20220211 Ver 1_USACE More Info Request_20220301

Strickland, Bev
From: Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 5:35 PM
To: Ashley Steele Bentz; Homewood, Sue
Subject: [External] SAW-2021-01593 / Centerpoint 85 Warehouse / Davidson Craven, LLC /
Lexington / Davidson County, NC - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Thanks again for the assistance, Ashley:
I have reviewed the application and attachments submitted and require additional information to complete my review
of your request to utilize NWP 39 for the proposed project. Please see the items below and advise if more information
or clarification is needed.
1) Please confirm the north arrow and scale are accurate on the Overall Impact Exhibit.
2) Please provide a profile view of the proposed stream impact / culvert placement.
3) It is noted that the proposed stream crossing would be collocated with impacts necessary for construction of the
warehouse, but impacts needed for the facility are not well justified. It appears the same size warehouse could
be accommodated with no impact to jurisdictional areas by rotating it. Please provide justification for the
configuration proposed, or why either an adjusted or shifted footprint away from the stream is not feasible. If a
north -south orientation is necessary, would a narrower and longer building serve the same need? Perhaps
additional detail about the proposed warehouse's requirements would be helpful in understanding the need for
impacts.
4) The application states than a headwall is proposed along New Bowers Road to accommodate a westward
shift. However, parking is shown between the road and the facility when ample uplands appear to be available
both north and south of the facility to accommodate parking. Were other layouts for support facilities
considered, and if so why is the proposed configuration necessary? Were headwalls also considered along the
stream to avoid/minimize impacts?
5) What is the purpose of the stub shown on the east side of the proposed remote parking lot? Please note NWP
39 can only be used to construct 'single and complete' impacts.
6) Ample uplands appear to be available adjacent to the proposed remote parking lot to accommodate facilities of
equal or greater size/capacity. Please explain the need for the configuration shown.
7) The application states that stormwater management plans will be complete in May 2022. Is there any chance
the BMP shown would expand into potentially jurisdictional areas?
8) We will need to consult with the USFWS prior to verifying use of NWP 39. Our SLOPES agreement with USFWS
should address concerns for Northern long-eared bat. However, the attachments provided state that potentially
1

suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occurs onsite. Please provide additional information, including dates
of surveys and findings, four our use in this consultation.
Regards,
Christopher D. Hopper
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
0: [phone], Ext. 35
M: [phone]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey can
be accessed by copying and pasting the following link into your web browser:
https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/. Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and
complete the survey.
2