20021276 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20020812

?CF WAT ARP
LUAU.. ?ko ll? I
October 3, 2002
DWQ# 2-1276
Cabarru County
Mr. Bob Rourke
Speedway Motorsports
5555 Concord Parkway South
Harrisburg, NC, 28075
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions, Wetland Restoration Program
Dear Mr. Rourke:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill in 0.37 acre of wetlands and 00 linear
feet of intermittent and perennial streams and to place bottomless culverts over 150 linear feet of perennial strea is in order
to construct the Z-Max Industrial Park in Cabarrus County, as described in your application received by the Divisi n of
Water Quality on August 12, 2001. After reviewing your application, we have determined that this fill is covered b General
Water Quality Certification Number 3362, which can be viewed on our web site at hftr)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwet l ands.
This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 39 when issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engine rs. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including ( Out not
limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this app roval will
expire when the accompanying 404 permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change ur
project, you must notify us in writing and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed in the attached certification as well as the additional conditions listed below:
We understand that you have chosen to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program in order to compensate for the
impacts to streams. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R .0402 and 15A NCAC 2B .0242(7), this contribution will satisfy
our compensatory mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h) and 15A NCAC 2B.0233(10). Until the
Wetland Restoration Program receives and clears your check (made payable to: DENR - Wetlands Restorati n
Program), stream impacts (including fill) shall not occur. Mr. Ron Ferrell should be contacted at (919)733-52q8 if you
have any questions concerning the Wetland Restoration Program. You have one month from the date of this
Certification to make this payment. For accounting purposes, this Certification authorizes the fill of 300 linearI eet of
perennial streams and 600 linear feet of intermittent streams and to place bottomless culverts in 150 linear fe t of
perennial streams in the Yadkin River and sub-basin, Cataloging Unit 03040105, and 300 linear feet of strea mitigation
are required. Please be aware that the Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) rules require rounding of stream impacts
to the nearest linear foot and wetland impacts to the nearest quarter acre (15A NCAC 2R .0503(b))."
2. An additional condition is that a final, written stormwater management plan shall be approved in writing by thi Office
before the impacts specified in this Certification occur per Condition No. 3 in General Certification No. 3362. he
stormwater management plan must include plans and specifications for stormwater management facilities th t are
appropriate for surface waters classified as Class C and designed to remove 85% TSS according to the most recent
version of the NC DENR Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. These facilities must be designed to treat the
runoff from the entire project, unless otherwise explicitly approved by the Division of Water Quality. Also, before any
permanent building is occupied at the subject site, the facilities (as approved by this Office) shall be construc d and
operational, and the stormwater management plan (as approved by this Office) shall be implemented. The structural
stormwater practices as approved by this Office as well as drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuit' . No
changes to the structural stormwater practices shall be made without written authorization from the Division Water
Quality;
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] Custo er Service
180 623-7748
Michael F. Easley, I Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.?. Director
Division of Wa er Quality
3. Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer Rules, and any
subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands
Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650;
4. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all retained jurisdictional wetlands, waters and protective
buffers in order to assure compliance for future wetland, water and buffer impact. These mechanisms shall be put in
place prior to impacting any wetlands, waters and/or buffers approved for impact under this Certification Approval and
Authorization Certificate. A sample deed notification can be downloaded from the 401/Wetlands Unit web site at
hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands;
5. We understand that you plan to construct an on-site wetland mitigation area in pursuit of the 404 Permit for this project.
Please provide a copy of any as-built plans and mitigation monitoring reports to this Office.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act
within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 1506 of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter. completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have
questions, please call Mike Parker in DWQ's Mooreseville Regional Office at 704-663-1699 or Cyndi Karoly at in Raleigh
919-733-9721.
AW K/cbk
Attachments
cc: Corps of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
y
Len Rindner, 3714 Spokeshave Lane, Matthews, NC, 28105
021276
NORTH CAROLINA-DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
SUMMARY OF PERMITTED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2 H .0500, Mr. Bob Rourke has permission as outlined below to place fill in 0.37 acre
of wetlands and 900 linear feet of intermittent and perennial streams and to place bottomless culverts over 150 line r feet
of perennial streams in order to construct the Z-Max Industrial Park in Cabarrus County, North Carolina. All activiti s
associated with these authorized impacts must be conducted with the conditions listed in the attached certification. THIS
CERTIFICATION IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENT
WETLAND RESTORATION PROGRAM
LOCATION:
COUNTY:
BASIN/SUBBASIN
Impacts:
Z-Max Industrial Park
Cabarrus
Yadkin (03-04-01-05)
Fill in 0.37 acre of wetlands
Fill in 600 linear feet of intermittent and 300 linear feet of perennial streams
bottomless culverts over 150 linear feet of perennial streams
As required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506, and the conditions of this certification, you are required to compensate for
the above impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation of streams as outlined below prior to
conducting any activities that impact or degrade the waters of the state.
Mitigation:
300 linear feet of streams by W RP
Note: Linear foot requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Wetland Restoration Program must be rounded
to the nearest foot and acreage requirements must be rounded to one-quarter acre increments according to 115 2r
.0503(b).
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements is through the payment
of a fee to the Wetlands Restoration Fund per NCAC 2R .0503. If you choose this option, please sign this form a0d mail it
to the Wetlands Restoration Fund at the address listed below. An invoice for the appropriate amount of payment will be
sent to you upon receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU
RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN PROCESSED BY THE WETLANDS RESTORATION
PROGRAM.
Signature Date
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
1619 Mail Service Center
RALEIGH, N.C. 27669-1619
[phone]
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
A,! 00
Michael F. Easley, Governor ? ?a
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary NCDENR
September 30, 2002
Leonard Rindner, PWS
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, NC 28105
Z-
Subject: Project: ,),-Marc Industrial Park
County: Cabarrus

The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
(NCWRP) is willing to accept payment for stream impacts associated with the subject project. Please
note that the decision by the NCWRP to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not
assure that this payment will be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division
of Water Quality Wetlands/401 Unit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to
determine if payment to the NCWRP for impacts associated with this project is appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of
the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire.
Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated September 23, 2002, the stream restoration
that is necessary to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is summarized in
the following table. The maximum amount of mitigation that the NCWRP will accept for this project is
also indicated in this table.
Stream
linear feet) Wetland
(acres) Riparian Buffer
ft2
Impacts 450
Mitigation Max 900
The stream mitigation will be provided as specified in the 401 Water Quality Certification and/or
Section 404 Permit for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit 03040105 of the
Yadkin River Basin. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of
Understanding between the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ron Ferrell at (919)
733-5208.
ly,
Ronald E. Fenzel ,
Program Manager
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Steve Chapin, Asheville-USACOE
Mike Parker, DENR R O M
file
Wetlands Restoration Program 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
[phone] Fax: [phone]
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact: Michael L Parker
Non-Discharge Branch WQ Supervisor: Bex Gleason
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Z-Max Industrial Park County Cabarrus
Project Number 02 1276 County2
Recvd From APP Region Mooresville
Received Date 8/12/02 Recvd By Region 8/20/2002
Project Type Industrial
Certificates Stream Stream Impact$ (ft.)
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
39 I O Y -@N ?r- 13-17-7 FC ?-30,711. 0.37 1,050.00 300.00 750.
F- F- O v Olv I^- -' _ F-r1 -F_-1 x- {- 1 - F_ ? ?-
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Stream WRP ?- ?- 450.00
F- I F_
I
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? 0 Y 0 N Did you request more info? 0 Y 0 N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? Q Y 0 N
Is Mitigation required? Q Y 0 N Recommendation: OQ Issue 0 Issue/fond O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 351858 Longitude (ddmmss) 803952
cc: Regional Office
Central Office
Page Number 1
Facility Name Z-Max Industrial Park County Cabarrus
Project Number 02 1276 Regional Contact: Michael L Parker
Date: 9/26/2002
Comments (continued from page 1):
SW contributions from upgradient sources appears to have led to some undercutting of the stream
hanks and channel scouring, especially on the stream channel indicated in the application as Stream
No A *
* It should be noted that there is a descrepancy between the numbering and identifying symbols used
by the consultant anti the aauafic biologist that was contracted to provide comments on this project.
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 2
Triage Check List
Data /? vZ
To: ?RRO Steve Mitchell
?FRO Ken Averitte
DWaRO Deborah Sawyer
E WiRO Joanne Steenhuis
FIWSRO Jennifer Frye
Mike Parker
rMRO Pete Colwell
Project Name
DWQ Project Number
County C a irl/S j
From: C yd 'I LQTelephone (919) 733-
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation. Please call if you need
assistance.
? Stream length impacted
tream determination
? Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USGW topo maps;
? Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamilco, Catawba; Randleman)
? P ?tll .. L
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
E ]'Check drawings for accuracy
j
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concerns
Comments
d<n
. `S"i}'?k -m?TC.•' '. ,^S ? s? :;;;qNf ? tny?`?-?'"Y4 . .,. ?,
;} 3

?...,r N
' ?
?'f
Z-Max Industrial Park
Harrisburg, Cabarrus County
North Carolina
Joint Application Form and Supporting Documentation for
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION
TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE
SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
Prepared For.
Mr. Bob Rourke
Speedway Motorsports
5555 Concord Parkway South
Harrisburg, North Carolina 28075
704-578-1200
Prepared By:
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, NC 28105
[phone]
*Subject to verification by the USACE and NCDWQ
Date : 8/2002
1
Office Use Only: Form Version Amil 2001
USACE Action ID No.
DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A"
leaving the space blank.
I.
H.
Processing
1. Ch ck all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
[Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2.
4
Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
than
If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certiti ation
is not required, check here: ?
If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NNCWRP) is propos?d for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here:
Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: '-70'4
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and. dated
attached if the Agent has signatory author'
Name: X,6A., •
Company Affiliation:- `57 a• -
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: _ A?
E-mail Address:
4r _,C.d
Fax Number:
copy of the Agent Authorization letter
for the owner/applicant
Fax Number:
be
U.,..o. Z --r 1 I
III. Pro
Att
Ian
bot
and
iml
in&
bot
so
us.
hoN
dra
red
the
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
?ject Information
ach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
Imarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing pr perty
ondaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinit y map
, site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buil dings,
>ervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans s hould
lude the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the pr operty
indaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discr etion,
long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purpose s , the
ACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch f ormat;
vever, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size constr uction
wings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size pla s are
(
uced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be inform d that
project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are
provided.
/
Name of project: - ?c ?SJG l /?-?
T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only):

Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
Location -!
County: ?'`r(?._S Nearest Town:
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
D'recti ns to site (include road numb
ers, lan arks, etc.):
'

I
Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately li sts the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Describe the existi g land use or condition of the site at the time of this a lication:

r
Property size (acres): -72., ,
Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): b ?`
River Basin: TI-Z?ft
A14- ; rr,
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basinsl. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Dn..e A .,F t z
IV.
V.
VI.

