ications at a later date. We would also like to
notse tf<at -' if possible {depending on land aquistion : and other
approalss) this project may be- expanded into; Durham County" in
other, eas. However, at this time we are:`uncertain of the
fea'ty/time frame for this. We would.' hope that we would
bete bile for other general certifications; in the future if
this :' d.nsion is -,possible. Please inform us in writing
(prior-,tf inal ? action , on this application) if we will be
eligil? e for .additional general certifications in the future `
to co.e ';this expansion since impacts at this time ' (while
min ,n are over -1/3 acre.
Since the, proposed road crossing in the 'northern end of'the
property is only 10,100ft2`of impact and is less_than 200
Soil/Site Evaluation ¦" Mapping and Physical Analysis ¦ Wetlands Mapping and Mitigation `¦ Environmental Audits,,-,
On-Site Waste Treatment Systems, Evaluation and Design
11ne,i?ir .,.feet . across the wetland area (see plan) we ;will
utril?ze a. Corps Nationwide, l4-"road crossing," permit for this
worlt' We would also like tb note that the` blue prints. end to'
the north of the site at a DOT right of way for-,-a proposed
DOT road that will be built and funded thru DOT:' DOT will
handle'a-ny:permits if necessary for this,project.-
Fill_in some other wetlands will be required under Corps
Nati,pnwide 26 to utilize the property fora combination of _
Parking,areas, athletic fields, other roads and a stadium -
c` omp;L'ex . (See ' attached map).-
As you can•see, available
uplands have been utilized as much as possible and, wetland
impacts have been minimi-zed to-the greatest extent possible
especially, in the wetland areas- of high value. However, -due
to the.;T_central location of some small gullies, the-planners
and engineers could not avoid these areas completely.
Hbwbaier every attempt was made to minimize impacts in the
a ea?-6f, highest "value" (i.e. the intermittent stream and
f'obdiblain at the northern end of the project). Further
deta??s'of the; project and reasons for the' necessary impacts
acre SdFe_scribed in the attached letter from the project
etigiheer (Envirotek).' I would like`to note that the areas
containing the majority of the impacts are little more than
o4ld' gricultural gullies and are of little water quality'as
Wilk ?fe value. As soon as, you have the opportunity to
rteapplication please call so, e'can:di'cuss this
Pe og ctfurth
o..
3 ..
It i11, be necessary to fill 1.4 acres (see map) of
u,,?sd:ictional waters of the U. S. above headwaters for
pla?csement of the currently `proposed ' facilities utili,z,i'ng
,Nat, onw? de Permit 26.'
We -rhave. completed enough work to determine that we should be -
i-oligrib,le °for' Nationwide Permits` 26 and ? i4 from the
Corps -
,considering current "policy" of total allowable :impaets.,
Please call us` immediately if this application is not
`com ete, as per the current requirements.
,Please-note that stormwater from the facility will'not be
"pi'%ed" directly into the stream. It will be discharged at
or n4ear the wetland edges onto an energy dissapator so that
the stormwater`can filter thru the wetlands adjacent to the
s.F,p m';prior to entering it (see plans) Also only the
pro sways will be paved. The parking areas will be grassed
Y
?simj?lar to those at Carter Finely Stadium. No, retention
basfins•are proposed at this time.
? Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
3818 Bland Road ¦ Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 ¦ [phone] ¦ Fax [phone]
March 27, 1992
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch, Raleigh Regional Office
Attn: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
11413 Falls of the Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
The purpose of this letter is to request Nationwide Permits
for the project known as the Triangle Central Park owned by
the City of Raleigh. The project is located in Western
Raleigh on the Durham County Wake County line as shown on the
enclosed plans. Larry Sink of our firm previously met with
you, on-site to review the wetland Delineations. These
detailed wetland delineations are shown on the attached map.
We have applied to DEM for our 401 Water Quality
Certification and copied other agencies necessary with this
application.
