14006_Classic Coffee_EMPV3 final

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
NORTH CAROLINA BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT PLAN
This form is to be used to prepare an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for projects in the
North Carolina Brownfields Program at the direction of a Brownfields project manager.
The EMP is a typical requirement of a Brownfields Agreement (BFA). Its purpose is to clarify
actions to be taken during the demolition and construction at Brownfields properties in an
effort to avoid delays in the event of the discovery of new contamination sources or other
environmental conditions. The EMP provides a means to document restoration plans and
environmental data for each applicable environmental medium to inform regulatory -compliant
decision -making at the site. As much detail as possible should be included in the EMP, including
contingency planning for unknowns. Consult your project manager if you have questions.
Prospective Developers and/or their consultants must complete and submit this form and all
pertinent attachments, see checklist below, to their Brownfields project manager prior to any
earthmoving or other development -related activities that have the potential to disturb soil at
the Brownfields Property, including demolition. For the resultant EMP to be valid for use, it
must be completed, reviewed by the program, signed by all parties working on the project, and
approved by the Brownfields project manager. Failure to comply with the requirements of the
EMP could jeopardize project eligibility, or in the event of a completed agreement, be cause for
a reopener
So that the EMP provides value in protecting brownfields eligibility and public health, the
preparer shall ensure that the following steps have been completed prior to submitting the
EMP for review. Any EMP prepared without completing these steps is premature.
0 Site sampling and assessment that meets Brownfields' objectives is complete and
has been reviewed and approved by the Brownfields Project Manager.
0 Specific redevelopment plans, even if conceptual, have been developed for the
project, submitted and reviewed by the Brownfields Project Manager.
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
Please submit, along with the completed EMP form, the following attachments, as relevant and
applicable to the proposed redevelopment:
0 A set of redevelopment plans, including architectural/engineering plans, if
available; if not conceptual plans may suffice if updated when detailed plans are
drafted.
0 A figure overlaying redevelopment plans on a map of the extent of contamination
for each media.
0 Site grading plans that include a cut and fill analysis.
❑ A figure showing the proposed location and depth of impacted soil that would
remain on site after construction grading.
0 Any necessary permits for redevelopment (i.e. demolition, etc.).
Section 404/Nationwide 27 (USACE) - DWR#17-1055
Section 401/Nationwide (NC DEQ) - SAW-2017-01763
Sediment and Erosion Control (NCDEQ/NCDEMLR/DLR) - Permit #1985
Floodplain Development Permit (Mecklenburg County, NC) — Pending
Approval
❑ A detailed construction schedule that includes timing and phases of construction.
0 Tabulated data summaries for each impacted media (i.e. soil, groundwater, soil
gas, etc.) applicable to the proposed redevelopment.
0 Figures with the sampling locations and contamination extents for each impacted
media applicable to the proposed redevelopment.
❑ A full final grade sampling and analysis plan, if the redevelopment plan is final.
❑ If known, information about each proposed potential borrow soil source, such as
aerial photos, historic site maps, historic Sanborn maps, a site history, necessary for
brownfields approval.
❑ Information and analytical data, if required, for quarries, or other borrow sources,
detailing the type of material proposed for importation to the Brownfields Property.
❑ A work plan for the sampling and analysis of soil to be brought onto the
Brownfields Property. Refer to Issue Resolution 15 in Brownfields Program
Guidelines.
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
❑ A map of the Brownfields Property showing the location of soils proposed for
export and sampling data from those areas.
❑ If a Vapor Mitigation System is required by the Brownfields Program, the Vapor
Intrusion Mitigation System (VIMS) plan will be signed and sealed by a NC
Professional Engineer. The VIMS Plan may also be submitted under separate cover.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Date: April 14, 2020 Revision Date (if applicable):
Brownfields Assigned Project Name: Classic Coffee Concepts
Brownfields Project Number: 14006-10-060
Brownfields Property Address: 1016 and 1024 Montana Drive, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
Brownfields Property Area (acres): 0.25 acres of the site; the Historic Stewart Creek Enhancement
Project Phase II will be mostly confined within the designated storm water easement boundaries along
Stewart Creek, as noted on the restoration plans.
Is Brownfields Property subject to RCRA Permit? ....................... ❑ Yes © No
If yes, enter Permit No.: Not Applicable
Is Brownfields Property subject to a Solid Waste Permit?.......... ❑ Yes © No
If yes, enter Permit No.: Not Applicable
COMMUNICATIONS
A copy of this EMP shall be distributed to all the parties below as well as any contractors or site
workers that may be exposed to site vapors, soil, groundwater, and/or surface water. Additionally, a
copy of the EMP shall be maintained at the Brownfields Property during redevelopment activities.
NOTE, THE EMP DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF A SITE -SPECIFIC HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN.
Prospective Developer (PD): Mecklenburg County
Contact Person: Stephanie Roberts
Phone Numbers: Office: Mobile:
Email: [e-mail]
Contractor forPD: Kimley-Horn
Contact Person: Mr. Will Wilhelm
Phone Numbers: Office: [phone] Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
Environmental Consultant: Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Contact Person: Mr. Chris Corbitt
Phone Numbers: Office: [phone] Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Brownfields Program Project Manager: Ms. Joselyn Harriger, BPMU
Phone Numbers: Office: [phone] Mobile:: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Other DEQ Program Contacts (if applicable, i.e., UST Section, Inactive Hazardous Site Branch,
Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste): Not Applicable
Phone Numbers: Office: Click or tap here to enter text. Mobile: Click or tap here to enter text.
Email: Click or tap here to enter text.
