20200321 Ver 1_More Info Received_20200409

Strickland, Bev
From: Morgan, Katie <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 3:15 PM
To: Johnson, Alan; Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: [e-mail]; Perez, Douglas J; Pitner, Andrew
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
I am keeping my fingers crossed they will be able to minimize impacts to 150-LF or less, as was recommended during the
first redesign.
I will keep y'all posted with more information as it comes in.
Have a Great Day!
Katie L. Morgan, PWS, EP
Senior Project Manager — Professional Wetland Scientist (#3100)
PARTNER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, INC.
New Orleans, LA
C:423-838-1845 1 0: 504-777-3956 1 D: 800-419-4923 ext. 3748
From: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:32 PM
To: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Morgan, Katie
<[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>; Pitner, Andrew
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
Katie, it will be interesting if they can utilize retaining walls now. If so, then my concerns
should be able to be met from my previous email(s).
Thanks
Alan
From: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 8:33 AM
To: Morgan, Katie <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jonathan. [e-mail]; Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>; Pitner, Andrew
1

<[e-mail]>; Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Good morning,
If impacts stay below 150 linear feet (after restoration plan is approved), mitigation will not be required. I've attached
the NWP 29 & 39 for your reference. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you.
Catherine M. Janiczak
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Satellite Office
Phone: [phone]
From: Morgan, Katie <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 3:59 PM
To: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Alan
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Jonathan. [e-mail]; Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>; Pitner, Andrew
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
Good afternoon Cathy and Alan,
I just got off a call with Copart. They were a sticker shocked at the cost of mitigation and are making a decision ASAP
with regards to decreasing the amount of impact.
Can you provide confirmation that if they impact 150-LF or less of the stream that an In -Lieu Fee for mitigation would
not be required?
Have a Great Day!
Katie L. Morgan, PWS, EP
Project Manager — Professional Wetland Scientist (#3100)
PARTNER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, INC.
New Orleans, LA
C:423-838-1845 1 0: 504-777-3956 1 D: 800-419-4923 ext. 3748
From: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 4:19 AM
To: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>; Morgan, Katie <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jonathan. [e-mail]; Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>; Pitner, Andrew
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321

Good morning,
I am available any time after 9:30 this morning. Thank you.
Catherine M. Janiczak
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Satellite Office
Phone: [phone]
From: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 10:33 PM
To: Morgan, Katie <[e-mail]>; Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Jonathan. [e-mail]; Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>; Pitner, Andrew
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
yes
From: Morgan, Katie [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 5:44 PM
To: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jonathan. [e-mail]; Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>; Pitner, Andrew
<[e-mail]>; Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Hi Cathy and Alan,
Would y'all be available for a call on Monday to discuss this site?
Have a Great Day!
Katie L. Morgan, PWS, EP
Project Manager — Professional Wetland Scientist (#3100)
PARTNER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, INC.
New Orleans, LA
C:423-838-1845 1 0: 504-777-3956 1 D: 800-419-4923 ext. 3748
From: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 2:10 PM
To: Morgan, Katie <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jonathan. [e-mail]; Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>; Pitner, Andrew

<[e-mail]>; Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
I apologize. I just double checked my notes. I have been out to this site. I am still waiting on a tolling agreement and an
updated PCN from the developer. The rest of my email is still the same. Thanks.
Catherine Janiczak
From: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 11:47 AM
To: Morgan, Katie <[e-mail]>
Cc: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Jonathan. [e-mail]; Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>; Pitner, Andrew
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
You need to get the information Cathy is required. I am not familiar with Partners and not
sure Cathy has been to the site to verify the delineation.
300 ft is the threshold for IP, so not sure if you might need to push down a bit to be sure you
are below threshold, otherwise you are in a different game.
My understanding is that until Cathy gets certain information, the corps does not review the
project (or something to that affect). Given that this is a violation and it is address a bit
differently.
We should also receive, be submitted a stream restoration plan/design for the impacted
area. It may be well to have all the players there for a site visit to discuss retaining wall,
delineation, stream restoration.
I went by the site a few weeks ago when we were having all that rain to take a look. I was
slipping and sliding up and down the hill, and hoping I didn't slide away, so I didn't make it
down the channel to take a look.
From: Morgan, Katie [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 11:34 AM
To: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Jonathan. [e-mail]; Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>; Pitner, Andrew
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
O External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Hi Alan,
4