The small finger (.079 acres) in the northwest section of the
tract will need to be impacted to allow for future
development of the tract. No "exact" plans have been
developed for this parcel as yet due to the uncertainty of
the ability to obtain other approvals necessary to develop
it. It will likely be a soccer field. However, due to the
low value/significance of the area and the Corps "policy" of
allowing only one Nationwide 26 Permit per project, we are
considering this area in the current application in order to
avoid complications at a later date. We would also like to
note that if possible (depending on land aquistion and other
approvals) this project may be expanded into Durham County in
other areas. However, at this time we are uncertain of the
feasibility/time frame for this. We would hope that we would
be eligible for other nationwide permits in the future if
this expansion is possible. Please inform us in writing
(prior to final action on this PDN) if we will be eligible
for additional nationwide permits in the future to cover this
expansion since impacts at this time (while minimal) are over
1 acre.
Since the proposed road crossing in the northern end of the
property is only 10,100ft2 of impact and is less than 200
Soil/Site Evaluation ¦ Mapping and Physical Analysis ¦ Wetlands Mapping and Mitigation ¦ Environmental Audits
On-Site Waste Treatment Systems, Evaluation and Design
Please call if you have any questions or require further
information. We appreciate your willingness to work with us
toward the economical and timely completion of this project.
Sincerely,
Kevin C. Martin
President
Enclosures
cc: With Enclosures
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgt., Water Quality
Planning
NC Dept. of Cultural Resources
USF&WS
linear feet across the wetland area (see plan) we will
utilize a Corps Nationwide 14 "road crossing" permit for this
work. We would also like to note that the blue prints end to
the north of the site at a DOT right of way for a proposed
DOT road that will be built and funded thru DOT. DOT will
handle any permits if necessary for this project.
Fill in some other wetlands will be required under Corps
Nationwide 26 to utilize the property for a combination of
Parking areas, athletic fields, other roads and a stadium
complex. (See attached map). As you can see, available
uplands have been.utilized as much as possible and wetland
impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent possible
especially in the wetland areas of high value. However, due
to the central location of some small gullies, the planners
and engineers could not avoid these areas completely.
However, every attempt was made to minimize impacts in the
areas of highest "value" (i.e. the intermittent stream and
floodplain at the northern end of the project). Further
details of the project and reasons for the necessary impacts
are described in the attached letter from the project
engineer (Envirotek). I would like to note that the areas
containing the majority of the impacts are little more than
old agricultural gullies and are of little water quality as
wildlife value. As soon as you have the opportunity to
review this application please call so we can discuss this
project further.
It will be necessary to fill 1.4 acres (see map) of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. above headwaters for
placement of the currently proposed facilities utilizing
Nationwide Permit 26.
We have completed enough work to determine that we should be
eligible for Nationwide Permits 26 and 14 from the Corps
considering current "policy" of total allowable impacts.
Please call us immediately if this application is not
complete, as per the current Corps requirements.
DEM ID: 2, ) (
ACTION ID:
JOINT APPLICATION FORM FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS. SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: City of Raleigh
2. OWNERS ADDRESS: Attn : City 7a-na.7er , Mr. Dempsey Benton
222 T7. T'arcrett P-t.
Raleigh, ':iC 27r.02
3. OWNERS PHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: Soil and Environmental Consultants
Attn: Mr. Kevin Martin
3818 Bland
a eig
5. LOCATION OF PLANNED WORK (ATTACH MAP).
COUNTY: Wake
NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: c;h
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Rnurded by Page Road (SR1 971) on t-ha wpat and C;l nhe Road
(SR1644) on the northeast corner (Gee Ai-tanbad plans)
6. NAME OF CLOSEST STREAM/RIVER: Unizamedc' tributary of '13rier Creek
7. RIVER BASIN: Neuse
8. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, SA, HQW, ORW,
WS I, OR WS II? YES [ ] NO [x]
9. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x
IF YES, EXPLAIN.