? i
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work:--
??--

I L
L' t the e of equipment to be used to construct the project:
"(A )? .
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project:t??/r / k
4
Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained f r this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. I nclude
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date perm s and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued pe rmits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, strea n and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT p roject,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.

i Je,C
Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, descry a the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the c urrent
ap lication:

Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impa cts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant mu 3t also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, perm anent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanyin g site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be sho on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and tream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs m ay be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or tream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is need ed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
A....o [ -r V)
'fie
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100 year Floodplain**
es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
feet)
Type of Wetland
**

"
i.,rst each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rat Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358- 616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh; forested wetland, beav pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property:a?
Total area of wetland impact proposed:-- ? 4?, 3 7 Aerl?
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on rna
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear
f
e
et)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Im ct Perennial o
Intermitten
lease speci r
t?
fy)
`y .
y
?

C., or

.t? ( C l P'y o f '
R T :
List each hhpact separately ana iaenury temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associat
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream re
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included
Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to t
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps y..top
www.mauquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:"

is
nearest
dine at

3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean an? any
other Water of the U. S.
i
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody

(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.

T ; mot,
?-Fact 3epmatuiy and tummy iemporaty impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation,
floating, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in check all that apply): ? uplands stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout ono,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: . Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful top vide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was, developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. r
4
- ?T 4c f....
D.- I of t')
VIII. mil
DV6
Div
fres
stre
us)
Pere
neci
incl
aqu
miti
but
and,
aqu
fun(
If n
for
lack
inc(
in
http
1.

igation i
Q - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the
ision of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impac !' NC
ts to
hwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to pere nnial
ams.
kCE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nation ide
nits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required hen
:ssary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Fa
ading size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the imp tors
acted
atic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practi cable
gation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable inc ude,
are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining we land
'or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing los's s of
atic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving si
-tions and values, preferable in the same watershed. 'lar
litigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in
USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any applic ?rder
ation
:ing a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on ho
)mplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream resto Id as
ation
DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, availab
://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
I a at
I
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should pr ovide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach direc
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/lineari tions
feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please a iew,
nd a
ttach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
.fz
C,<
C' 1 7