NOTIFICATIONS TO THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM
Written advance Notification Times to Brownfields Project Manager: Check each box to accept
minimum advance notice periods (in calendar days) for each type of onsitetask:
On -site assessment or remedial activities.................................................................. 10 days prior ❑X
Construction or grading start....................................................................................... 10 days prior ❑X
Discovery of stained soil, odors, USTs, buried drums or waste, landfill, or other signs of previously
unknown contamination.............................................................................................. Within 48 hours ❑X
Implementation of emergency actions (e.g. dewatering, flood or soil erosion control measures in area of
contamination, ventilation of work zones)............................................................... Within 48 hours ❑X
Installation of mitigation systems.............................................................................. 10 days prior ❑X
Other notifications as required by local, state or federal agencies to implement redevelopment activities
(as applicable)............................................................................................................... Within 30 days ❑X
REDEVELOPMENT PLANS
1) Type of Redevelopment (check all that apply):
❑ Residential ❑ Recreational ❑ Institutional ❑ Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Retail ❑ Industrial
© Other, specify:
Planned stream restoration of the southern portion of the site which is currently wooded and
undeveloped involves a stream restoration project along Stewart Creek (Historic Stewart Creek
Enhancement Project Phase II) by Mecklenburg County. The project will include bank grading and
placement of rip rap to control flow within the stream boundaries.
2) Check the following activities that will be conducted prior to commencing earth -moving
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
activities at the site:
® Review of historic maps (Sanborn Maps, facility maps)
❑ Conducting geophysical surveys to evaluate the location of suspect UST, fuel lines, utility
lines, etc.
❑ Interviews with employees/former employees/facility managers/neighbors
3) Summary of Redevelopment Plans (MANDATORY: attach detailed plans or conceptual plans, if
detailed plans are not available. EMP review without such information would be premature).
Provide brief summary of redevelopment plans, including demolition, removal of building
slabs/pavement, grading plans and planned construction of new structures:
Currently, the southern portion of the Classic Coffee Concepts Brownfields site is wooded and
undeveloped. This EMP only addresses the planned stream restoration activities associated with
the Historic Stewart Creek Enhancement Project Phase II and does not include any previous
redevelopment plans for the site, demolition of on -site buildings or construction of new buildings.
Mecklenburg County (PD) plans to conduct stream restoration activities along Stewart Creek
within the designated storm water easement, depicted on the conceptual plans. These activities
include stream bank grading and placement of rip rap boulders to control flow within the stream
boundaries. Grading Plans of the Historic Stewart Creek Enhancement Project Phase II are
attached.
4) Do plans include demolition of structure(s)?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
❑ If yes, please check here to confirm that demolition will be conducted in accordance with
applicable legal requirements, including without limitation those related to lead and asbestos
abatement that are administered by the Health Hazards Control Unit within the Division of Public
Health of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. If available, please
provide a copy of your demolition permit.
5) Are sediment and erosion control measures required by federal, state, or local regulations?
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
® If yes, please check here to confirm that demolition will be conducted in accordance with
applicable legal requirements. If soil disturbance is necessary to install sediment and erosion
control measures, they may not begin until this EMP is approved.
6) Which category of risk -based screening level is used or is anticipated to be specified in the
Brownfields Agreement? Note: If children frequent the property, residential screening levels
shall be cited in the Brownfields Agreement for comparison purposes.
❑ Residential ® Non -Residential or Industrial/Commercial
7) Schedule for Redevelopment (attach construction schedule):
a. Construction start date: To be determined.
b. Anticipated duration (specify activities during each phase):
Summer 2020; General Contractor bidding to occur April 2020
c. Additional phases planned? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, specify the start date and/or activities if known:
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
Start Date:
Planned Activity:
Start Date:
Planned Activity:
Ctart nntn-
Planned Activity:
d. Provide the planned date of occupancy for new buildings: Not Applicable
CONTAMINATED MEDIA
1) Contaminated Media on the Brownfields Property
Part 1. Soil........................................................................
❑ Yes
© No
❑ Suspected
Part 2. Groundwater.......................................................
© Yes
❑ No
❑ Suspected
Part 3. Surface Water ......................................................
© Yes
❑ No
❑ Suspected
Part 4. Sediment..............................................................
© Yes
❑ No
❑ Suspected
Part 5. Soil Vapor.............................................................
❑ Yes
© No
❑ Suspected
Part 6. Sub -Slab Soil Vapor .............................................
© Yes
❑ No
❑ Suspected
Part 7. Indoor Air.............................................................
❑ Yes
© No
❑ Suspected
2) For the Area of Proposed Redevelopment on the Brownfields Property, attach tabulated data
summaries for each impacted media and figure(s) with sample locations.
PART 1. Soil — Please fill out the information below, using detailed site plans, if available, or estimate
using known areas of contaminated soil and conceptual redevelopment plan. Provide a figure
overlaying new construction onto figure showing contaminated soil and groundwater locations.
1) Known or suspected contaminants in soil (list general groups of contaminants):
A sediment sample collected in 2012 within the planned stream restoration project area indicated
Manganese exceeds the Protection of Groundwater Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG).
In 2006, four soil samples were obtained beneath the two on -site buildings on the Brownfields
property. The soil samples were collected from a depth of 3 to 5 feet below the floor of the
buildings. Analytical results are discussed below and included as Table 1 (Soil Analytical Results;
extracted from Report Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, MACTEC, dated May 31, 2006).
VOCs:
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected in three of the samples at concentrations ranging from 7.5
to 18 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) and acetone (130 µg/kg) was detected in one sample at
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
the site. The detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) did not exceed the Preliminary Soil
Remediation Goals (PSRGs) for industrial use at the site.
SVOCs:
The soils were not analyzed for semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs).
Metals:
Arsenic, barium, chromium, lead and mercury were detected at the site at concentrations below
the PSRGs. The detected metals concentrations are generally within the range of "background"
concentrations established previously at the site and are considered to be naturally occurring.