Surveyed
10. ESTIR 4A-TEB TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
2/3/92
oorplr-
-2-
11 NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTED BY THE- PROPOSED PROJECT:
FILLED: 1.4 acres under NWP#26 and .23 acres under NWP#14
DRAINED:
FLOODED :
EXCAVATED:
TOTAL IMPACTED: 1.63
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK (ATTACH PLANS): Construction required
for roadway system, parking, stadium sports fields etc.
assoclarea wi sports complex (see attached plans and. letter
from Envirotek.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Proyicle sports /recreation complex
(see attached Envirotek 1,j-tPr)
14. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS. Prior to design of the facility i e d
and the site plan developed in a
especia y to "higher quality wetlands -From
Enviro e an of and Environmental Consultants.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) REGARDING THE PRESENCE
OR ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED
SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES [x] NO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
?oyjgEe copied with this application and we are awaiting their
16. YOU'ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT?
HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES [x] NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE S POthHOULD BE ATTACHED.
They were copied with is application and we are awaiting their
rfsp1B6f7IONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY DEM:
A. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND LAKES ON
THE PROPERTY.
B. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE. ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
D. IF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, ATTACH
COPY.
E. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Currently F'ooded Rural
Setting
F. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
Setting Municipal Sewer.
OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE
?., .
IWO?V
lop
/' - - _ -.-, JI 1 J /./???. - i •. ._??j??. _ '`,/ 1 ? ?I i 1 ? e v? ? j I?Ir ???`?v `\ ? J'\
SUBJECT PROP
? J 1 v ^???? I ? ?`7 \\ )? ``. ?.'
ERTY
j50 - ?-' ?. ?? ????.??+. f ?• 111 •1
• -1969,
J - it __? /?,.? • ? ? \ ?? Q ( ? ? [Q k ? `? -.. 1 ?.
400.0 LZ' ?h?.ngle; `' ?.
tcf
\ 355 ??
' ? _ _ ego 47? _ ? -? _ r? ` _ •? rte, • _?? ?_
1642 • 4 ?BM l
Ila -L
_ / - ~ • Pleasant Grose I ` 16
/ \ 1
3 _ Ch 1
/X -7
Sp ??? _ \? '89
? - - = • ? _ ?\ Res
7a-) 1914 ,;
............. ,
Nx?l
1 SCALE 1:24 000
1 2 0 1 MILE
MN 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
GN
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER
7° 1°I7' CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
124 MILS 23 MILS
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
M GRID AND 1987 MAGNETIC NORTH THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS
DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET FOR SALE BY U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DENVER, COLORADO 80225 OR RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092
SOUTHEAST DURHAM, N. C. FOLDER DESCRIBING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
.
NE/4 DURHAM SOUTH 15• QUADRANGLE
35078-H7-TF-024
FIGURE 2. TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF
1973 SUBJECT PROPERTY
PHOTOREVISED 1987 C
ROUTINE ONSiTE DE[ERNBNA-tiwn
?'C.Vr
s t5?

COORDINATOR: TIME DATE: I_/2ct /9 -C LINTY: f!k ?
of
-
HN1 .?S r?
NEAREST TOWN: s; WATERWAY: ed . t
A 6+ c
r S<<
p00 ??` QUAD: ?? eo.S? *? OCATION: 4
PROPERTY OWNER:( N 4E/ADDRESS PAR Y DOING WORK: (NAME/ADDRESS
i
?
R
?<<f t
t
A
STtIM i li ss r to S h1r G FW S `y L l h f?
}
+ ?dl ??+? ' y.. li nw OY NQ Ace Oe
P ?? ewe er I Swi?4 G00 '
01 q0
PHONE : ((old ).24C - S40E7 PHONE : 015 )790 - II _
OTHER fNDIVIDUALS PRESENT:

- _ _ - - - _ - - - .
