20200321 Ver 1_More Info Requested_20200511

Strickland, Bev
From: Johnson, Alan
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 1:09 PM
To: Morgan, Katie
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
For my engineer, a bit more clarity is requested. The overall site plan sheet from which this
information was copied.
A) The distance from the stop of fill (retaining wall) to the stream origin
B) The elevation (I believe 718)
C) The elevation of the project (760?)
D) The distance from retaining wall to top of fill (project elevation)
E) The distance from top of fill to the stream origin
F) Height of retaining wall at "B"
I looked through the emails and I can't seem to find this info.
INM.R.-
!P BENCH io-i
wr rP
V L= c ;RLtf � rtTCLU£ .
t
i
r
1

From: Morgan, Katie [mai|to:KK4organ@partneresicom]
Sent: Wednesday, May 6'Z0Z010:Z6AM
To: Johnson, Alan <a|[e-mail]
Cc: Pitner,Andrew <[e-mail];Jonathan. Boerger@gastongoucom;]aniczak,Catherine K4OV
USARK4YCESAVV(USA)<[e-mail]|x
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copart design DVVR#19'U3Z1
email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Good morning Alan,
| will send the request to our client. Can you explain why the current design below that impacts only 150-LF is not
sufficient?
Have a Great Day!
Katie LMorgan, PVVS EP
Senior Project Manager — Professional Wetland Scientist (#3100)
PARTNER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, INC.
New Orleans, LA

More Than Just Assessments. Solutions — For a complete list of services, click here[nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com
From: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 9:10 AM
To: Morgan, Katie <[e-mail]>
Cc: Pitner, Andrew <[e-mail]>; Jonathan. [e-mail]; Janiczak, Catherine M CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
I deal with a lot of fill slopes and have seen 30 ft retaining walls associated with
developments. So I feel pretty confident that the impact can be reasonably reduced.
If sed/eros is a concern on the slope, then matting can be utilized as well as slope drains. That
will be more than likely required for some of the slopes currently proposed in the 401
approval.
I look for to the anticipated modification(s).
Thanks
alan
From: Morgan, Katie [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:36 PM
To: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
External email. Do not click links or open attach M
ail as an attachment to
[e-mail] rN����
Hey Alan,
The engineer they retained was uncomfortable engineering the retaining wall specifications for the steep slopes and was
extremely concerned with a blowout. Our client heeded their warning and decided it was not feasible to design the
retaining wall due to safety concerns. Once the costs of mitigation exceeded the costs of the retaining wall our client
decided to have another firm engineer the retaining wall (those specifications I have not been provided with). Our client
is diligently trying to rectify the situation with the safest, most economical design possible.
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
More Than Just Assessments. Solutions — For a complete list of services, click here[nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com
From: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 11:12 AM
To: Morgan, Katie <[e-mail]>
Cc: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
I haven't received comments since the plan received reducing below the 150
threshold. Reminder, I asked about reducing the impacts and it was said it wasn't
possible. Once the mitigation requirement was shown, the impacts were reduced. I
suggested further steepening the slopes and increasing the retaining walls to further avoid the
impact.
If another plan was devised, I haven't received.
Thanks
Alan
From: Morgan, Katie [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 11:55 AM
To: Johnson, Alan <[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: 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]
Alan,
Did you receive the Grading Plan set showing the details of the retaining wall and stream impacts?
The restoration plan will be sent over today.
Have a Great Day!
Katie L. Morgan, PWS, EP
Senior Project Manager — Professional Wetland Scientist (#3100)
4

PARTNER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, INC.
New Orleans, LA
C:423-838-1845 1 0: 504-777-3956 1 D: 800-419-4923 ext. 3748
More Than Just Assessments. Solutions — For a complete list of services, click here[nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com
From: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 3:04 PM
To: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[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
I am awaiting the information regarding the proposed impacts. Considering earlier comments
stated that retaining walls weren't possible.
From: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 3:57 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
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
The tolling agreement must be signed before the permit can be issued. I am reviewing the permit while I wait for the
tolling agreement to get signed. I believe I was also waiting on an update on the original engineering designs. In the end,
it will all come down to getting that tolling agreement signed. Thank you and let me know if you have any other
questions.
Catherine M. Janiczak
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Satellite Office
Phone: [phone]
From: Morgan, Katie <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 3:37 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: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Copart design DWR #19-0321
Thank you Catherine,
I will send these comments over to Copart and get back to you with their response.
Would you be able to get me an ETA for the permit?

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
More Than Just Assessments. Solutions — For a complete list of services, click here
From: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 5:18 AM
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
Good morning,
Please see our attorney's comments below and send me the additional information requested as soon as you can:
I have reviewed the attachment, and need some documentation in order to determine whether it is appropriate or
not. I note the following:
1) It is signed by G R DePasquale (assumed to be Gregory R. DePasquale) as "Business/Land Owner". However, to sign
on behalf of the Corporation, he needs to be signing in the capacity of his position. According to the Secretary of State's
website, Gregory R. DePasquale is identified as the Secretary. Therefore, his signature block should be amended to
reflect his name and position.
2) With regard to the Office/position, a Secretary may or may not be authorized to execute such a document. We will
need to see a copy of the Bylaws and/or a Corporate Resolution that authorizes the Secretary to sign documents like
this and bind the Corporation.
Thank you and let me know if you have any questions.
Catherine M. Janiczak
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Satellite Office
Phone: [phone]
From: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 3:08 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
Good afternoon,
Alan is correct in his statements below. Because this is a violation, a signed tolling agreement (attached) is required. A
PCN must be submitted which can be found on our website
here: Blocked https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Permits/2017-Nationwide-
Permits/Pre-construction-Notification/ [protect-us.mimecast.coml
Part of the stream will have to be restored, otherwise, an individual permit is required which takes a lengthy
Environmental Impact Statement which can take months to complete.
Because the impacts are over 150 linear feet, mitigation is required on all impacts.
Yes, the Corps will need to assess the impacts onsite so we will need to set up a site visit in May. May 6t" is my next
availability if you would like to set something up. Thank you and let me know if you have any questions.
Catherine M. Janiczak
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Satellite Office
Phone: [phone]
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
click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Hi Alan,
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) 1 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.
9

Tptal Area
* s12 33 Ain
ip
f, E ,
1p
T#a Flew 3$ 3r 61
DPhWt OhW
B) The sed/eros plan shows this illustration. I compared to the illustration above and
have extended in the associated color
ZV BUFFER r+
OFF WETLANDS
+ * ++ A
IPROTECTIONTEC`TIT5
PROTECTION
ti
tiLM-
BASIN 56
k
M
rl/
A
10

SdxEEN�4G FEM
(SEEOETALI /
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.
11

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
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
MExternal e mail.. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
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]>
12

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
should allow a greater buffer around the channel.
L ulh i W J "ISMiAErLf 1. F 1. li# a 1f IF
Walls
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.
IM
Dlvlslon of Water Resources
Alan D Johnson — Senior Environmental Specialist
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Regional Operations
13

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.
14

ZZ

SHEET ECAB

fr/j/��\�y
I �ti