I

2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restor tion
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCVW must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment int 1 the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the applic tion
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ /index.h If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
u
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX.
X.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/
land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant t the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/S A)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the EPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
I
Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all imparts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also p ovide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed erein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be show on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the WQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included t the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCA,C 2B 1
,.0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 21B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2E .0250 (Randleman Rul6s and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identity )?
Yes El No E If you answered "yes", provide the following informs ion:
D..... 0 -4f 7
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
multipliers.
Zone* (sImpact quare feet Multiplier Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Lone 1 extenas out su teet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or. 0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the nronertv. A
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or dischar?e) of
wastewater generated. frn..the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility1
XHI. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ-Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No D
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No .
D- 10 .,f V)
Aug 07 02 06:13p t-eoner-d Rindner 704 947 0185 p-2
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
it is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
7 "Ig' V F -
S/9/o
Applicant/Agent's Signature Dille
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Roan 208
Asheville, NC 2SWI 5006
Telephone: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps OCEnginears
6508 Fails of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Talephoue: [phone]
FaX [phone] .
Washington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps Of Engineers
Poet Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27859-1000
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps OrEnginc ers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Telephone: [phone]
FV: (910) 2314023
Akmmdrr
Avery
Buncombe
Burke
Caldwell
Catawba
Alawance
AUq*aoy
Ashe
Caswell
Chatham
DavWwn
Davie
Beaufort
Berrie
Camden
Chowan
Craven
Cherokee Iredell Mitchell
Clay Jadcaort Polk
Cleveland Lincoln Rowan
Gaston Macon Rutherford
Graham Madipon Stanley
Haywood mdDvwcll Swain
Henderson MecWnburg Transylvania
Durbam Johnston Rockingham
Edgecombe Lee Stokes
Franklin Nash Sung
Forsyth Northampton Vance
Granville Orange Wake
Guilford Person Warren
Helif m Randolph Wilkes
ck Jones
Dare i,tooir
cages Martin
Grocer Pamlico
Hertford Pasquotank
Hyde Pegaimaus
Anson Duprm Onslow
Bladen Barnett Pander
Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Carteret Montgonnery Robeson
Columbus Moore Sampson
Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
flu.. i t of 17
Union
Watauga
Yaucey
Wilson
Yadkin
Pit!
Tyrrell
Washington * ^,:
Wayne
*Cwatan National Forest Only
2-d i6ttfi-9sb-fi0L amanoN cloth
e0S : 90 zo
0 2nU
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance ofd sired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems. or other issues outside of the applicant's control .
z5
Kpplicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan
Room 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Telephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret* Green Pamlico
Telephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Pender
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
Fax: [phone] Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
Pitt
Tyrrell
Washington
Wayne
Union
Watauga
Yancey
Wilson
Yadkin
*Croatan National Forest
D- 1 1 ..f I I
LEONARD S. RINDNE - PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Professional Wetland Scientist Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning Tele: [phone]
August 5, 2002 Fax [phone]
Mr. Steve Chapin - US Army Corps of Engineers - Reg. Field Office
151 Patton Avenue - Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801 - 5006
Mr. John R. Domey - Division of Water Quality - NCDENR
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Mike Parker - NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
Re: Z-Max Industrial Park, Harrisburg, Cabarrus County, NC - ± 72 Acres, Request for NWP#39
Dear Sirs:
On behalf of my client, Mr. Bob Rourke of Speedway Motorsports, I am requesting confirmation of
eligibility to utilize the Nationwide Permit 439 to impact streams and wetlands to develop an industrial
warehouse complex with railroad access in Harrisburg, North Carolina. The industrial site is adjacent to
the Southern Railroad. There is limited availability of industrial land served by rail in Cabanas County.
Cabarrus Economic Development expects that this site can support one million square feet of industrial
space. Available sites of this considerable size with rail access and reasonable proximity to Interstate
interchanges are highly limited throughout the region. The proximity of this site to rail, NC Highway 49
and Interstate 485 along with the availability of municipal water and sewer significantly adds to the
overall uniqueness of this property. The available frontage adds site plan flexibility that ultimately allows
for a safe and greater variety of rail users. Prior to submitting this application, meetings were held on-
site with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Mr. Pete Colwell, and Mr. Mike Parker to
review the intermittent streams and wetland areas on the site. The plans were presented and
modified based on this meeting to minimze impacts to be within Nationwide Permit thresholds. It is
expected that this project will provide important economic opportunities in the area and provide
manufacturing and industrial employment.
Background
The site is within drainage areas of Back Creek, a large tributary of the Rocky River sub-basin of the
Yadkin River (Water Classification - C). The majority of the site is a moderately sloping ridge. The.
current land-use is undeveloped woodland in early succession from agriculture and timbering activities.
Descriution
Wetland Hydrology and Hydric Soils
These wetlands can be classified as Palustrine Forested Broad Leaved, Scrub Shrub, and Emergent
(PFOIA, PFOIC, PSS1A, and PEM1C and formed in an old pond bed. The streams on the site are
intermittent to perennial. The perennial streams have been confirmed as having important aquatic value.
by the USACE.
Z-Max, Page 3, August 5, 2001
Hydrouhvtic Vegetation
Vegetation in wetland areas in the former pond bed are dominated by Facultative, Facultative Wet, and
Obligate Vegetation and include black willow, green ash, red maple, sweet gum, alder,- silky dogwood,
greenbriar, poison ivy, and others. Herbaceous plants include sedges, needle rush, jewelweed, and other
typical wetland species.
SUMMARY OF WATERS OF THE U. S.
Methodology
Preliminary identification of the Jurisdictional Waters on the site were determined according to the Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, 1987, with Appendices. Preliminary
data gathering included review and interpretation of topographic maps; USDA Soil Conservation Survey;
aerial photographs, and preliminary site visits to selected areas. Then the Routine On-Site Determination
Method was utilized to determine the upper boundary of the wetlands. In order to make a positive wetland
determination indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were be
identified as described in the manual.
SUMMARY OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF U.S.
Surface Waters Back Creek (on site)- Perennial (± 4501f) + 0.21 ac.
Perennial ( ± 3438 It) + 0.47 ac.
Intermittent (+ 22521f) + 0.15 ac.
Wetlands . + 0.57 ac.
Approximate Total - Waters of the U.S.
Stream Evaluation
+ 1.40 ac.
The perennial intermittent stream examination was conducted at the of 600 Racing/Highway 49 site in
Cabarrus County, NC on January 29, 2002. Streams were examined using North Carolina Department of
Water Quality stream classification criteria. Streams were analyzed using three DWQ determined
categories: Geomorphology (physical stream channel characteristics); Hydrology (stream flow indicators);
and Biology (plant and animal life). The stream evaluation was conducted Eric W. Secrist, Aquatic
Biologist, Pat Kealy, and Leonard S. Rindner, PWS.
Stream 1 (see map) lies in the middle of the property, originating from the lower corner of an existing
parking lot. Stream 1 was determined to be intermittent, according to DWQ criteria. But it is likely that
an adjacent parking lot and buildings have disrupted this once perennial system by cutting off its water
supply; therefore, degrading the system to a more intermittent like channel. It has a channel width of V -
4'ft. a range of depth from Y - 5'ft., with low flow at the time of this survey. In general, the channel is
dominated by a sand substrate with signs of sediment loading within the channel. The upper portion of the
channel is composed of steeper gradients, with signs of channel scouring and roots within the channel.
This upper portion of stream 1 also has two wet weather channels leading into it from the north side of its
reach. The section of channel below the railroad. culvert, is mostly unorganized, braided, and shows
indicators of sediment loading. In addition, the lower section of stream 1 shows signs of possible ditching
(i.e. sidecasting, abnormally low sinuosity). The Biology of stream 1 is weak in description, according to
Z-Max, Page 4, August 5, 2001.
DWQ criteria, meaning there was little evidence of life present at the time of observation. No
macroinvertebrate life was observed at this time or during previous site surveys. Plant life consists of a few
roots and small amounts of filamentous algae present within the channel.
Stream 2 (see map) This stream shows evidence of being perennial according to DWQ classification
schemes. Stream 2 has a range of channel width of 1' - 3'ft. and a range of depth from 1' - 4'ft. Water
was present and flowing during both surveys (August, January) and there are also small riffle/pool
sequences present. In general, the entire channel is dominated by a sand/gravel substrate, showing some
evidence of sediment loading. The upper third of stream 2 (above where a small tributary stream enters
into it) is steeper in gradient, narrower in width, with less sinuosity, and ditch-like. The lower two-thirds
of the stream is moderate in gradient, with a greater width, and higher sinuosity. In addition, the lower
two-thirds of stream 2 is producing undercut cut banks with a moderate amount of fibrous roots and
periphyton present. A brief examination of the benthic macroinvertebrate life present in this stream,
revealed crayfish, cranefly (Diptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera).
Stream 3 (see map) which enters into stream 2 from the north side, is categorized as perennial. Channel
width ranges from about 2' - 4' ft. at its confluence down to about 1' ft. at its headwaters which ran
together with an exposed culvert (within the channel) and was lined with riprap. Stream 3 depth ranges
from 2' - 6'ft. Water was present and flowing during both site visits (August, January). This small
tributary channel is made up of a sand/silt/cobble substrate with evidence of sediment loading. The lower
portion of this stream has fibrous roots and some periphyton in the channel. Crayfish and damselfly
(Odonata) larvae were observed at each site examination. Fish were also observed during the August
survey, but not during the January survey.
Stream 4(see map) Channel width ranges from 3' - 5'ft and channel depth ranges from 2' - 4'ft. In
addition, the channel has a strong riffle/pool complex, with moderate sinuosity, and a sand/cobble/bedrock
substrate. Water was present and flowing during each site examination. The middle portion of the stream
was historically a pond, but has been drained, and is gradually becoming a wetland, The upper portion of
the stream (above the old pond) is undergoing sediment loading and is braided and unorganized. Fibrous
roots, filamentous algae, and periphyton persisted throughout the lower portion of the stream. Cranefly
(Tipulidae) larvae were observed during the January survey. Other macroinvertebrates such as the
Dragonfly and Damselfly (Odonata), Caddisfly (Trichoptera), Stonefly (Plecoptera), and Mayfly
(Ephemeroptera) larvae are expected to be found in this stream upon further examination. Amphibian's
(frogs) were also present, but not speciated at this time. Fish and crayfish are also expected to be found in
this stream upon further investigation.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OFMINIMIZATIONALTERNATIVE
Surface Waters Perennial (NWP #39) 300 If + 0.04 ac.
Bottomless Culvert 150 If + 0.00 ac
Intermittent Stream (NWP #39/ 600 If) + 0.04 ac.
Wetlands Former Pond Bottom + 0.37 ac.
'T'otal Impacts ± 0.45 ac.
The developers are committed to creating an environmentally responsible project. Minimization and
mitigation measures will be developed based on the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality requirements,
Z-Max, Page 5, August 5, 2001
Z-MAX Industrial Site Development - Rag Access Reauirements
The following is an overview of the engineering design standards associated with the development of this site.
The subject property is a 72-acre site with 3,000 linear feet of rail frontage located in Harrisburg, NC off
of U. S. Hwy 49. The rail is owned and operated by Norfolk Southern Corporation. The rail access feature
of this property presents engineering requirements not typically confronted by industrial property
development. This property will serve four industrial warehouse end-users, three of which require rail
access. The fact that rail access is required by the end-users reduces the flexibility in land development
design due to the number of engineering requirements setforth by Norfolk Southern Corporation.
Outlined below are the required engineering design standards for an industrial park served by rail.
• Providing a building with rail access is achieved by placing building frontage parallel to the mainline
rail. If a building does not front the rail with its longest span, the benefits of rail access are not
achieved.
• The engineering design requires a lead rail to turnout from the mainline, run along the entire length
of the property, and tie back into the mainline. The lead track must have a minimum offset of 115'
off of the mainline. Lead track grades should be kept to a minimum and shall be restricted to a
maximum of 2 percent on lead tracks. The section of track where rail cars are placed for loading and
unloading must have a 0.0% grade. These lead rail grade requirements do not allow for flexibility in
design coming off the mainline. The mainline dictates the elevations and grades of the lead rail.
• The lead rail sets the building's finished floor elevations because of the required 4' dock height. A
building's finished floor elevation must be 4' higher than the lead rail elevation for loading and
unloading. Warehouse design requires a constant finished floor elevation.
• A building's finished floor elevation sets the elevation requirement for the adjacent parking and truck
bay lots. For loading/unloading of goods from the warehouse, the truck bay lots must be 4' lower
than a building's finished floor elevation.
• The truck bay lots will connect to the property access road. The maximum road grade existing the
truck bay lot onto the access road is 8.0% setforth by NCDOT road design standards.
The entire design starts with the elevations of the mainline rail, which mandates the elevations of the
lead rail. The lead rail sets the finished floor elevations of the buildings, which dictates the
elevations of the truck bay lots, which sets the access road elevations. Flexibility in design is
dictated by Norfolk Southern Corporation's engineering design requirements and the limitations of
rail and truck height standards.
Minimization
The following Best Management Practices will be employed to minimize impacts to Jurisdictional Waters.
These will include:
a) Siltation Barriers; Sediment Traps and Diversion Ditches
b) Barricades to define construction limits to sensitive sites and to protect trees
c) Methods to prevent short-term impacts will be inspected regularly and maintained during
construction of the project.
Z-Max, Page 6, August 5, 2001
d) Project construction will strictly adhere to an approved Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan.
Best Management Practices will include utilizing siltation trapping ponds and other erosion
control structures where appropriate. Impacts from hazardous materials and other toxins to fish
and aquatic life such as fuels will be avoided by not permitting staging areas to be located near
surface waters.
e) As required by the 401 Water Quality Certification conditions, measures will be taken to prevent
"live" or fresh concrete from coming into contact with waters until the concrete has hardened.
MITIGATION PLAN
To mitigate for the the loss of stream and wetland habitat as required either by stream and wetland
restoration/creation or participation in the North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program. To meet.
restoration mitigation requirements for stream impacts by grading and culvert crossings, the developer is
proposing to contribute $56,250 (4501f X $125/1f) for stream impacts.
Wetland mitigation is proposed to be conducted on-site in the vicinity of an existing wetland. The
proposed wetlands will be created to provide water storage, bank stabilization, pollutant removal, and
aquatic resource values as described in the Fourth Version - Guidance for Rating Values of Wetlands in
North Carolina.
The zones will be based on the expected saturation and inundation of the particular zones and tolerances
and include:
Bottomland hardwoods
Scrub/shrub
Emergent/herbaceous
Open water/aquatic zones
These zones adjacent to surface waters will help to improve water quality by filtering runoff, trapping
sediment, absorbing nutrients, and providing wildlife habitat and a food source for aquatic organisms,
herpetofauna, birds, fish and other wildlife. This proposed wetland mitigation site is expected to be
inundated and saturated especially during the winter, early spring, and major rain events.
The following hydrological zones are expected to occur within the wetland mitigation areas:
Semi-permanently to permanently: area is inundated or saturated from 75% to 100% of
the growing season.
- Regularly: area is inundated or saturated from 25% to 75% of the growing season.
- Seasonally: area is inundated or saturated from 12.5% to 25% of the growing season.
- Irregularly: area is inundated or saturated from 5% to 12.5% of the growing season.
Vegetation - The majority of the species utilized will include Obligate (OBL) and Facultative Wet
(FACW) vegetation. To a lesser extent Facultative (FAC) species known to be prevalent in wetlands in the
local area will be utilized. Vegetation species that provide benefits to wildlife habitat will be incorporated
into the mix of species utilized.
In order to determine the quantity of water available for the mitigation sites system, a water
budget analysis will be performed. Inputs to the system include precipitation, surface runoff- from the site
Z-Max, Page 7, August 5, 2001
and adjoining tracts. The objective of the water management plan is to provide periodically saturated and
flooded conditions to the created wetland system. Once this is accomplished the wetland area with
appropriate grading should provide a variety of diverse and suitable wetland habitats. The water
management plans are an essential part of the overall storm water management plan.
High and low flows entering the wetland mitigation areas will first drain to a pool or forebay to
reduce velocity and begin distribution. The outlet from the pool will be stabilized with a rip-rap/gabion
structure. To allow a saturated soil development the outlet structure is designed to withhold at least 12".
Water will discharge to the wetland over level spreaders to disperse the flow.
The bottom grades of the proposed wetland will be at a flat gradient of 0 %. Micro-topographic
features such as small drainage ways and hummocks will be designed with the mitigation cells to disperse
and direct flow to create the various hydrological zones. These will require field review, adjustment, and
refinement.
Minor drainage ways and/or level spreaders will diffuse the flow and will distribute water to
various sections of the wetland. Rock/stone filter check dams will be utilized to make minor flow
adjustments within the mitigation cell. Water control structures will be provided to allow flexibility in
depth control, where necessary. The design of.the outfall structures is planned to be as low maintenance
and management as possible. However, if the water depth is greater than anticipated. than the outfall than
provisions can be adjusted slightly to allow a lesser volume to be stored.
Data will be collected from field observations in order to record the development of wetland
hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation as described in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual criteria.
Normal hydrology will be considered the percent of time which the upper 12" exhibits inundation
or saturation. If the amount of precipitation is unusually high or low than the wetland hydrology success
criteria will be 5% to 12.5% of the growing season.
Use of Existine Hydde Soil
Soil from the existing wetland areas that have permitted for impacts will be stripped and stored as feasible
for utilization in lining the proposed wetland site. Other topsoil adjacent to the wetlands may also be
suitable. Using these existing soils should hasten the development of vegetated cover and hydric soil
conditions. This is also an excellent use of an important natural resource. Many of the recommended
planted species currently exist in the vicinity of the area to be utilized for this function. The majority of
the species in the wetlands include Obligate (OBL) and Facultative Wet (FACW) vegetation. Herbaceous
plant species present include Softrush (Juncos effusus), sedge (Carex spp.), Duck potato (Sagitaria
latifolia, Arrow arum (Peltandra virginia), Common Three-Square (Scirpus pungens), Touch-me-not
(Impatiens capensis), Smartweed (Polygonum spp.), and others. Supplemental plantings will be selected
from Table 11.2 in the Storm water Best Management Practices, NCDENR, April, 1999 based on actual
field conditions, if required. Being that the site is in the vicinity of other wetlands and floodplain areas it
is expected that the area will benefit from the natural seed sources available. It is expected that
herbaceous and scrub/shrub wetland species will rapidly volunteer in the area.
Z-Max, Page 8, August 5, 2001
Vegetation will be selected from the following general lists.
Scrub/Shrub Zone
Alnus spp.
Corpus amomum
Sambucus canadensis
Itea virginica
Ilex decidua
Viburnum dentatum
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Lindera benzoin
Others that are approved
Bottomland Hardwood - Forested Zone
Carya spp. Diospyros virginiana
Nyssa sylvatica Quercus species
Herbaceous Zone
Frax pennsylvanica
Taxodium distichum
Zone 1 - Wetland areas in temporarily saturated soils or subject to occasional and brief inundation
Agrostis alba (Red Top) Polygonum spp.(Smartweed)
7uncus effusus (Soft Rush) Eleocharis spp.(Spikerush)
Zone 2 - Wetland areas prone to persistent flooding orponding
Moist to 1 Foot of Water
Three Square Bulrush
Sedge species
Creeping Spike Rush
Lizard Tail
Carey species (Sedge)
Others as specified
Soft Rush
Others
Shallow Water Plants
Sweet Flag
Pickerel Weed
Arrow-Arum
Others
Duck Potato
Other plants may be selected from Table 11.2 in Stormwater Best Management Practices, April, 1999
STORMWA TER MANAGEMENT PLAN
A Stormwater Management Plan will be designed and implemented for the project to meet the 401 Water
Quality Certification requirements. The Stormwater Management Plan will include wet detention basins
as the primary treatment system for stormwater runoff from paved surfaces and landscaping. The planners
will utilize information and guidelines provided by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources in developing the design of wet detention basins using the Table 1.1 in the
Stormwater Best Management Practices, NCDENR, April, 1999.
Protection from Future Development
As required, the wetlands will be protected in perpetuity from future impacts by the applicant or by a
group designated by the applicant for this purpose. Development of these areas will be deed restricted.
These restrictions will be developed. for approval from the USACE and/or NCDWQ.
Z-Max, Page 9, August 5, 2001
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Federally listed plant and animal species with endangered or threatened status are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified Schweinitz's sunflower
and the Carolina heelsplitter. Schweinitz's sunflower thrives in full sun characteristic of succession fields,
margins, and forested openings. Based on a site reconnaissance, habitat conducive to support the
Schweinitz's sunflower is not present in the project area The Carolina heelsplitter is a freshwater mussel,
which prefers shaded areas either, in a ponded portion of a small stream or in runs along steep banks with
moderate current. Primary habitat is waters less than three feet deep with a soft mud, muddy sand, or
shady gravelly substrate. It is normally restricted to protected silted areas or under banks especially
associated with obstructions. such as stumps or fallen trees. Its current distribution according to the US
Fish and Wildlife Service is limited to portions of two streams -- Goose Creek and Waxhaw Creek -- and a
small river originating from rural areas in Union County. Therefore it is not expected to occur on this
site.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project site is disturbed from previous agricultural activities and industrial development. Existing
structures include warehoused and an industrtial building. The State Historic Preservation Office may
review of the USGS maps at the Office of State Archaeology and the Survey and Planning Office of the
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources to determine if sites are indicated on the National
Historic Register within the study area.
AQUATIC HABITAT
The aquatic systems in the project area consist of tributaries in the Yadkin River Basin. A variety of
wildlife is supported by these systems including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects,
mollusks, and crustaceans. Therefore strict adherence to an approved erosion and sedimentation control
plan will be maintained during the construction period in order to control degradation of water quality
downstream and protect the areas to be preserved.
CONCLUSION
The 72 acre industrial development will provide important economic benefits to the region. Based on the
value of the jurisdictional waters and wetlands ;on this site, the developer has chosen to balance the site's
economic viability with its environmental value and permitability. The goal of the Site Plan and
Mitigation Plan is to help balance the environmental consequences of this development by protecting
waters on site to the extent feasible and downstream of the project.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional explanation. Thank you for your
consideration.
sonar i f -166- deer, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant
CC: Mr. Bob Rourke
Speedway Motorsports, Inc.
P.O. Box 600
Concord, NC 28026
v Q ti?q? i Y' !: j q
q SIE LN CN wtA/JA I p? r? la ? ?1 N 61
A L ="w `t CP i 1"i}1?1adrMlrllll tnlt riu', r P ! ( ?``
tb ? ? W v OQ ? ? 'I'?11r11111 fl:.b j ? k L' 1 , f 1 '4 I I115t
w OE
?MORE+IEAO r?
r7 r!w #
i i lnl?
?dyL:.l dii?d??ll?h Illy' h'' 4
u ^ Pwoormance
Parkorporate ate,
i
:mot y l,. ??? CMS ?'F W!
n ?p '? 'O Industrial; ,.•"' ,,
.fir J. {s. ?P?` /f? +?.,f aan I? Ir ] r 1
h F n 1' oQ 'Q?'' ?! '4: irrl
.1lard Creek
stewater Treatments O
?11
Plant " . u
'far
1 • BRIDGEHAMPTON DR ? { T
?•--? .-,".1A6L-ARB-CR6S&!N s
3. DRAKES CROSSING DR fly"; a Timber '
`'rid BUSTLEHEAD CT Forest
aSALBRIGGANCT ?II?It? ?: f ail s
ARRIS MallarditG 4 I
IIL e?, g? ?fi mo
Crosslrf?
idli?
b EA F? AD , m r
EEq o :l u: w - LN. TM ?2 9\
3 9
?. 0 c?' GCS A b?
W DD DD ???? ?±
J9F,?i e XJa H QR it?7' R G Mao y 'fo ?N j
-
?P V 2omFPP Goo pH0?U5sE rms ¢ 1C10T8{10 11S e?'F ° `?r41 fs Ror , ?v a arrlS1711T,
-ITERSNAM
','P' ERFLONER LEI ur a?? "PI1dE r o FyO?h'
:NG !y z / i???, ?` ?? q4' ,. ? /w' csT . z o ° vi?q CR r Unlvers
?2 RQ m J?iiAa / ?Q ?? VALHALLA .DR r
IICflBURNE CT ;,4 ?. Gb 'jam y
r
0? L 9o gy9y = SILVERWOOD HUDSON DR i'
o?R y oo PRESCO CT m DR fl p A
2 !yp yy,9
?? os Leslie Farms !r m
p LAWN U ?. Carolina ,
?E
m o e Memorial
F
yTF i A
Ti- Parkk'?
?? l?4ot ? •
SOUTHERN (r =? `"' TaiAL.
Leslie Square
n ! PARK DR ?LY:1r r '?
RD cv,
SIC PROJECT SITE BROOK
-tri , ?.- 4 chard andsoi
?T , , •, I - A? r Dark 1PAR,
FOT£S??
r "' ITS p w` FEACH.
ER
c- r ? o ? ?C 2
w''!;-"?'+'? vEF..STONEPA T' 4 GO
VICINITY MAP
V O n n
bA'
1.
00
¦1
• 4 ¦
r
.? O
' • ? • o s
i
' n
• r
- a
•
•
¦ •
? I
0 IL
-,acs--9
cn ¦? ON
Cal 0
C• - 1