Thank you for your time. I apologize in the delay in getting you this information. Finding a new normal with the changes
from the pandemic has been a challenge. It took some additional time to get all of the files from servers in the physical
office to home offices.
1. 300-feet is the correct amount of impact (so we will need to update the PCN). The PCN was submitted with the
impact noted in the initial NOV. Plans were not finalized prior to submitting the PCN. Copart was able to reduce
the amount of impact to the jurisdictional stream to 250 feet. The additional 250-feet of stream identified in the
NOV will be restored. The developer tried to keep impact to 150-feet; however, site design did not allow. Due to
slopes, safety, soil type, and cost the engineer recommends filling and piping the segment shown in the attached
map and restoring the remaining 250-feet of stream. The site is waiting on a formal determination of jurisdiction
for the smaller stream. Assuming the smaller stream is jurisdictional
2. Attached is a map of the stream delineation. Please use the attached map as a guide to stream location and
measures. The entire site was densely covered in kudzu at the time of the wetland delineation, as such the
stream in question was not observed during the initial delineation. Partner returned to the site in February and
delineated the stream feature. The stream features were mapped by a surveyor.
3. Kelly Williams has been contacted for mitigation forms and information. Upon receipt of correspondence I will
send an update.
4. The developer tried to keep impact to 150-feet; however, site design did not allow. Due to slopes, safety, soil
type, cost, and potential for a blow out from a retaining wall the engineer recommends filling and piping the
segment shown in the attached map and restoring the remaining 250-feet of stream. The developer was able to
avoid impact to 250-feet of the initially impacted stream identified in the NOV and proposes to restore the 250-
feet of non -impacted stream. Additionally, only 50-feet of the secondary stream awaiting formal jurisdictional
determination will be impacted. The remainder of the stream within the development will be restored.
I believe Cathy and site personnel were corresponding about the site visit. I will provide an update regarding site
visit status as soon as possible. Due to travel restrictions and the current pandemic, alternatives to physically
being onsite for out of town representatives may be needed. We will explore the option of a video chat with
onsite personnel and out of town representatives for the site walk with regulators.
Have a Great Day!
Katie L. Morgan, PWS, EP
Project Manager — Professional Wetland Scientist (#3100)
PARTNER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, INC.
New Orleans, LA
C:423-838-1845 1 0: 504-777-3956 1 D: 800-419-4923 ext. 3748
From: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 2:27 PM
To: Morgan, Katie <[e-mail]>
Cc: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Jonathan. [e-mail]; Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>; Pitner, Andrew
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
Ok, some more information required other than the retaining vs fill material.

1) I made an assumption about the potential stream impacts proposed for the site, so was
focusing on the fill. HOWEVER, the PCN states 500 ft of stream. That is an INDIVIDUAL
PERMIT potentially, unless waived by the army corps. To be below the threshold for an
IP, you must be less 300 ft of stream (a diagram below shows 250 and 50 ft (300 ft) of
impact). Mitigation would potentially be waived with impacts less than 150 ft of stream.
2) The delineation papers did not include a map of the stream and/or lengths from the
consultants. Below are several different maps included in the information submitted for
this project.
A) is the "Gastonia Industrial 18-07-0510" that was included. The yellow and red lines (I
assume channels) were not Identified in the legend. Nor the length if pertinent.
#f �
/ tki MOM ML M * I �
B) The sed/eros plan shows this illustration. I compared to the illustration above and
have extended in the associated color
6

ZV BUFFER
OFF WETLANDS
Z
WIN 059 W.,
PROTECTIM
-'n
nv @
(ME OETALI/
[TYN
CV

'4_
3) Mitigation forms are required. Contact Kelly Williams with the Division of Mitigation
Services for the information required. Mitigation cost is approximately $500 If. It may
be at a 2:1 ratio, thus doubling the cost.
4) 1 have recommended retaining walls to minimize the need of fill material and reduce the
stream impact. Avoidance and minimization must be shown or a pertinent reason must
be provided.
Cathy Janiczak with the corps is waiting for information before she can move forward
with the application (if I am correct). Given the information regarding the potential
stream impacts (Individual permit or Nationwide permit) and the confusion regarding
the proposed streams. This project will remain on hold till a site visit can be conducted
with the army corps and the proper representatives with the company. It may be good
to have the wetland personnel to confirm their stream origins and engineer to provide
information regarding the ability to avoid the streams. Work avoiding any
stream/wetlands at the site may continue however the work should not continue with
the expectation of the current submitted design being constructed with the current
proposed fill till clarity can be provided.
Thanks,
Alan Johnson
a

From: Morgan, Katie [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 2:07 PM
To: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Hi Alan,
I spoke with Copart, the site has already been redesigned to impact as little of the stream as possible and changing the
design to incorporate a retaining wall is not feasible for this project.
Have a Great Day!
Katie L. Morgan, PWS, EP
Project Manager — Professional Wetland Scientist (#3100)
PARTNER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, INC.
New Orleans, LA
C:423-838-1845 1 0: 504-777-3956 1 D: 800-419-4923 ext. 3748
From: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 1:01 PM
To: Morgan, Katie <[e-mail]>
Cc: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Copart design DWR #19-0321
Why is it not possible to utilize retaining wall to avoid the channel. This is typical here in the
piedmont. Currently the stream impact is due to fill material and slopes for parking. Walls
should allow a greater buffer around the channel.
9

Also: Given the height of the slopes there will be a condition to mat the slopes and work them
to completion asap so they can be matted and a monitoring condition could be required for
the stream below the impact to ensure flow is maintained. If impacted additional mitigation
cost could be required.
DWR
DNIT-lon of Water Ftesources
Alan D Johnson — Senior Environmental Specialist
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Regional Operations
610 East Center Ave., Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
10

ZZ

SHEET ECAB

fr/j/��\�y
I �ti