Depth of known or suspected contaminants (feet):
Soil samples were collected from depths of 3 to 5 feet below the floor of the buildings. None of
the detected constituents in the soils (VOCs and metals) exceeded regulatory standards; thus,
contaminants were not present in the soils at the site.
2) Area of soil disturbed by redevelopment (square feet):
The total area of the Classic Coffee Concepts site disturbed by planned Historic Stewart Creek
Enhancement Project Phase II is 0.25 acres along the stream banks according to the finalized
grading plans.
3) Depths of soil to be excavated (feet):
Based on the provided plan profile, grading activities at the Classic Coffee Concepts site will be
limited to the upper 10 to 15 feet along Stewart Creek.
4) Estimated volume of soil (cubic yards) to be excavated (attach grading plan):
According to Kimley-Horn, approximately 330 cubic yards of soil will be cut along Stewart Creek
while approximately 190 cubic yards will be placed as fill along the creek bed. The grading plan is
included as Figures 1 & 2.
5) Estimated volume of excavated soil (cubic yards) anticipated to be impacted by contaminants:
A sediment sample collected in 2012 within the planned stream restoration project area indicated
Manganese exceeds the Protection of Groundwater PSRG. It is likely that impacted soils will be
encountered within the stream restoration area. If evidence of impacts to soils are noted (such
as staining and discoloration of soils or odors) while grading activities are being conducted, then
the environmental professional will be contacted in accordance with the Contingency Plan section
(Part 9).
6) Estimated volume of contaminated soil expected to be disposed of offsite, if applicable:
Not applicable since impacted soils have not been detected on the site; however, according to
the conceptual grading plan and cut/fill analysis, approximately 140 cubic yards of excess soil will
be available on the site, assuming the cut soils will be used as fill soils. If the excess soils are
removed from the site, written approval from the NC Brownfields Program will be required for
off -site disposal. Soils will need to be sampled prior to removal from site.
Part 1.A MANAGING ONSITE SOIL
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
If soil is anticipated to be excavated fromthe Brownfield Property, relocated on the Brownfields
Property, or otherwise disturbed during site grading or other redevelopment activities, please
provide a grading plan that clearly illustrates areas of cut and fill (approximate areas & volumes are
acceptable, if only preliminarydata available).
1) HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION:
a. Does the soil contain a LISTED WASTE as defined in the North Carolina Hazardous
Waste Section under 40 CFR Part 261.31-261.35?..................................... ❑ Yes © No
❑ If yes, explain why below, including the level of knowledge regarding processes
generating the waste (include pertinent analytical results as needed).
Not applicable
❑ If yes, do the soils exceed the "Contained -Out" levels in Attachment 1 of the
North Carolina Contained -In Policy? ...................................................... ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. NOTE: IF SOIL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE AND EXCEEDS
THE CONTAINED -OUT LEVELS IN ATTACHMENT 1 TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
CONTAINED -IN POLICY -THE SOIL MAY NOT BE RE -USED ON SITE AND MUST BE
DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEQ HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION RULES AND
REGULATIONS.
c. Does the soil contain a CHARACTERISTIC WASTE? .................................. ❑ Yes © No
❑ If yes, mark reason(s) why below (and include pertinent analytical results).
❑ Ignitability
❑ Corrosivity
❑ Reactivity
❑ Toxicity
❑ TCLP results
❑ Rule of 20 results (20 times total analytical results for an individual hazardous
constituent on TCLP list cannot, by test method, exceed regulatory TCLP
standard)
© If no, explain rationale: Soil sampling activities did not identify concentrations
capable of exceeding TCLP criteria using the Rule of 20.
d. NOTE: IF SOIL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A CHARACTERISTIC HAZARDOUS WASTE, THE
SOIL MAYNOT BE RE -USED ON SITE AND MUST BE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE
WITH DEQ HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION RULES AND REGULATIONS.
2) Screening criteria by which soil disposition decisions will be made (e.g., left in place, capped in
place with low permeability barrier, removed to onsite location and capped, removed offsite):
❑ Preliminary Health -Based Residential SRGs
© Preliminary Health -Based Industrial/Commercial SRGs
© Division of Waste Management Risk Calculator (For Brownfields Properties Only)
❑ Site -specific risk -based cleanup level. Please provide details of methods used for
determination/explanation.
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
Additional comments:
3) If known impacted soil is proposed to be reused within the Brownfields Property Boundary,
please check the measures that will be utilized to ensure safe placement and documentation
of same. Please attach a proposed location diagram/site map.
© Provide documentation of analytical report(s) to Brownfields Project Manager
© Provide documentation of final location, thickness and depth of relocated soil on site map
to Brownfields Project Manager once known
❑ Geotextile to mark depth of fill material.
Provide description of material:
❑ Manage soil under impervious cap ❑ or clean fill ❑
❑ Describe cap or fill:
© Confer with NC BF Project Manager if Brownfield Plat must be revised (or re -recorded if
actions are Post -Recordation).
© GPS the location and provide site map with final location.
❑ Other, please provide a description of the measure:
4) Please describe the following action(s) to betaken during and following excavation and
management of site soils: If soils are to be redistributed on the site, near the creek bed, the
Division of Water Resources (DWR) may be contacted to determine the allowable concentrations
for placement within the creek bed.
Management of fugitive dust from site
® Yes, describe the method will include:
Soils that are dry and have the potential to migrate through air from the site will be managed
in accordance with typical construction practices. This usually involves a periodic light
application of water to moisten soils and reduce airborne dust.
❑ No, explain rationale:
Field Screening of site soil
® Yes, describe the field screening method, frequency of field screening, person conducting
field screening:
During soil disturbance, soils will be observed for discoloration, odor, or other evidence of
potential contamination. Should the above be noted during site work, the contractor will
contact the project environmental professional to observe the suspect condition. If the
project environmental professional confirms that the material may be impacted (by
observations or by screening with a PID or organic vapor analyzer [OVA]), then soil samples
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
will be collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals as provided in Part 9
(Contingency Plan). In addition, the NCDEQ Brownfields Project Manager will be contacted
within 48 hours to advise them of the condition.