October 2, 2001
Mr. Robert Rorke, Director of Real Estate
Speedway Motor Sports
PO Box 600
Concord, NC 28026-0600
Dear Bob:
Regarding your 85 acre site in Harrisburg (generally referred to as the Moe
Site), please allow me to offer some observations regarding the uniqueness of
property.
As you are aware there is limited availability of industrial land served by rail ii
Cabarrus County. From the standpoint of recruiting rail users to Cabarrus, you
site is a candidate for virtually all of our clients. We expect the site to suppoe
development of about one million square feet of industrial space.
Most of the clients looking for rail served sites in Cabarrus County are al
looking at Charlotte and the other counties surrounding Mecklenburg. The
clients indicate to me that available sites of this considerable size with rail acce
and reasonable proximity to Interstate interchanges are highly limited through(
the region. The close proximity of the Morton site to Highway 49 and Intersta
485 along with the availability of municipal water and sewer adds significantly
the overall uniqueness of this property.
Another special feature of your site is the length of the rail frontage along 1
track. This exceptional frontage length of about 3,400 feet adds significantly
the site plan flexibility that ultimately allows more desirability to a greater vari,
of rail users.
Bob as always, it is a pleasure to work with you and Speedway Motor Sports. W,
appreciate all your efforts on behalf of our economic development efforts ii
Harrisburg,"d throughout the county.
s
7e
ice D. Ewing, CED
dent I
2325 Concord Lake Road, Concord, North Carolina 28025 CF?OTTE
Phone [phone] Fax [phone] www.cabarrusedc.com email: [e-mail] USA
STREAMS PRESERVED
;?.:..?°:=',,`?_, f „%?i'i• _ -; BOTTOMLESS CULVERT ROAD CROSSING
s mil%' l ,? r/ 150 LF
n t , . 40s
m
INTERMITTENT UNIMPORTANT STRE M
'1 ?. ?fi• ±600 LF STREAM IMPACT ±0.04 AC ES
sit-III
i
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
??? r+d /?? .'' ?• r'1N I I ??. ?,I-I-I lip
< I ?I _Itl II r'j i _ L_
I
PERENNIAL STREAM PRESERV D
,.,.; r„ '?l ? r?-???" ?;? •'Ic I? !,' .! I ? ?'?` "' I i I? I a a i g? ii +I - j
1 Y.i' L ??c _ ( -,R,? lir 'J?j ??• 1 1 ' ?'? ?i 11.1 ? I ?i i
?( ?fll . I I y a { I' i
.(a rN. ri -° ? ? ? .e 1', w1? 1t!'; 4 ] _ pp
d r}' ` All
x { tlIM^fjnt'41 $. ?i i a!t - 1 S ?l'?afa
Cn
z
• ? r
GI)
-I p D
M m
Z WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
-? cn D
for
Z p ±0.37 AC WETLAND IMPACT 92
p OLD POND BED PSS1 A
mm ±300 LF IMPORTANT STREAM IMPACT a
±0.04 ACRES
PROPOSED SITE LAN
f+:

1

r+ .

r
t?
I IIII(1111?111111111111 ? ?ii %?/'%r?,i? •t' •+fr ?Y,//+?:%// ?.
t? _ y L 14L/1Lww?W'
LL w
dYi /
LLJ
1.4
CIO
NN"
J'j
LLI
0 (on
a Q w
V?
V a
U
W Q
CL =
W
ORIGINAL SITE PLAN
SEE JUNE, 2001 LETTER TO DEVELOPER
Z
CL
J
Q
I=
Z