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM ? OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE-UNITS
Do norm^vironmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes ?/ No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetatlon,,oiis, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
c
??
k)
(N yes, explain on ba
Yes No
------------------------
---------------------------
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
1 ?AWOC;AVS 000;C1(-.•}? (k 3C)% RCW- 1.5m il" Y 20 F4(,
2-1iCN FAC+ 2•JkhtNS /p F4CW
3•,4, J o 17e FAC 4* M,co'o f to f 3 0 hn ?Atr+
4
O
.f-G X.h" S /0
o !'Tic.W
5.Re F'a/a All'o, , /o% 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
(na?+LAr ?fy?sc;?1H4 )1D FAj?.+ 7.
3.14 /A FAG 8.
WOODY VINES:
4. 1.
5. 2.
V6
Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW, and/or FAC
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes ? No
Rationale:
> s6
SOILS !!
Series/phase: LISL WA e-f- Subgroup:2 ??Nd4it 9*1qu
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes .-f. No Undetermined
reent? Yes No
don
ti
i
Hi
t
? Hi
il
l? Y
N
p
s
c ep
pe
a
s
oso
o
es
Is the so
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No ? Gleyed? Yes No
Matrix Color: Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil indicators: o )e;, s/ru od h A a-% r S
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ? No
Rationale:
?h?fk' ' R ra • / r rG S ?? /?- ee u.. Ir- I S IC ?i`l? o? AcF. 1 ??'fccC
?
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No ? Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes ? No #0
? ? ,?
Depth to free-standing water in ptVsoii probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. n
l
lf /l
4
-
'f
-
l
6-
.
A&e
e
a,,re
r,
,,,
2-e
O6„c'-..«./ ,. dA- /.les - wzAe. r,,/ 4r"0
Is the wetland hydros erion met? Yes No
Rationale:
//ti s1.•e%.: t?r ,'?s;,,,, py,'m/ize? r.,u'r' ilCs.,,,</s t4e.cn,* ? ?/teals
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes ? No
! c
-h
J
?
wal r
e
>
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: r, .O • a r+ 1
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUT RITY: 10 404 10/404_ NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS- ISOLATED- ADJACENT- NWP #
DETERMINED BY:
„r^ ROU77NE vlvu c ucr rruw.?• _?-
COORDINATOR: TIME DATE: 1 / %-'I /51-COUNTY: I/V!i IC e.
D? NEAREST TOWN: orv t., WATERWAY: - I. CATION :,&d IN T tf a Kd
,J QIIAD:s ?TiAekzm- cif P is G _
PROPERTY OWNER: (NAj4E/ADDRLSS P t'rY DOING WORK 4 )
1-? U
. o
.?5 R e 0 .
S?f `e SS $ fl -
PtiONE : (QJ)ayr-S-qQQ PHONE : (9# z) 7g b- ! t _
OTHER UVDIVIUUALS PRESENT:
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
---------------------------------------------------
Do norm?J environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No (K no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No If yes, explain on back)
---------------------------------------------------
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
1. J+ Alklif/ka 3V 7a +l.s?r?? ?a?l FAC
2•r,.,.X;,, of - z o FAC?II 2. r•k w. FAC.
ti?+?, e.??J
4:'9 c- e / c 7b FAC 3. 4.
5. 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
2. Sorb X A,Jt1 09L 8.
3. WW+ WOODY VINES :
4.11,1-,- FAC, 1.
5. 2.
Percent of dominant spades that are OBL. FACW, ankYor FAC -7 U
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes t/ No
Rationale: n
7 3'e /A 0G c Gr ? l e
? l +I I
Seriedphase: L SOILS Subgroup:2 EkVehl C flap! A 9?rJ?
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined
is the soil a Histosoi? Yes No ? Histic spipedon present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yet No _%.,- Gieyed? Yes ?? No
Matrix Color. Mottle Colors:
• -t
Other hydric soil Indicators. )v%.!r tc, N -CA
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale:
/r??I '/f yr ?. Y I' G .tom 'J % J /r1 rP ? r?
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth: 2
Is the soil saturated? Yes - No ,e
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: 2 - S-
List other field evidence of A4r!face p. undation or soil sat ration.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes ? No
Rationale: s c ?a2 o% f u.