❑ No, explain rationale:
Soil Sample Collection
® Yes, describe the sampling method (e.g., in -situ grab, composite, stockpile, etc.):
If, during grading, impacted soils are discovered, procedures for screening and sampling the
soils will be implemented as described in Part 9 "Contingency for encountering unknown
tanks, drums, or other waste materials." Based on previous site assessment activities and
conceptual grading plans, it is unlikely that significant soil impacts will be encountered during
the stream restoration activities.
❑ No, explain rationale:
If soil samples are collected for analysis, please check the applicable chemical analytes:
© Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260
© Semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270
❑ Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead, selenium
and silver): Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
❑ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
❑ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
© Other Constituents & Respective Analytical Method(s) (i.e. Hexavalent Chromium,
Herbicides, etc.): Specify Analytical Method Number(s); 13 Hazardous Substance List
(HSL) Metals
© Check to confirm that stockpiling of known or suspected impacted soils will be conducted
in accordance with Figure 1 of this EMP. Stockpile methodology should provide erosion
control, prohibiting contact between surface water/precipitation and contaminated soil,
and preventing contaminated runoff. Explain any variances or provide additional details
as needed:
❑ Final grade sampling of exposed native soil (i.e., soil that will not be under buildings or
permanent hardscape). Select chemical analyses for final grade samples with check boxes
below (check all that apply):
❑ Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260
❑ Semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270
❑ Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead, selenium and
silver): Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
❑ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
❑ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
❑ Other Constituents & Respective Analytical Method(s) (i.e. Hexavalent Chromium,
Herbicides, etc.):
Please provide a scope of work for final grade sampling, including a diagram of soil
sampling locations, number of samples to be collected, and brief sampling methodology.
Samples should be collected from 0-2 ft below ground surface, with the exception of VOCs
which should be taken from 1-2 ft below ground surface. Alternatively, a work plan for
final grade sampling may be submitted under separate cover.
© If final grade sampling was NOT selected, please explain rationale:
Final grade sampling will not be completed at the site because previous sampling activities
have not detected impacted soils at the site and the Historic Stewart Creek Enhancement
Project Phase II is not located near identified on -site contamination. After the bank grading is
completed, the area will be landscaped, and the Historic Stewart Creek Enhancement Project
Phase II is not designed for recreational purposes. Limited amounts of organic rich virgin
topsoil from a commercial landscape material vendor if needed will be used in planters and in
proposed landscape area. The PD does not intend to collect samples of virgin landscaping
materials prior to placement on the Brownfields Property.
Part 1.13 IMPORTED FILL SOIL
NO SOIL MAY BE BROUGHT ONTO THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM
THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM. According to the Brownfields IR 15, "Documenting imported soil (by
sampling, analysis, and reporting in accordance with review and written approval in advance by the
Brownfields Program), will safeguard the liability protections provided by the brownfields agreement
and is in the best interest of the prospective developer/property owner."
Requirements for importing fill:
1) Will fill soil be imported to the site? ................................................... ❑ Yes © No ❑ Unknown
2) If yes, what is the estimated volume of fill soil to be imported?
Not Applicable
3) If yes, what is the anticipated depth that fill soil will be placed at the property? (if a range of
depths, please list the range.)
Not Applicable
4) Provide the source of fill, including: location, site history, nearby environmental concerns, etc.
Attach aerial photos, maps, historic Sanborn maps and a borrow source site history:
Not Applicable. During grading for the Historic Stewart Creek Enhancement Project Phase II, soils
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
along the creek will be moved from cut areas to fill areas. No soils will be imported to balance
the site.
5) PRIOR TO ITS PLACEMENT AT THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY, provide a plan to analyze fill soil
to demonstrate that it meets acceptable standards applicable to the site and can be approved
for use at the Brownfields property.
Not Applicable
6) Please check the applicable chemical analytes for fill soil samples (Check all that apply):
❑ Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260
❑ Semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270
❑ Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead, selenium
and silver): Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
❑ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
❑ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
❑ Other Constituents & Respective Analytical Method(s) (i.e. Hexavalent Chromium,
Herbicides, etc.):
7) The scope of work for import fill sampling may be provided below or in a Work Plan submitted
separately for DEQ review and approval. Attach specific location maps for in -situ borrow sites.
If using a quarry, provide information on the type of material to be brought onto the
Brownfields Property.
Not Applicable; however, if fill soils are needed for the site from an off -site source, the soils will
be imported from either the Martin Marietta quarry on Beatties Ford Road or the Vulcan quarry
which have been approved as sources of imported soils by the NC Brownfields Program.
Part 1.0 EXPORTED SOIL
NO SOIL MAY LEAVE THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE BROWNFIELDS
PROGRAM. FAILURE TO OBTAIN APPROVAL MAY VIOLATE A BROWNFIELDSAGREEMENT CAUSING
A REOPENER OR JEOPARDIZING ELIGIBILITY IN THE PROGRAM, ENDANGERING LIABILITY
PROTECTIONS AND MAKING SAID ACTION POSSIBLY SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT. JUSTIFICATIONS
PROVIDED BELOW MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROGRAM IN WRITING PRIOR TO COMPLETING
TRANSPORT ACTIVITIES. Please refer to Brownfields IR 15 for additional details.
1) If export from a Brownfields Property is anticipated, please provide details regarding the
proposed export actions. Volume of exported soil, depths, location from which soil will be
excavated on site, related sampling results, etc. Provide a site map with locations of
export and sampling results included.