Z O b y
I
'.• 1
en j
t
t 4 0 1 NlIIlHtlHllllliill sl ;, ?,
s/
exuatu" 111 u, Z G.
-.mar ? ?. - '•'%' ' ?::?.; ? J '
1 w
-77
w
LLJ
K 11A,
LLJ
`• a(.,y,`•..M1 ',•:• ? ?t? ? ? L t :?i '?; r.., {?, ..Jllff/rrj??/?(,//??? •. - ?
w
(n CL
Pot.
y
J
' Q
' z
W
W c
a
..0
?. O
W ?
w u
x_
W
z
w
w
J
z
O
H
N
z
I
LEONARD S. RINDNER, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Professional Wetland Scientist Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning [phone]
June 30, 2001
Ms. Jill Brim, P.E.
Concord Engineering
45 Spring Street SW
P.O. Box 268
Concord, NC 28026
Re: Wetland Permitting Consultation - Z-Max Site, Harrisburg, NC
Dear Jill;
As you requested, I am providing additional objective information regarding permitting
requirements for the Z-Max site for your review. You mentioned at our meeting, the client's
questions about wetland permitting in Texas, as compared to North Carolina. As I expressed, every
State and most U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Districts have different programs based on
environmental and economic considerations. In brief, Texas allows for the equivalent 1500 if of
stream and/or 3 acres of wetland impacts under their Tier I level, if the developer provides storm
water treatment facilities and in some cases mitigation. By comparison, the maximum impact in
North Carolina before going to the higher level (Individual Permit) is 300 If of stream or 1/2 acre
of streams and wetlands, and storm water treatment and mitigation are typically required when
impacts exceed only 150 linear feet of stream and/or 1/3 acre of wetlands/waters. This is obviously
is a huge difference. Another difference, is that in North Carolina you have to obtain an
authorization by the USACE (federal) and a concurrence by the NCDWQ (state). One is not valid
without the other.
Based on your description of the client's goals, the Individual Permit would be required. In order to
eligible for the Nationwide Permits, the proposed plan would have be substantially modified.
Summary of Individual Permit Issues
Individual Permits are required for all activities in Waters of the U.S. that do not qualify for a
Nationwide Permit and are reviewed on a case by case basis by the USACE, NCDWQ, and other
agencies. There is also a Public Notice. Projects that require Individual Permits are those which in
the opinion of the review agencies may have a significant impact on Waters of the U.S. due to their
size, location, or other factors. By a Memorandum of Agreement, the Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requires a strict mitigation sequence (no practicable
alternative [avoidance], minimization, and compensatory mitigation be followed for all Individual
Permits. It is generally understood that obtaining an Individual Permit may be difficult.
Establishing that there are no practicable alternative is the most important part and most difficult
in the evaluation process. Generally. the guidelines restrict discharges into aquatic areas where less
environmentally damaging, practicable alternatives exist The USACE must produce an
Ms. Jill Brim, June 30, 2001
Z-Max Site
Page 2
Environmental Assessment / Finding of No Significant Impact. All general and standard conditions
must be met, such as mitigation, protected species, historic properties, etc. Since the project is not
water dependent the burden of proving no practicable alternative is on the developer. The more
back-up (economically and spatially), the stronger the case in proving no practicable alternative.
Once the application, plans, and documentation are prepared and submitted, the Public Notice and
review may be 60 to 120 days or more. Most permit applications take much longer. Most
Individual Permit applications that are not withdrawn are approved. However, over 90% of the
applications are modified (some considerably) in the process or include additional conditions. It is
generally understood that there is no time limitation in. the Individual Permit Process due to the
extent of the alternative analysis process and mitigation plan approval.
It is important to note that mitigation (i.e. paying into the North Carolina Wetland Restoration
Program (NCWRP)) is not an option until the planning process moves beyond the avoidance and
minimization components of the process. Assuming that this is achieved on this project as
proposed, and use of the NCWRP is accepted by the NCDWQ and the USACE to meet mitigation
requirements, the cost could probably be over $500,000 assuming a 2:1 ratio at current rates. In
addition, storm water treatment facilities would be required. There are other mitigation options,
however the NCWRP, if available may be the simplest and fastest mitigation approach.
Typical Procedure for an Individual Permit
1. Scoping I Pre-application Review & Consultation
Meeting with USACE and the NCDWQ to review project and permit eligibility. The following
information should be prepared for and included in the presentation The material should then be
incorporated with the Individual Permit Application as supportive documentation This material
may be also used in the Environmental Assessment that would be required
a) Master Plan, relationship to a more regional land use plan and existing and proposed
growth corridors. Discussion of Economic Projections and Market Evaluation
b) General Review of Project Requirements and Program
c) Environmental Evaluation
2. Schematic Site Plans - Alternative Analysis*
(*Must prove that there is no practicable alternative)
a) Different Sites
- recornmend at least three sites that seem to have adequate land area and base elimination of those
sites on economic, environmental, and other criteria. Sketch plans and diagrams would probably be
suitable.
Ms. Jill Brim, June 30, 2001
Z-Max Site
Page 3
b) Modification of the program on the selected site to avoid and/or minimize.
- prove that it will not work based on space and economic requirements and other environmental
impacts. Sketch plans with adequate detail would be suitable. Must prove that the impacts cannot
be reduced below the Nationwide Permit thresholds.
c) Reduced Scope - Sketch plans with adequate detail would be suitable.
- prove that it will not work based on economic and marketing requirements.
d) Preferred Alternative
e) Proposed Minimization Measures
f) Proposed Mitigation Measures
g) Additional Meetings and/or conferences may be necessary based on information requested
or direction obtained from this meeting.
h) The permit application will need to include a supportive document. Portions of which may
be included in Public Notice.
Likely commenting agencies and arouDs
- North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources : Division of Water Quality
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
- State Historic Preservation Office
- Local Agencies
- Interest groups and Neighborhood groups
3. Mitigation Plans
Note: Mitigation is likely to be extensive. The preferred type is restoration, however other forms of
mitigation are possible. With an individual permit the minimum required NCDWQ mitigation ratio
is 1 to 1. The ratios from the USACE are likely to be greater based on the type used. Potential
USAGE ratios may be:
Restoration - 1:1 to 2:1
Creation - 2:1 to 3:1
Enhancement - 3: 1 to 8:1
Preservation - 10: 1 to 20:1
Ms. Jill Brim, June 30, 2001
Z-Max Site
Page 4
Generally, the USACE will not issue a permit until the mitigation plans are approved. The NC
Wetland Restoration Program may be used only if there are no other alternatives based on current
policy.
4. Proposed Storm water Treatment Plan
Recommendations
Obviously, based on the current regulations in North Carolina, the proposed plan could embark on
a more complicated permitting process. However, Individual Permits have been issued for projects
with impacts such as proposed, however with considerable and important mitigation. If the
proposed use of the property includes a physical connection through access to the railroad (i.e. a
spur) this may enhance the potential of moving beyond the "no practicable alternative" step of the
process.
Let me know if you have any questions, and I am looking forward to working with you on this
project.
I?eonard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant
Thank you.
LEONARD S. RINDNER. PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Professional Wetland Scientist Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning Tele: [phone]
Fax [phone]
June 26, 2000
Mr. Anand G. Parikh
Concord Engineering
45 Spring Street SW
P.O. Box 268
Concord, NC 28206
Re: Approximate Wetland Mapping and Regulatory Overview, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Dear Anand:
At your request I visited proposed project site to identify the presence of wetland and surface waters that
would require permitting if they were impacted by development. An area is determined to be a wetland
when it exhibits Hydric Soil, Hydrophytic Vegetation, and Wetland Hydrology characteristics. These
characteristics are required to be in accordance with the definitions in the U.S. Army Corps Wetland
Delineation Manual, 1987. Areas that exhibit these three characteristics are identified as a wetland and
permits may be required for development activities within these areas. Surface waters such as perennial and
intermittent creeks, and certain ponds are also subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Additional
evaluations may be required to confirm the approximate conditions depicted in this report. A wetland
delineation will be required to more accurately determine the actual extents, if necessary for permitting.
The approximate wetland areas depicted on the map are based on an analysis of site characteristics,
topographic and soil maps.
Background
The site within drainage areas of an unnamed tributaries of Back Creek in the Yadkin Basin (Water
Classification - C). The majority of the site is a moderately to gently sloping ridge to a narrow floodplains
along the drainageway. The current land-use is undeveloped and primarily agricultural land with pockets
of woodland.
Description
Wetland Hydrology and Hydric Soils
These wetlands associated with the former pond can be classified as Palustrine Forested Broad Leaved,
Scrub Shrub, and Emergent (PSS1A, and PEM1C). According to North Carolina Resource Conservation
Service, Technical Guide-Section II-A-2, June 1991, Chewacla (Ch) soils are listed as Map Units with
inclusions of Hydric Soils in Cabarrus County. The USACE and the NCDWQ will likely confirm the
streams on the site (perennial to intermittent) as having important aquatic value. Characteristics include
persistent pools, amphibians and macro-invertebrates; evidence of wildlife utilizing the stream; and rocky,
gravelly, and sandy channel substrate. Vegetation in wetland areas and along tributaries is dominated by
Facultative, Facultative Wet, and Obligate Vegetation and-include black willow, green ash, willow oak, red
maple, sweet gum, alder, silky dogwood, greenbriar, poison ivy, and others. Herbaceous plants include
sedges, needle rush, jewelweed, and other typical wetland species.
Mr. Anand G. Parikh, Page 2
June 26, 2000
Permitting Issues
A wetland delineation and a more accurate stream determination will be necessary if more accuracy is
required to determine the actual extents. A delineation and stream determination may require an USACE
field verification. A survey is required for the USACE to make a final wetlands determination on the
property. Due to previous use of Nationwide Permit #26 to impact 150 linear of stream, it is no longer
available. As of March 9, 2000, impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. exceeding 1/3 acre or 150 if of
perennial/important stream are no longer permissible utilizing NWP #26. If additional impacts are proposed
the project will be reviewed based on the new Nationwide Permit # 39 or an Individual Permit.
The maximum acreage limits of most of the new and modified NWPs is 1/2 acre. Most of the new
and modified NWPs require notification to the district engineer for activities that result in the loss
of greater than \1/10\ acre of waters of the United States. An application is required for any stream
impact. The maximum impact to streams will be 300 linear feet. Impacts over this threshold will
require an Individual Permit. To date, the USAGE Wilmington District has not issued the
corresponding Regional Conditions. The 401 Water Quality Certification requirements are
expected to be issued shortly. The anticipated Regional Conditions and 401 Certification
requirements are expected to impose additional restrictions or qualifications for permitting
activities.
It is expected that the NCDWQ 1501f application threshold for streams will remain.
If commercial, business, office, industrial, and similar land uses causes impacts that required an
application, stormwater treatment facilities will be required by the NCDWQ as a condition of the
permit. It is expected that there will be additional water quality conditions and detention
requirements as part of Nationwide Permit #39. It is expected that the USACE regional conditions
will not authorize waters of the U.S. (i.e. streams) to be used for stormwater treatment facilities
(i.e. wet ponds). The Individual Permit will be required.
It is also expected that vegetated buffers will be required along remaining open water and streams
Permits must meet standard and general conditions, i.e. endangered species, historic properties,
and other particular conditions. Comments are possible with an application from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, State Historic Preservation Office, North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Wildlife Resource Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and
other agencies.
Impacts made in a first phase may impact permitting on future phases if or when the thresholds are
exceeded. Therefore, an overall master plan including an evaluation of potential future permitting
requirements should be conducted.
The new NWP general conditions limit activities in designated critical resource waters and fills in
waters of the United States within 100-year floodplains. All above-grade fill under NWPs 29, 39,
40, 42, 43, and 44 is prohibited within the FEMA mapped 100-year floodplain below the
headwaters of any stream. Within the headwaters, above-grade fill is prohibited within the FEMA-
mapped regulatory floodway, and any above-grade fill in the flood fringe must meet FEMA
standards.
Stream buffers will likely be a mitigation requirement.
It is expected that stream mitigation ratios will be increased depending on the stream value.
Mr. Anand G. Parikh, Page 3
June 26, 2000
Stream mitigation is generally required by the USACE when impacts to streams exceeds 150
linear feet of "important" streams or when impacts to individual streams exceeds 150 linear feet to
certain individual streams by the NCDWQ. The USACE will also require mitigation for certain
stream flooding impacts when the 1501f thresholds to important streams are exceeded. Mitigation
is required for all stream impacts (cumulatively). While most mitigation is on a 1:1 basis, a 2:1
basis is possible. Stream mitigation can include relocating and/or restoring an approved degraded
stream. This generally includes meanders, substrate, banks, buffers, and combinations. Plans must
be submitted for approval. If a permit is authorized - there is potential of participating in recently
created state Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) for wetland and stream restoration to meet
NCDWQ requirements and the USACE requirements. The fee is $24,000/acre times the ratio for
wetlands and $125/If for streams.
Individual Permits
Individual Permits are required for all activities in Waters of the U.S. that do not qualify for a NWP and are
reviewed on a case by case basis by the USACE and other agencies, including NCDWQ, USFWS,
NCWRC, and SBPO. As with NWT's a 401 Water Quality Certification from NCDWQ is a requirement.
There is also a Public Notice. All adjacent riparian property owners will be notified. Interested parties and
agencies will receive the Public Notice through the mail and over the internet. By a Memorandum of
Agreement, .the EPA and the USACE requires a strict mitigation sequence (no practicable alternative
[avoidance], minimization, and compensatory mitigation be followed for all Individual Permits.
It is generally understood that obtaining an Individual Permit may be difficult. Establishing that there are
no practicable alternatives is the most important part and most difficult in the evaluation process. The
USACE may ask for additional information regarding their comments. Once the application, plans, and
documentation are prepared and submitted, the Public Notice. It is generally understood that Individual
Permits have no processing periods. Individual Permit applications can be denied, however, Individual
Permit applications that are not withdrawn are eventually approved, however the applications are usually
modified in the process or include additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation conditions.
Recommendations
If significant impacts are required, it is generally considered good practice to request a pre-application
meeting with the NCDWQ and the USACE before proceeding with detailed plans.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require further explanation
Thanks.
onard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant
NC Landscape Architect #578
LEONARD S. RINDNE_R, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Professional Wetland Scientist Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning Tele: [phone]
Fax [phone]
March 1, 2002
Mr. Steve Chapin
US Army Corps of Engineers - Reg. Field Office
151 Patton Avenue - Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801 - 5006
Re: Z-Max Industrial Site (± 86 Acres), Harrisburg, North Carolina
On behalf of my client, Speedway Motorsports, I am requesting confirmation of eligibility to utilize the
Nationwide Permit Process to impact streams and wetlands to develop an industrial warehouse complex
with railroad access in Harrisburg, North Carolina. The industrial site is adjacent to the Southern
Railroad. There is limited availability of industrial land served by rail in Cabarrus County. Cabarrus
Economic Development expects that this site can support one million square feet of industrial space.
Available sites of this considerable size with rail access and reasonable proximity to Interstate
interchanges are highly limited throughout the region. The proximity of this site to rail, NC Highway 49
and Interstate 485 along with the availability of municipal water and sewer significantly adds to the
overall uniqueness of this property. The available frontage ads site plan flexibility that ultimately allows
for a safe and greater variety of rail users.
Background
The site is within drainage areas of Back Creek, a large tributary of the Rocky River sub-basin of the
Yadkin River (Water Classification - C). The majority of the site is a moderately sloping ridge. The
current land-use is undeveloped woodland in early succession from agriculture and timbering activities.
Description
Wetland Hydrology and Hydric Soils
These wetlands can be classified as Palustrine Forested Broad Leaved, Scrub Shrub, and Emergent
(PFOIA, PFO1C, PSS1A, and PEMIC and formed in an old pond bed. The streams on the site are
intermittent to perennial. The perennial streams have been confirmed as having important aquatic value.
by the USACE.
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Vegetation in wetland areas and along tributaries is dominated by Facultative, Facultative Wet, and
Obligate Vegetation and include black willow, green ash, red maple, sweet gum, alder, silky dogwood,
greenbriar, poison ivy, and others. Herbaceous plants include sedges, needle rush, jewelweed, and other
typical wetland species.
SUMMARY OF WATERS OF THE U.S.
Methodology
Preliminary identification of the Jurisdictional Waters on the site were determined according to the Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, 1987, with Appendices. Preliminary
data gathering included review and interpretation of topographic maps; USDA Soil Conservation Survey;
aerial photographs, and preliminary site visits to selected areas. Then the Routine On-Site Determination
Page 2, March 1, 2002
Method was utilized to determine the upper boundary of the wetlands. In order to make a positive wetland
determination indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were be!
identified as described in the manual.
SUMMARYOFJURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF U.S.
Surface Waters Back Creek (on site)- Perennial ( + 450 10 0.10 ac.
Perennial ( + 2900 10 + 0.33 ac.
Intermittent (+ 1400 If) + 0.15 ac.
Wetlands + 0.50 ac.
Approximate Total - Waters of the U.S. + 1.08 ac.
Stream Evaluation
The perennial/ intermittent stream examination was conducted at the of 600 Racing/Highway 49 site in
Cabarrus County, NC on January 29, 2002. Streams were examined using North Carolina Department of
Water Quality stream classification criteria. Streams were analyzed using three DWQ determined
categories: Geomorphology (physical stream channel characteristics); Hydrology (stream flow indicators);
and Biology (plant and animal life). The stream evaluation was conducted Eric W. Secrist, Aquatic
Biologist and Leonard S. Rindner, PWS.
Stream 1 (see map) lies in the middle of the property,. originating from the lower corner of an existing
parking lot. Stream 1 was determined to be intermittent, according to DWQ criteria. But it is likely that
an adjacent parking lot and buildings have disrupted this once perennial system by cutting off its water
supply; therefore, degrading the system to a more intermittent like channel. It has a channel width of 1' -
4'ft. a range of depth from 1' - 5'ft., with low flow at the time of this survey. In general, the channel is
dominated by a sand substrate with signs of sediment loading within the channel. The upper portion of the
channel is composed of steeper gradients, with signs of channel scouring and roots within the channel.
This upper portion of stream 1 also has two wet weather channels leading into it from the north side of its
reach. The section of channel below the railroad culvert, is mostly unorganized, braided, and shows
indicators of sediment loading. In addition, the lower section of stream 1 shows signs of possible ditching
(i.e. sidecasting, abnormally low sinuosity). The Biology of stream I is weak in description, according to
DWQ criteria, meaning there was little evidence of life present at the time of observation. No
macroinvertebrate life was observed at this time or during previous site surveys. Plant life consists of a few
roots and small amounts of filamentous algae present within the channel.
Stream 2 (see map) This stream shows evidence of being perennial according to DWQ classification
schemes. Stream 2 has a range of channel width of 1' - 3'ft. and a range of depth from 1' - 4'ft. Water
was present and flowing during both surveys (August, January) and there are also small riffle/pool
sequences present. In general, the entire channel is dominated by a sand/gravel substrate, showing some
evidence of sediment loading. The upper third of stream 2 (above where a small tributary stream enters
into it) is steeper in gradient, narrower in width, with less sinuosity, and ditch-like. The lower two-thirds
of the stream is moderate in gradient, with a greater width, and higher sinuosity. In addition, the lower
two-thirds of stream 2 is producing undercut cut banks with a moderate amount of fibrous roots and
periphyton present. A brief examination of the benthic macroin vertebrate life present in this stream,
revealed crayfish, cranefly (Diptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera).
Stream 3 (see map) which enters into stream 2 from the north side, is categorized as perennial. Channel
width ranges from about 2' - 4' ft. at its confluence down to about Y ft. at its headwaters which ran
together with an exposed culvert (within the channel) and was lined with riprap. Stream 3 depth ranges
Page 3, March 1, 2002
from 2' - 6'ft. Water was present and flowing during both site visits (August, January). This small
tributary channel is made up of a sand/silt/cobble substrate with evidence of sediment loading. The lower
portion of this stream has fibrous roots and some periphyton in the channel. Crayfish and damselfly
(Odonata) larvae were observed at each site examination. Fish were also observed during the August
survey, but not during the January survey.
Stream 4(see map) Channel width ranges from 3' - 5'ft and channel depth ranges from 2' - 4'ft. In
addition, the channel has a strong riffle/pool complex, with moderate sinuosity, and a sand/cobble/bedrock
substrate. Water was present and flowing during each site examination. The middle portion of the stream
was historically a pond, but has been drained, and is gradually becoming a wetland. The upper portion of
the stream (above the old pond) is undergoing sediment loading and is braided and unorganized. Fibrous
roots, filamentous algae, and periphyton persisted throughout the lower portion of the stream. Cranefly
(Tipulidae) larvae were observed during the January survey. Other macroinvertebrates such as the
Dragonfly and Damselfly (Odonata), Caddisfly (Trichoptera), Stonefly (Plecoptera), and Mayfly
(Ephemeroptera) larvae are expected to be found in this stream upon further examination. Amphibian's
(frogs) were also present, but not speciated at this time. Fish and crayfish are also expected to be found in
this stream upon further investigation.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF MINIMIZA TION AL TERNA TIVE
Surface Waters Perennial (NWP #39)
300 If + 0.05 ac.
Intermittent Stream (NWP #39/
700 If + 0.10 ac.
Wetlands + 0.33 ac.
Total Impacts + 0.48 ac.
Nationwide Permit #14 will be used for road crossings.
The developers are committed_ to creating an environmentallv responsible oroiect. Minimization and
mitigation measures will be developed based on the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality requirements.
The following Best Management Practices will be employed to minimize impacts to Jurisdictional Waters.
These will include:
a) Siltation Barriers; Sediment Traps and Diversion Ditches
b) Barricades to define construction limits to sensitive sites and to protect trees
c) Methods to prevent short-term impacts will be inspected regularly and maintained during
construction of the project.
d) Project construction will strictly adhere to an approved Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan.
Best Management Practices will include utilizing siltation trapping ponds and other erosion
control structures where appropriate. Impacts from hazardous materials and other toxins to fish
and aquatic life such as fuels will be avoided by not permitting staging areas to be located near
surface waters.
e) As required by the 401 Water Quality Certification conditions, measures will be taken to prevent
"live" or fresh concrete from coming into contact with waters until the concrete has hardened.
Page 4, March 1, 2002
MITIGATION PLAN
The mitigation plan will be proposed to minimize the loss of stream. and wetland habitat as required either
by stream and wetland restoration/creation or participation in the North Carolina Wetland Restoration
Program.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
A Stormwater Management Plan will be designed and implemented for the project to meet the 401 Water
Quality Certification requirements. The Stormwater Management Plan will include wet detention basins
as the primary treatment system for stormwater runoff from paved surfaces and landscaping. The planners
will utilize information and guidelines provided by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources in developing the design of wet detention basins using the Table 1. l ,in the
Stormwater Best Management Practices, NCDENR, April, 1999.
CONCLUSION
The 86 acre industrial development will provide important economic benefits to the region. Based on the
value of the jurisdictional waters and wetlands on this site, the developer has chosen to balance the site's
economic viability with its environmental value and permitability. The goal of the Site Plan and
Mitigation Plan is to help balance the environmental consequences of this development by protecting
waters on site to the extent feasible and downstream of the project.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional explanation. Thank you for your
consideration.
K6nard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant
CC: Mr. Bob Rourke
Speedway Motorsports, Inc.
P.O. Box 600
Concord, NC 28026
Eric W. Secrist
Aquatic Biologist
23 Warwick Road, Asheville, NC 28803 ? [phone]
Leonard S. Rindner
Landscape Architect and Environmental Planner
3714 Spokeshave
Matthews, NC 28105
Feb 5, 2002
Dear Mr. Rindner,
AIL
Upon request, a perennial/ intermittent stream examination was conducted at the of 600
Racing/Highway 49 site in Cabarrus County, NC on January 29, 2002.
Because of new federal laws requiring different regulations for perennial streams versus
intermittent streams, it was determined that additional study was required to categorize the
streams that were found at this site. Streams were examined using North Carolina Department
Water Quality stream classification criteria. Streams were analyzed using three DWQ determir
categories: Geomorphology (physical stream channel characteristics); Hydrology (stream flow
indicators); and Biology (plant and animal life).
Stream 1 (see map) lies in the middle of the property, originating from the lower corner of an
existing parking lot. Stream 1 was determined to be intermittent, according to DWQ criteria. Butl
it is likely that an adjacent parking lot and buildings have disrupted this once perennial system by
cutting off its water supply; therefore, degrading the system to a more intermittent like channel. I
has a channel width of 1' - 4'ft., a range of depth from 1' - 5'ft., with low flow at the time of
this survey. In general, the channel is dominated by a sand substrate with signs of sediment
loading within the channel. The upper portion of the channel is composed of steeper gradients,
with signs of channel scouring and roots within the channel. This upper portion of stream 1 also
has two wet weather channels leading into it from the north side of its reach. The section of
channel below the railroad culvert, is mostly unorganized, braided, and shows indicators of
sediment loading. In addition, the lower section of stream 1 shows signs of possible ditching (i.e.
sidecasting, abnormally low sinuosity). The Biology of stream 1 is weak in description, accordin
to DWQ criteria, meaning there was little evidence of life present at the time of observation. No
macroinvertebrate life was observed at this time or during previous site surveys. Plant life consist.,
of a few roots and small amounts of filamentous algae present within the channel.
Stream 2 (see map) is situated directly to the north of stream 1 and lies at the northern third of
the property. This stream shows evidence of being perennial according to DWQ classification
schemes. Stream 2 has a range of channel width of 1' - 3'ft., and a range of depth from 1' - 4'ft.
Water was present and flowing during both surveys (August, January) and there are also small
riffle/pool sequences present. In general, the entire channel is dominated by a sand/gravel
substrate, showing some evidence of sediment loading. The upper third of stream 2 (above whet
a small tributary stream enters into it) is steeper in gradient, narrower in width, with less sinuosi
The lower two-thirds of the stream is moderate in gradient, with a greater width, and higher
sinuosity. In addition, the lower two-thirds of stream 2 is producing undercut cut banks with a
moderate amount of fibrous roots and periphyton present. A brief examination of the benthic
macroinvertebrate life present in this stream, revealed crayfish, cranefly (Diptera), and caddisfly
(Trichoptera).
Stream 3 (see map) which enters into stream 2 from the north side, is categorized as perennial.
Channel width ranges from about 2' - 4' ft. at its confluence down to about I' ft, at its headwat(
which ran together with an exposed culvert (within the channel) and was lined with riprap. Strea
3 depth ranges from 2' - 6'ft. Water was present and flowing during both site visits (August,
January). This small tributary channel is made up of a sand/silt/cobble substrate with evidence of
sediment loading. The lower portion of this stream has fibrous roots and some periphyton in the
channel. Crayfish and damselfly (Odonata) larvae were observed at each site examination. Fish
were also observed during the August survey, but not during the January survey.
Stream 4(see map) is located on the southern third of the property and is determined to be
perennial in nature. Channel width ranges from 3' - 5'ft and channel depth ranges from 2' - 4'ft
In addition, the channel has a strong riffle/pool complex, with moderate sinuosity, and a
sand/cobble/bedrock substrate. Water was present and flowing during each site examination. Th
middle portion of the stream was historically a pond, but has been drained, and is gradually
becoming a wetland. The upper portion of the stream (above the old pond) is undergoing
sediment loading and is braided and unorganized. Fibrous roots, filamentous algae, and periphytc
persisted throughout the lower portion of the stream. Cranefly (Tipulidae) larvae were observed
during the January survey. Other macroinvertebrates such as the Dragonfly and Damselfly
(Odonata), Caddisfly (Trichoptera), Stonefly (Plecoptera), and Mayfly (Ephemeroptera) larvae
are expected to be found in this stream upon further examination. Amphibian's (frogs) were also
present, but not speciated at this time. Fish and crayfish are also expected to be found in this
stream upon further investigation.
Please inform me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Eric W. Secrist
BEGIN PER STREAM ULLY
r •-? r?;` y
\( 6 'r -"ice ?`?
(IMPORTANT)
,! ? O:: ? ' ^t v\:,. `? ,s•,;.s..Y `mot' . 2ti. ' r '..+? :??.,
i
OLD POND
?,,/ _?•_ ._,.,._.-. ?:-, ? . -- j_ , . EGIN INT STREAM ,r
CULVERT 1! ii F/; f f 1 ,f ; a,\(UN ORTANT)
t f f r` N'S r` ULLY
-'BEGIN PER STREAMi ? "TT
F Y.
.(IMPORTANT)
t4 '' it f/! -WET WEATHER CHAN. (NIJ)
ITCH i? 34
?{ ?)1,?; ``t'om ~~. ,? ; ?\ ,? ?•
l 1 ` ` `?`? f ! EGIN EPH STREAM (UNIMPORTANT)
CULVERT? ,? - DITCH
v t v v t `? 1 ?? 14. f >; w. J 1R+u r? "._._ -^ e rr
t w ? ? r .. •- L (4p
_ \`\ t .r. `•?'°" a V;?r. '? '..t??._ Sr i?,` r ,? y Y ?i 6 I ?"? .. .,:.- _.. j.? I ?.
EGIN INT STREAM (UNIMPORTANT)
r 1 I ; >r 1 ?. ! 1. •??-..
"EGIN PER STREAM
t ellMPORTANT)
{'I?y
tM
R r , r -t i :. "4 w ! t`r ....` TTT""'' jj{,,, ?y?; _ --1•C 1 ..? • .T ?, k r.
717
( tt4 ? ?v t v,. ?v" .S'' i~' ?kr tv Y? ^?. s-.-? .-. ?r.?.t ? %.w'1 ?a+,,,?• a I
'.. \ . R t?x 1117' ,{`? ? ? ,.? , / ? ? ? ??4 ? .- ? ?'? - '>•?? ' ' n
}fir .A° l1. i.
I.R
? l,.
-`+4,
14
BACK CREEK ?„ 1??:.*'
k-
`i APPROXIMATE MAP - WATERS OF THE Ll. .
FOR STUDY PURPOSES ONLY ?
(SCALE 1"=400'+/- SUBJECT TO U.S.A.C.E. VERIFICATION
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ED APPLICANT NAME
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN - unnamed stream 2 / Back Creek
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS - sunny, warm, dry
DATE -
COUNTY/CTPY - Cuba rrus Co. / Concord
P SP NP Observation Comments 2r Description
X Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present fish (Aug.) and Crayfish (Aug. & Jan,) observed
X Benthie Macro Invertebrates Caddisfly and Cranetly observed
X Amphibians Present/Breeding none observed
X Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) small amounts on submerged roots
X Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others) raccoon tracks observed
X Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue) none observed
X Rife/Pool Structure small, isolated riffletpool areas
X Stable Streambanks upper portion channel stable, lower section showing signs (erosion
X Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand) gravel and small cobble observed
X Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50% closure) canopy scattered < 50%
X Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure some undercutting in lower portion of channel
X Flow In Channel water and flow observed at both site visits
X Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel
(Discontinue ) mostly steep, dry adjacent areas
X Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June through Sept.) few pools observed, mostly shallow runs
X Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.) top of channel and tributary, seeps observed
X Adjacent Floodplain Present floodplain present, but minute, only near bottom of chann
X Wrack Material or Drift Lines none observed
X Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel none observed
important To Domestic Water Supply? N
Does Ch$nnel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y Approx. Drainage Area:
Determination:
Y Perennial Channel (stop)
Intermittent Channel (proceed)
Ephemeral Channel Ditch (noid)
Through Upland (no i d )
(if other than C.O.E. proiect manaRcr)
Important Channel: -LF PROJECT MGR
Unimportant Channel: -LF
(attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Evaluator's Signature : C,, Eric
11 /d1QR