JURiSDICTIONA? DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes y/ No See-
for jurisdictional decision: ,
Rationale
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUT ORITY: 10 404 10/404_ NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS -fiISOLATED ADJACENT NWP #
DETERMINED BY:
?„14A
H't? r COORDINATOR: TIME _ DATE: L/2?! /COUNTY: IN a k e-
' ?? NEAREST TOWN : r, rs v.-ll a - WATER
j?L ID WAY: • M I ; c R
ICF 5 QUAD : LOCATION : r Qa't' a
AR S?r? pROPt:BTY OWNER: (NAM :/ DDRESS) P 'fY ) NG WO:`NAME/ADDRESS )
G .r S C_
,, Arlimc Plo
f-s
?s``11cP? ?
p SD Ss W ws t%/ -- PILO E: (2LL)7 to- 5l1?_
N ??v PHONE: ((?0 ")' -?SQo
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
4„'
IS PItUPCIi'PY UNIFORM ?/ OR SEPARATE DISCRETE - - - VEGETATIVE UNITS- - _ - - - - _
S4•va
rr .t1 J Do norma?,?m ronmental conditions exist at the plant community? /?/ ? ' 1? r s G:e, ,/e / N ea f?
r? •?? Yes C No (K no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, s ' ,and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No (K yes, explain on back) o_ y- w_t?- s ^,,c tt ti•?a fl.t` s
----------------------- - - - - - aa.l?..
Se VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-T. COVER-INDICATOR
1?if4,?AMbwr J?y?«i f/k? s D,?' FAC+2.?'ie?sr+t,Tiu«? FACE
3.y 0 70 C 3.
4. 4•
5. 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
.
IS.417X A1frn OBL 7 8.
3. WOODY VINES:
4. 1.
5. 2•
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACK and/or FAC
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes ? No
Rationale:
rU ?/ /Gn?+ Gr 2?r 1kLt'"'
SOILS I /
Sedestphase: 1,,ye Subgroup:2 ??Ni/2N7? ttaV1 .yam
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No ? Histic epipedon present? Yes. No
is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gieyed? Yes ?V-' No
Matrix Color. dT- Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil Indicato. s. 6 k i N • tie e o n'f- iL 1
is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No
Rationale: P? r A^,, INAf r, 7 14 /e -
Is f. c,. ?u. 4,,/s-; - r.,I .,mac
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes ,,- No
Depth to free-standing water in pittsail probe hole: ?-
List other laid evidence of surface inunndation pr soil sqturation.
y: ?i r,•? L, ?r (t 1?- Sa•rcG ?Ir l?? l?.'.
!s the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No e \\ -?
Rationale:
t o ? Sa c-?. ?4 r?
JURISDICTIONAL MINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Sn, t_? So N\ CA-- k
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUTHORITY: 10 404 10/404_ NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ,"'ISOLATED_ ADJACENT- NWP #
DETERMINED BY:
HYDR LOGY
No ?/ Surface
ruv?'ol? n
?r
N
7
COORDINATOR: TIME: _ DATE: %/ Lei /?t COUNTY: WA k
NEAREST TOWN, M rri r: t1c? WATERWAY:
QUADS' r LOCATION: Qd•
VKOPERTY OWNER:(NAME/ADDRESS PA 'PY DOING WORK: (NAM E /A RESS)?C.
P c? L ?' - - c,ti z
dots Ref; r Fu VIA
E?sfrr
-% M/ so
'f0 F.d ?wN r SNP
PHONE: (rte) sS GVb b PHONE : (LI 1 )710 - / t _ -
OTHER INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM ? OR SEPARATE DISCRETE VEGETATIVE UNITS
--------------------------------------------------- --
Do norms) environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes ?? No no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation iis, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No (B yes, explain on back)
------------------------------------
VEGETATION: (IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES ---% COVER--INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES-% COVER-INDICATOR
-7 81W A, 6t) FAC 1./
2*pue?.zks ?/J %, z o ?„ FACU 2•
4, A c c r 10 191, FAC- 4.