According to the conceptual grading plan and cut/fill analysis, approximately 140 cubic yards
of excess soil will be available on the site, assuming the cut soils will be used as fill soils. If the
excess soils are removed from the site, written approval from the NC Brownfields Program
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
will be required for off -site disposal. Non -impacted soils, (to be determined by an estimate 1
soil sample analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and HSL Metals) will be exported to a landfill or possibly
another Brownfields property as suitable fill, if needed, and approved by the Brownfields
Program.
2) To what type of facility will the export Brownfields soil be sent?
© Subtitle D/Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (analytical program to be determined by
landfill)
© Permitted but Unlined Landfill (i.e. LCID, C&D, etc.) Analytical program to be
determined by the accepting landfill.
❑ Landfarm or other treatment facility
© Use as fill at another suitable Brownfields Property — determination that a site is
suitable will require, at a minimum, that similar concentrations of the same or similar
contaminants already exist at both sites, use of impacted soil will not increase the
potential for risk to human health the environment at the receiving Brownfields
property, and that a record of the acceptance of such soil from the property owner of
the receiving site is provided to Brownfields. Please provide additional details below.
❑ Use as Beneficial Fill off -site at a non-Brownfields Property — Please provide
documentation of approval from the property owner for receipt of fill material. This will
also require approval by the DEQ Solid Waste Section. Additional information is
provided in IR 15. Please provide additional details below.
3) Additional Details: (if transfer of soil to another property is requested above, please
provide details related to the proposed plans).
To be determined.
Part 1.13 MANAGEMENT OF UTILITY TRENCHES
❑ Install liner between native impacted soils and base of utility trench before filling with clean fill
(preferred)
❑ Last out, first in principle for impacted soils (if soil can safely be reused onsite and is not a
hazardous waste), i.e., impacted soils are placed back at approximately the depths they were
removed from such that impacted soil is not placed at a greater depth than the original depth from
which it was excavated.
❑ Evaluate whether necessary to install barriers in conduits to prevent soil vapor transport, and/or
degradation of conduit materials due to direct impact with contaminants.
❑ If yes, provide specifications on barrier materials
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
❑ If no, include rationale here:
Other comments regarding managing impacted soil in utility trenches:
Although utility trenches are not planned as part of the Historic Stewart Creek Enhancement Project Phase
II, concerns and methods for environmental handling of soils do not preclude nor modify any of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements for worker safety incumbent upon
contractors for regular site safety and trenching/excavation activities. OSHA requirements will dictate
adjustments of the soil management methods where necessary regarding OSHA construction safety.
PART 2. GROUNDWATER — Please fill out the information below.
1) What is the depth to groundwater at the Brownfields Property?
During assessment activities conducted by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC) in
2012, groundwater was measured in three on -site monitoring wells at depths ranging between
22.08 and 27.61 feet below ground surface (bgs). None of the wells were located within the
planned limits of the stream restoration project. Depth to groundwater is anticipated to be
shallower in the southeastern portion of the site near Stewart Creek. Grading activities could
encounter groundwater at the site.
2) Is groundwater known to be contaminated by ® onsite ❑ offsite ❑ both or ❑ unknown
sources? Describe source(s):
On -site groundwater samples collected during the 2012 and later assessments contained PCE, 1,2-
dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, and trichloroethene above their respective NCAC 2L
groundwater standards. Manganese, lead and chromium were also present above their respective
2L standards. The groundwater impacts were detected in the northern portion of the site near
the on -site buildings. No groundwater sampling has been conducted within the planned stream
restoration area of the site.
3) What is the direction of groundwater flow at the Brownfields Property?
According to the 2012 assessment by AMEC, groundwater appears to be flowing to the south-
southeast towards Stewart Creek from the northern portion of the site.
4) Will groundwater likely be encountered during planned redevelopment activities?
❑ Yes ® No
If yes, describe these activities:
Regardless of the answer; in the event that contaminated groundwater is encountered during
redevelopment activities (even if no is checked above), list activities for contingent
management of groundwater (e.g., dewatering of groundwater from excavations or
foundations, containerizing, offsite disposal, discharge to sanitary sewer, NPDES permit, or
sampling procedures).
If groundwater is encountered during restoration activities, appropriate worker safety measures
will be undertaken and groundwater will be allowed to re -infiltrate for approximately 24 hours.
No soil will be added to the excavation during that time period. If accumulated water remains in
EMP Version 2, June 2018 14

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
an excavation after allowing time to re -infiltrate, samples of the accumulated water will be
collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and the 13 HSL metals to determine if contaminants are
present. Accumulated water that contains contaminants above NCAC 2B Surface Water Standards
will be containerized and disposed at an off -site permitted facility. Accumulated water that does
not contain contaminants above NCAC 2B Surface Water Standards will be managed on the site
or discharged to surface water or the storm sewer in accordance with municipal, state and federal
requirements.
5) Are monitoring wells currently present on the Brownfields Property? ..................© Yes ❑ No
If yes, are any monitoring wells routinely monitored through DEQ or other
agencies?............................................................................................................. ❑ Yes © No
According to previous assessment activities performed at the site, three monitoring wells are
located in the northern portion of the site; however, a Brownfields Program Site Inspection report
from 2015, indicated no monitoring wells were observed on the site. The wells have not been
sampled since the 2012 assessment.
6) Please check methods to be utilized in the management of known and previously unidentified
wells.
❑ Abandonment of site monitoring wells in accordance with all applicable regulations. It is
the Brownfields Program's intent to allow proper abandonment of well(s) as specified in the
Brownfields Agreement, except if required for active monitoring through another section of
DEQ or the EPA
© Location of existing monitoring wells marked
© Existing monitoring wells protected from disturbance
❑ Newly identified monitoring wells will be marked and protected from further disturbance
until notification to DEQ Brownfields can be made and approval for abandonment is given.
7) Please provide additional details as needed:
Please note, disturbance of existing site monitoring wells without approval by DEQ is not permissible.