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)
WATERBODY/RLVER BASIN- unnamed stream 4 /Back Creek
RECENT WEATHER CONDTPIONS - sunny, warm, dry
DATE - 1/29102
COUNTY/CITY - Cabarrus Co. / Concord
P SP NP Observation
Comments orDeSCIIDtion
X Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present observed during Aug. site visit, not observed during Jan. si visit
X Benthic Macro Irrvertebrates Craneily observed, Caddistly, Mayfly, Plecoptera may occu
X Amphibians Present/Breeding frogs heard, not observed
X Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) strongly present on most rocks in channel
X Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others) none observed, but expected
X Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue) none observed
X Riftle/Pool Structure present, mostly below breached dam
X Stable Streambanks some erosion and bank cutting observed
X Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand) cobble, gravel, sand observed
X Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 500% closure) more than 500/a coverage observed j
X Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure small amounts of cutting mostly in lower section of stream
X Flow In Channel observed during all sight visits (Aug. 01 & Jan. 02)
X Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel
(Discontinue ) present along upper portion/old pond
X Persistent Pools/SaturatedBottom
(June through Sept.) observed
X Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.) present in and around wetland area
X Adjacent Floodplain Present observed mostly above old dam
X Wrack Material or Drift Lines observed above old pond
X Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel Black Willow in and around old pond area
Important To Domestic Water Supply? N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y Approx. Drainage Area:
Determination:
X Perennial Channel (stop) Important Channel: -LF PROJECT MGR
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: -LF
(attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ephemera! Channel Ditch (noj d)
Through Upland (no id)
Evaluator's Signature : r
(if other than C.O.E. protect manager)
it/d/OR