5.Vi4e.*t, us ""# )o ?o Fi4Cb( 5.
SAPLINGS/SHRUBS: 6.
1.AGer F,4C 7•
s...,tl auks FAU 8-
3. WOODY VINES:
4. FAC
5. 2.
Percent of dominant species that are 08L, FACW, andfor FAC D 7,,
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No -N-
Rationale:
t, t t ), - 14? _ G Ftm r 46
SOILS ,Q I
Series/phase: e E el ? n D M Subgroup:2 ' )t G X L IA/U
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No ?L Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosoi? Yes No >e'_ Histic spipedon present? Yes No •JL
Is the soil: Mottled? Yses No Gleyed? Yes No?' _
Matrix Color. -1-h ? 4, Mottle Colors. J & / R+ I '5-w r4
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No_,?
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No a Surface water depth: N/A
Is the soil saturated? Yes No )e- ? A ,
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence Of surface inundation or soil saturation. o Al L
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No -_
Rationale:
(.I.. a.., cn'/ 1 ?v
JURISDOMONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: \
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO AUTHORITY: 10_ 404 10/404_ NONE_
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADWATERS ISOLATED- ADJACENT NWP #
DETERMINED BY:

25 March 1992
Envirotek, Inc.
1111 Oberlin Road
Raleigh NC 27605 USA
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
3818 Bland Road
Raleigh NC
Attention
Reference:
Dear Kevin:
Mr. Kevin Martin
Triangle Central Park
Wetlands Permit
Telephone: [phone]
Telefax: 919-839-2255
architects engineers planners
On 18 March 1992, we discussed the processing of the wetlands permit for the proposed
Triangle Central Park. During our review of the proposed development plan, it became
evident the design was carefully focused at minimizing the impact on wetland areas
located on the site. Unfortunately, certain extraneous circumstances prevented us from
impacting all of them. We would like to take this opportunity to explain our design
concepts, design restraints and methods we are implementing to reduce the overall
impact on wetland areas.
Triangle Central Park will consist of the construction of a 7,500 seat baseball stadium, a
6,000 seat soccer stadium, and six soccer practice fields. In an effort to minimize
impervious surface areas, we are implementing the use of specially designed grassed
parking areas, some of which will also serve double duty as the soccer practice fields.
This concept allows us to make efficient use of the available area, thereby reducing the
amount of developed area normally required for a facility of this size.
Unfortunately, the project has been forced to cut back in size due to extenuating
circumstances beyond its control. The current developable area has been reduced
dramatically by a conflict with Durham County. A large portion of the site is located in
Durham County but due to this conflict, the development has been forced to limit itself to
the portion located in Wake County. The Developers of the project have also been
unable to reasonably obtain ownership of certain tracts of adjacent land. This has also
forced the project to be cut down in size and together has required us -to impact a larger
portion of the wetlands than originally intended. The project is now in a position where
it cannot be reduced further. Special exceptions are already being utilized which allow
us to minimize the amount of parking for the facilities required by local development
regulations. Additional cutbacks in parking areas are not feasible.

Kevin Martin
25 March 1992
Page 2
Triangle Central Park has been designed in a manner which is sensitive to the
environment. It is being developed as a park with open areas, extensive landscaping and
preserved wetland areas. As a measure of added security to insure the wetland areas
are preserved in accordance with the wetland permits, orange safety netting will be
installed along the entire perimeter of these areas prior to any work commencing around
them. We are confident that all reasonable measures have been taken to preserve
wetland areas.
Please let us know if you should have any questions or need additional information. We
would be glad to provide it for you.
Sincerely,
David Lasley
TCPWA JDL/eyb
11
qv qq TRI ANGLE . DOC
1/23/92 - SHAFFER
MEMORANDUM
To: SOILS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS- Kevin Martin,
Larry Sink
Through: Arthur Mouberry, P.E.- Regional Supervisor ee
Tim Donnelly, P.E.- Regional Water Quality Supervisor
From: Karl Shaffer- Soil Scientist
Subject:) 401 Water Quality Certification Review
Triangle Central Park Facility
Wake/Durham Counties
On January 10, 1992, I met with Larry Sink on the project
site for a preliminary review of the wetlands and potential water
quality impacts associated with the project. Two major wetland
types exist on the site. Total acreage was not noted.