If monitoring wells are damaged and/or destroyed, DEQ may require that the PD be responsible for
replacement of the well.
PART 3. SURFACE WATER — Please fill out the information below.
1) Is surface water present at the property? ® Yes ❑ No
Stewart Creek traverses the southeastern portion of the site. Water from the creek flows from
the southeastern boundary of the property to the southern boundary of the property.
2) Attach a map showing the location of surface water at the Brownfields Property.
3) Is surface water at the property known to be contaminated? ® Yes ❑ No
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
Surface water sampling data from 2012 identified elevated levels for manganese. Currently no
North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2B (213 Standard) is established for manganese
for Class C waters.
4) Will workers or the public be in contact with surface water during planned redevelopment
activities? ® Yes ❑ No
The project involves restoration of Stewart Creek including stream bank grading and placement
of rip rap boulders to control flow within the stream boundaries. Contact with surface water is
expected during the stream restoration activities.
5) In the event that contaminated surface water is encountered during redevelopment activities,
or clean surface water enters open excavations, list activities for management of such events
(e.g. flooding, contaminated surface water run-off, stormwater impacts):
No encountering of contaminated surface water is anticipated based on previous surface water
sampling results and current restoration plans. If stormwater or water from an unidentified
source collects in graded areas or excavations, appropriate worker safety measures will be
undertaken and water will be allowed to infiltrate for approximately 24 hours. If accumulated
water remains in an excavation after allowing time to infiltrate, samples of the accumulated water
will be collected and analyzed for VOCs (EPA Method 8260), SVOCs (EPA Method 9270), and HSL
metals. Accumulated water that contains contaminants above NCAC 2B Surface Water Standards
will be containerized and disposed at an off -site permitted facility. Accumulated water that does
not contain contaminants above NCAC 2B Surface Water Standards will be managed on the site
or discharged to surface water or the storm sewer in accordance with municipal, state and federal
requirements.
PART 4. SEDIMENT— Please fill out the information below.
1) Are sediment sources present on the property? ® Yes ❑ No
2) If yes, is sediment on the property known to be contaminated? ® Yes ❑ No
A sediment sample collected in 2012, within the planned stream restoration project area,
indicates that manganese exceeds its respective Protection of Groundwater PSRG.
Will workers or the public be in contact with sediment during planned redevelopment
activities? ® Yes ❑ No The project involves restoration of Stewart Creek including stream bank
grading and placement of rip rap boulders to control flow within the stream boundaries. Contact
with sediments in the creek is expected during the stream restoration activities.
3) Attach a map showing location of known contaminated sediment at the property.
4) In the event that contaminated sediment is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such events (stream bed disturbance):
During disturbance of sediments in the creek, the removed materials will be observed for
discoloration, odor, or other evidence of potential contamination. Should the above be noted
during site work, the contractor will contact the project environmental professional to observe
the suspect condition. If the project environmental professional confirms that the material may
EMP Version 2, June 2018 16

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
be impacted (by observations or by screening with a PID or organic vapor analyzer [OVA]), then
soil samples will be collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA metals, PCBs, and Manganese
as provided in Part 9 (Contingency Plan). In addition, the NCDEQ Brownfields Project Manager will
be contacted within 48 hours to advise them of the condition.
PART 5. SOIL VAPOR — Please fill out the information below
1) Do concentrations of volatile organic compounds at the Brownfields property exceed that
following vapor intrusion screening levels (current version) in the following media:
IHSB Residential Screening Levels:
Soil Vapor ............ ❑ Yes ❑ No © Unknown
Groundwater ...... ❑ Yes ❑ No © Unknown
IHSB Industrial/Commercial Screening Levels:
Soil Vapor ............ ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Unknown
Groundwater ...... ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Unknown
2) Attach a map showing the locations of soil vapor contaminants that exceed site screening
levels.
Not Applicable. No soil vapor sampling has been conducted at the site.
3) If applicable, at what depth(s) is soil vapor known to be contaminated?
Not Applicable
4) Will workers encounter contaminated soil vapor during planned redevelopment activities?
❑ Yes ❑ No ©Unknown
5) In the event that contaminated soil vapor is encountered during redevelopment activities
(trenches, manways, basements, or other subsurface work), list activities for management of
such contact:
If contaminated soil vapors are detected during stream restoration grading activities, the project
environmental professional will be notified to assess the presence of the vapors with a PID. If
vapors do not readily dissipate, soil samples may be obtained and analyzed for VOCs and SVOCs
to evaluate the source of the vapors and appropriate worker safety measures will be employed
(such as fans) to allow the workers to safely complete their work. Project management will notify
NCDEQ according to the established notification schedule on Page 1.
PART 6. SUB -SLAB SOIL VAPOR — Please fill out the information below if existing buildings or
foundations will be retained in the redevelopment.
1) Are sub -slab soil vapor data available for the Brownfields Property? ® Yes ❑ No ❑
Unknown
2) If data indicates that sub -slab soil vapor concentrations exceed screening levels, attach a map
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
showing the location of these exceedances.
The Historic Stewart Creek Enhancement Project Phase II will not be conducted near the on -site
buildings. Vapors will not be encountered during the stream restoration project.
3) At what depth(s) is sub -slab soil vapor known to be contaminated? ❑ 0-6 inches © Other,
please describe:
The soil vapor sampling tip was advanced approximately 12 inches beneath the concrete slab in
the on -site buildings. The buildings are located in the northern portion of the site, not within the
boundaries of the planned Historic Stewart Creek Enhancement Project Phase II.