INTERIVII'I'TENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)
WATERBODY/RTVER BASIN- unnamed stream 3 /Back Creek
RECENT WE, ATHER CONDITIONS - sunny, warm, dry
DATE -
COUNTY/CTTY - Cabarrus Co. / Concord
P SP NP Observation Comments 91 Description
X Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present crayfish observed
X Benthic Macro Invertebrates damselfly larva observed
• Amphibians Present/Breeding none observed j
X Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) small amounts growing on roots
X Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others) none observed
X Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue) none observed
X Rife/Pool Structure small and isolated riffle/pool areas
X Stable Streambanks upper portion eroding, lower portion stable lined with c ara
X Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand) mostly gravel and sand
X Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50/ closure) approx. 50616 canopy coverage
X Undercut Banks/lnstream Habitat Structure channel mostly shallow, with eroding upper portion
X Flow In Channel flow observed
X Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel
(Discontinue ) none observed, steep gradients
X Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June through Sept.) water present during both site visits (Aug. & .Ian.)
X Seeps/GroundwaterDischarge (June through Sept.) observed at top of stream, with culvert in channel
X Adjacent Floodplain Present none observed, or minute
X Wrack Material or Drift Lines none observed
X Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel none observed
Important To Domestic Water Supply? N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? N
Approx. Drainage Area:
Determination:
X Perennial Channel (stop)
Intermittent Channel (proceed)
Ephemeral Channel Ditch (noj d)
Through Upland (no jd)
Important Channel: -LF PROJECT MGR
Unimportant Channel: -LF
(attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Evaluator's Signature: ? EriC
(if other than C.O.E. moiect manaacr)
i vaioa