One wetland type is characterized by narrow stream channels,
mainly intermittent, with high gradients and steeply sloping
watersheds. This wetland type rated as having low value. If a
majority of the watershed which feeds these tributaries is
impacted with development and/or impervious surfaces, small
detention or sedimentation structures would be needed.
The other wetland type is characterized by a broader
floodplain situation with meandering channels and slower water
movement. This area is on the northern and eastern edge of the
tract. This wetland rated as having moderate value. Any
construction in the vicinity of this area would require buffers
between the disturbance and the wetland area. Road crossings, if
required, should not pose a problem. Stormwater detention may
again be necessary depending on percent development in the
upslope watershed and other factors.
I will hold my information on this project until more
definite plans concerning site disturbance and stormwater control
have been addressed. At that time, I will review the additional
information with you and request modifications as appropriate.
Once the concerns are addressed, I will make recommendation to
John Dorney's office for the certification with the required site
constraints.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 571-4700.
cc John Dorney.

--+
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO June 9, 1992
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199201552 and Nationwide Permit No. 26 (Headwaters and Isolated
Waters) and Nationwide Permit No.'-14 Minor Road Crossing
Mr. City of Raleigh I "'` (S =-•?i.'L?. j
Attn.: Mr. Dempsey Benton
City Manager
?i92
222 W. Hargett Street JUN
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
LANDS GROI,
UALITYSEC:
Dear Mr. Benton: ----
Reference your application of March 27, 1992, submitted by Soil and
Environmental Consultants, for Department of the Army authorization to
discharge fill material within waters of the United States, causing the loss
of a total of"ll.63 acres of wetlands adjacent to, and above the headwaters of,
unnamed tributaries to Brier Creek, for development of Triangle Central Park,
near Raleigh, ke-,County, North Carolina.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits.
Authorization was provided, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
for discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters
provided:
a. the discharge does not cause the loss of more than 10 acres of waters
of the United States;
b. the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the discharge would
cause the loss of waters of the United States greater than one acre in
accordance with the "Notification" general condition. For discharges in
special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include
a delineation of affected specific aquatic sites, including wetlands; and
c. the discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project.
Your work involving the loss of 1.4 acres of waters of the United States
for parking areas, roads, athletic fields, and a stadium complex, is
authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions.
0

-2-
Authorization was also provided, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, for fills for roads crossing waters of the United States (including
wetlands and other special aquatic sites) provided:
a. The width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the
actual crossing;
b. The fill placed in waters of the United States is limited to a filled
area of no more than one-third acre. Furthermore, no more than a total of 200
linear feet of the fill for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands;
c. The crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent
the restriction of, and to withstand, expected high flows and the movement of
aquatic organisms;
d. The crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project for crossing of a water of
the United States; and
e. For fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the permittee
notifies the District Engineer in accordance with the "Notification" general
condition.
Your work involving the loss of 0.2 acres of waters of the United States
for a road crossing, is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions.
These nationwide permits do not relieve you of the responsibility to
obtain any required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or revoked., or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to n+odify,
suspend, or revoke the authorization.

-3-
In S&EC's March 27, 1992 letter, they asked for a decision on your
eligibility for additional nationwide permits for possible future expansion
which was not covered in this request. As is our current policy, you would be
eligible for the use of any applicable nationwide permits for this project
provided that you do not exceed the maximum criteria for any permit (e.g.,
combined nationwide permit 26's do not exceed 10 acres) for a single and
complete project.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copy Furnished:
Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil and Environmental Consultants, Inc.
3818 Bland Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Mike Coughlin
Environmental Engineer
Wake County Community
Development Services
Post Office Box 550
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
V '/r- John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687