4) Will workers encounter contaminated sub -slab soil vapor during planned redevelopment
activities? ❑ Yes © No ❑ Unknown
5) In the event that contaminated soil vapor is encounter during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such contact
If contaminated soil vapors are detected during stream restoration grading activities, the project
environmental professional will be notified to assess the presence of the vapors with a PID. If
vapors do not readily dissipate, soil samples may be obtained and analyzed for VOCs and SVOCs
to evaluate the source of the vapors and appropriate worker safety measures will be employed
(such as fans) to allow the workers to safely complete their work. Project management will notify
NCDEQ according to the established notification schedule on Page 1.
PART 7. INDOOR AIR — Please fill out the information below.
1) Are indoor air data available for the Brownfields Property? ❑ Yes © No ❑ Unknown
2) Attach a map showing the location(s) where indoor air contaminants exceed site screening
levels.
3) If the structures where indoor air has been documented to exceed risk -based screening levels
will not be demolished as part of redevelopment activities, will workers encounter
contaminated indoor air during planned redevelopment activities? ❑ Yes © No ❑ Unknown
4) In the event that contaminated indoor air is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such contact:
See Contingencies section if contaminated soil vapor is encountered during stream restoration
activities.
VAPOR INTRUSION MITIGATION SYSTEM — Please fill out the information below.
Is a vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) proposed for this Brownfields Property?
❑ Yes © No ❑ Unknown
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
If yes, ❑ VIMS Plan Attached or ❑ VIMS Plan to be submitted separately
If submitted separately, provide date: Click or tap here to enter text.
VIMS Plan shall be signed and sealed by a NC Professional Engineer
If no, please provide a brief rationale as to why no vapor mitigation plan is warranted:
Because this EMP is only for Stream Restoration, a vapor mitigation system is not applicable since no
new buildings are proposed.
CONTINGENCY PLAN — encountering unknown tanks, drums, or other waste materials
In this section please provide actions that will be taken to identify or manage unknown potential
new sources of contamination. During redevelopment activities, it is not uncommon that
unknown tanks, drums, fuel lines, landfills, orother waste materials are encountered. Notification
to DEQ Brownfields Project Manager, UST Section, Fire Department, and/or other officials, as
necessary and appropriate, is required when new potential source(s) of contamination are
discovered. These Notification Requirements were outlined on Page 1 of this EMP.
Should potentially impacted materials be identified that are inconsistent with known site impacts,
the DEQ Brownfields Project Manager will be notified and a sampling plan will be prepared based
on the EMP requirements and site -specific factors. Samples will generally be collected to
document the location of the potential impacts.
Check the following chemical analyses that are to be conducted on newly identified releases:
© Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260
© Semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270
❑ Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead, selenium, and
silver)
❑ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
❑ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
© Other Constituents & Analytical Method(s) (i.e. Hexavalent Chromium, Herbicides, etc.)
Please note, if field observations indicate the need for additional analyses, they should be
conducted, even if not listed here: HSL Metals
Please provide details on the proposed methods of managing the following commonly encountered
issues during redevelopment of Brownfields Properties.
There is a possibility that materials of unknown type (tanks, drums or impacted soils) could be present on
the site. The worker and contractor must but able to recognize when conditions change at the site so
conditions can be properly managed. In the event such conditions are encountered during site restoration
EMP Version 2, June 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
activities, the environmental actions noted below will be taken.
During soil disturbance, workers and contractors will observe soils for evidence of potential impacts.
Evidence of potential impacts includes odors, soil discoloration, or discovery of a tank, drums, a drain field
or buried debris. Should any of the above be noted during site work, the contractor will contact the project
environmental professional to observe the suspect condition. If the project environmental professional
confirms that the material may be impacted, then the procedures below will be implemented. In addition,
the NCDEQ Brownfields project manager will be contacted within 48 hours of discovery.
If evidence of potential soil impacts is encountered during grading and/or the installation or removal of
utilities, excavation will proceed only as far as needed to allow grading and/or construction of the utility
to continue and/or only as far as needed to allow alternate corrective measures to be taken.
Suspect soil excavated during grading and/or utility installation or removal may be stockpiled and covered
in a secure area on the site to allow construction to continue. Suspect soil will be underlain by and covered
with minimum 10-mil plastic sheeting. At least one representative sample of the soil will be collected for
analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 8260B, SVOCs by EPA Method 8270D, and HSL Metals.
Soil sampled in accordance with the preceding paragraph will be managed in the manner described below
based on laboratory analysis:
1) If detectable levels of compound are found that do not exceed DEQ IHSB Industrial/Commercial
PSRGs at the site (or, for metals, levels that are consistent with site -specific naturally occurring
concentrations) and the TCLP concentrations (if applicable) are less than hazardous waste criteria,
then the soil may be used on the site as fill unless soils are above the Protection of Groundwater
(PoG) Standards.
2) If detectable levels of compounds are found that exceed NCDEQ IHSB Industrial/Commercial
PSRGs at the site (or, for metals, levels that exceed site -specific naturally occurring
concentrations) and the TCLP concentrations (if applicable) are less than hazardous waste criteria,
then the soil, with NCDEQ's written approval, may be used on the sites as fill below an impervious
surface or two feet of clean fill.
3) Soil may be transported to a permitted facility such as a landfill provided that the soil is accepted
at the disposal facility.
4) If excavation of impacted soil occurs, confirmation sampling will be conducted for purposes of
recording areas of impacts remaining at the site. It is anticipated that confirmation samples will
be collected at regular intervals along the base and sidewalls of a given excavation. Base samples
will not be collected if the estimated groundwater elevation is within 1.5 feet of the excavation
floor. The confirmation samples will be analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and HSL Metals.
Underground Storage Tanks:
If USTs are discovered on the site during construction activities and impacts uniquely associated with a
UST release are identified, the UST and petroleum -impacted soil will be analyzed for Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (Diesel/Gasoline Range Organics) as required by the NCDEQ UST Section. If exceedances in
the soils occur, work will be stopped in the area and coordination with either NCDEQ Brownfields Program
or the UST Section will be required for further regulatory requirements.