ACTION ID
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
APPLICANT NAME
DATE -1/29/02
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc)
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN - unnamed stream 1 /Back Creek
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS-sunny, warm, dry
COUNTY/CITY - Cabarrus Co. / Concord
P SP NP Observation Comments grDescriptio
X Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present none obs. this visit, fish obs. last visit (August'01)
X Benthic Macro Invertebrates few observed, only unidentifiable nymphs found
X Amphibians Present/Breeding none observed or heard
X Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) small amounts, mostly in lower section of channel
X Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others) none observed in channel
X Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue) none observed
X Riffle/Pool Structure channel mostly dry, minor-no riffle/pool observed
X Stable Streambanks some erosion present, some minor bank cutting
X Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand) some gravel and small cobble with sand predominating
X Riparian Canopy Present (SP =h 50% closure) mostly complete canopy 60-80%
X Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure minor undercutting
X Flow In Channel none observed at the time of visits
X Wetlands Adjacent To/Conug. With Channel
(Discontinue ) none observed
X Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June through Sept.) few isolated pools, but mostly dry both visits
X Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.) no springs or seeps observed
X Adjacent Floodplain Present mostly on lower portion of channel
X Wrack Material or Drift Lines small amts. of leaves/sticks, braided sandy substrate in mid
portion channel dle
X Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacentto channel no obligates observed
Important To Domestic Water Supply? N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Solis Map? N
Approx. Drainage Area:
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop)
Intermittent Channel
(proceed)
Ephemeral Channel Ditch (noj d)
Through Upland (no j d )
Important Channel: -LF PROJECT MGR
Unimportant Channel: -LF
(attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Evaluator's Signature: p
Eric
(ifotherthan C.O.E. project manager)
1 11410R
LEONARD S. RINDNER. PW S
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Professional Wetland Scientist Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning Tele: [phone]
Fax [phone]
March 22, 2001
Mr. Steve Chapin
US Army Corps of Engineers - Reg. Field Office
151 Patton Avenue - Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801 - 5006
Re: We0t!r fi_ Delineation Verification
Dear Mr. Chapin
On behalf of my client, Speedway Motorsports, I am requesting verification of the wetland delineation and
survey for the subject property.
Project Name: Z-Max Site
Acreage: + 35 Acres
City/County: Harrisburg, Cabarrus County
Owner: Speedway Motorsports, Inc.
P.O. Box 600
Concord, NC 28026
Planners: Concord Engineering
45 Spring Street SW
Concord, NC 28025
Contact: Ms. Jill Brim
General Wetland Classification and Description
The wetland and riparian areas on this site can be described as Palustrine Broad Leaved Scrub-Shrub
Temporarily Flooded. The site was previously disturbed from previous agricultural and development. The
site is in the drainage area of unnamed tributaries of Back Creek, a tributary of Rocky River in the Yadkin
River Basin. Facultative and Facultative Wet species dominate the forested wetland areas. Trees include
willow oak, sweetgum, red maple, and elm. Understory and herbaceous strata includes smilax, poison ivy,
and microstegium. Obligate species occur in areas subject to inundation in the former pond bed. The site
includes Chewacla soils. These soils are map units, which may have inclusions of hydric soils according
to .the Natural Resource Conservation Service, Technical Guide-Section H-A-2, June 1991.
Thank you for your consideration.
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Professional Wetland Scientist
LEONARD S. RINDNER. PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Professional Wetland Scientist Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning Tele: [phone]
Fax [phone]
October 1, 2000
Ms. Jill M. Brim, P.E.
Concord Engineering
45 Spring Street SW
P.O. Box 268
Concord, NC 28026
Re: Wetland/Stream Delineation - 600 Racing, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Dear Jill:
I visited the proposed project site on September 30, 2000, to conduct a wetland and stream
determination and delineation as requested. An area is determined to be a wetland when it exhibits
Hydric Soil, Hydrophytic Vegetation, and Wetland Hydrology characteristics. These
characteristics are required to be in accordance with the definitions in the U.S. Army Corps
Wetland Delineation Manual, 1987. Areas, which exhibit these three characteristics, are identified
as a wetland and permits may be required for development activities within these areas. Surface
waters such as perennial, intermittent creeks, and certain ponds are also subject to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act.
Wetland Surve
The delineation should now be surveyed to verify the extents, however there may be modifications
(usually minor, if any) based on a USACE verification. These areas are approximately indicated on
the attached map. A survey would determine the actual extents more accurately and clarify the
regulatory issues and potential mitigation conditions, if necessary. The attached map is for
illustrative purposes only. A survey is required for the USACE to make a final wetlands
determination on the property.
The flags used to define the wetlands are yellow and blue tied together numbered sequentially as
roughly depicted on the attached map. Once the preliminary survey is conducted it will need to be
reviewed by me to make sure that the connections are as intended. The map will need to be
produced based on the following requirements.
1. Metes and bounds tied to a property corner or other known point or listing of the northings and
eastings (NC Coordinate Grid).
2. Location of each point identified to be included on the map.
3. Property lines of the entire property or parcel. 1~ loodplains limits and contours should be
included on the map, if possible.
4. Wetland boundaries should be closed into distinct polygons. Acreage should be indicated for
each polygon. It is helpful to have the polygons identified (i.e. Area "A", etc.). Surface waters such.
as perennial and intermittent channels should also be identified calculated in acreage and linear
feet. Channel widths were indicated on the flags. The areas should then be listed in a table and
totaled. All notes on the flags should be recorded and indicated on the map (i.e. begin perennial
stream).
5. The map should have a vicinity map, north arrow, scale, total site acreage, project name,
property owner, developer, and other pertinent information such as FEMA floodplains.
6. The survey must be sealed by the surveyor.
7. The following note needs to be shown on the map for the USACE to sign:
Wetland Certification
This certifies that this copy of this plat accurately depicts the boundary of jurisdiction of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the undersigned on this date. Unless there is a change
in the law of our published regulations this determination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five (5) years from this date. This determination was made utilizing
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
ame:
I Title:
Date:
I would like to review the plan before it is finalized. Once complete I will need a sealed mylar and
three sealed prints to forward to the USACE with supporting documentation.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require further explanation.
Thanks.

Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Professional Wetland Scientist
Environmental Planning Consultant
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID: 200130690 County: Cabarrus
Waters of the U.S. Survey/DelineationVerification
Property owner/Authorized Agent: Speedway Motorsports, Inc.
Address: P.O. Box 600
Concord, NC 28026
Telephone Number:
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.):
Z-Max Site located on approx. 35 acre tract in Harrisburg, on the south side of NC 49, just
west of Morehead Rd.
Indicate Which of the following apply:
There are waters of the U.S. on the above described property which have been accurately
flagged/delineated. We recommend that the delineated lines be surveyed. The surveyed
lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps will make a final jurisdictional
determination on your property.
X The submitted survey plat dated 01/22/01 for the above referenced property
accurately reflects the limits of waters of the U.S. on the property. Unless there is a
change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon
a period not to exceed 5 years from the date of this notice.
Placement of dredged or fill material in waters othe U.S. on this property without a Department
of the Army permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC
1311). A permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high
ground. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please
contact:
Steve Chapin at [phone]
7
Project Manager Signature ?..c_ Date April 2, 2001
965 4 ??
_ - -
1
\ 1,
\ \ y11, I?PJi
\ S
\ Q ?
\ ? Q r
z ro^
Z Z
w m ?.
z ,
~ O
W 7
U \ p
Z
w \ ,P 1
,ov
w e 2,863 \,1\1
Q ? u1
qA ? ?
Ov?i O N
? =FpFtE? ? o ..
CL 5
L^L 7
a ? ? ?Fs°??i t •.
a _ ,'o
I
?26
C
cn
N
I
4
KiV013S 3015 .0:
fV V
-j z
W
a
O
J
W'
w
V
7
I
CL
5Q
w
z
_O
W
z
W
0
H
W
3
I
i
LLI
-? _ eB_PCrRr um•a - - _ - ._ _-- J
m xrumm