EMP Version 2, June 2018 20

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
If a drum is encountered during construction, the contents will be identified by the contractor, and if
appropriate, the contents of the drum profiled and disposed at a permitted facility. The protocols noted
above for soils will be followed for areas near any drums that are encountered.
If buried piping is encountered and must be removed to allow construction to proceed, the contractor will
inspect the pipe for fluids, collect and sample fluids where appropriate, and look for evidence of a release
using field screening methods (visual and olfactory). If a release is suspected, NCDEQ will be contacted to
discuss the appropriate course of action.
Sub -Grade Feature/Pit:
If a sub -grade feature, structure, or pit is encountered during construction, it will be inspected for the
presence of waste fluids. If waste fluids are present, they will be removed, profiled and disposed at a
permitted facility by the contractor. If the structure does not require removal for construction purposes,
it will be filled with soil or suitable fill and construction will proceed. Where appropriate, the bottom may
be penetrated before backfilling to prevent rainwater accumulation. If waste is present, the waste will be
set aside in a secure area, sampled as required by NCDEQand disposed at an off -site location. If a concrete
structure must be removed and the observed waste characteristics indicate the concrete may contain
hazardous constituents, the concrete will be sampled and analyzed by methods specified by the disposal
facility.
Buried Waste Material:
If landfilled material is encountered at the site during construction activities, the nature and extent of the
buried material will be evaluated (e.g., by test pits) and NCDEQ will be notified to discuss the appropriate
course of action. Site debris will be segregated as needed, and disposed or recycled at an approved facility,
or reused on the site as beneficial fill.
Re -Use of Impacted Soils On -Site:
During grading for the stream restoration project, soils along the creek will be moved from cut areas to
fill areas. We do not anticipate encountering impacted soils at the site.
If unknown, impacted soil is identified on -site, management on -site can be considered after the
project team provides the necessary information, outlined in Part 1.A Item 11, for Brownfields Project
Manager approval prior to final placement on -site.
If other potential contingency plans are pertinent, please provide other details or scenarios as needed
below:
POST -REDEVELOPMENT REPORTING
❑X Check this box to acknowledge that a Redevelopment Summary Report will be required for the
project. If the project duration is longer than one year, an annual update is required and will be due by
January 31 of each year, or 30 days after each one-year anniversary of the effective date of this EMP (as
agreed upon with the Project Manager). These reports will be required for as long as physical
EMP Version 2, June 2018 21

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
redevelopment of the Brownfields Property continues, except that the final Redevelopment Summary
Report will be submitted within 90 days after completion of redevelopment. Based on the estimated
construction schedule, the first Redevelopment Summary Report is anticipated to be submitted on
January 2021.
The Redevelopment Summary Report shall include environment -related activities since the last
report, with a summary and drawings, that describes:
actions taken on the Brownfields Property;
soil grading and cut and fill actions;
methodology(ies) employed for field screening, sampling and laboratory analysis of
environmental media;
4. stockpiling, containerizing, decontaminating, treating, handling, laboratory analysis and
ultimate disposition of any soil, groundwater or other materials suspected or confirmed to
be contaminated with regulated substances; and
removal of any contaminated soil, water or other contaminated materials (for example,
concrete, demolition debris) from the Brownfields Property (copies of all legally required
manifests shall be included).
❑X Check box to acknowledge consent to provide a NC licensed P.G. or P.E. sealed, Redevelopment
Summary Report in compliance with the site's Brownfields Agreement.
EMP Version 2, June 2018 22

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
APPROVAL SIGNATURES
Brownfields Project Number: 14006-10-060
Brownfields Project Name: Classic Coffee Concepts
—DocuSigned by:
9/15/2020
Prospective Developer: Mecklenburg County Date:
Printed Name/Title/Company: Leslie Johnson / Assistant County Manager
Consultant: Terracon Consultants Inc.
Printed Name/Title/Company:
Apr 15, 211M
Brownfields Project Manager: Carolyn Minnich
September 30, 2020
Date:
Date:
EMP Version 2, June 2018 23

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
Figure 1
NCBP Diagram for Temporary
Containment of Impacted or Potentially
Impacted Soil
Cross -Section View
Top Plastic Cover Sheeting: Underliner: 1 layer, minimum of 10
(1 Layer, minimum: 10 mil thick) mil thick plastic
Berm
(Straw bales, Weight
composted earth, etc.) (If plastic
cover used)
Land � INVC:oEam"inated
Surface
Map View
Straw Bale Berm
Weight
D
O
■ Contaminated Soils ■
■
o Plastic
Sheeting
Note: Adapted from NC DEQ UST Section "Guidelines for Ex Situ Petroleum Contaminated Soil Remediation" dated December, 1, 2013
EMP Version 2, June 2018 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
Welch, McKhenzy A
From:
Roberts, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Monday, April 13, 2020 4:24 PM
To:
Welch, McKhenzy A
Cc:
Wilhelm, Will; Maschoff, Jake
Subject:
RE: [External]EMP finalizing
Yes. We will be completing a stream project on the properties listed below.
From: Welch, McKhenzy A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 4:15 PM
To: Roberts, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wilhelm, Will <[e-mail]>; Maschoff, Jake <Jake.Maschoff @kimley-horn.com>
Subject: [External]EMP finalizing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Afternoon,
Can you respond to this email acknowledging that you, the property developer, are aware of the generation of the EMPs
and upcoming redevelopment work commencing at the Classic Coffee, Wesley Village Il, and Radiator Specialty sites?
(per NCDEQ's request). A copy of this will be included in the EMP.
McKhenzy Welch, CPESC
Terracon Consultants, Inc
P 980-938-7436 1 M 704-430-3174
Terracon provides environmental, facilities, geotechnical, and materials consulting engineering services delivered with
responsiveness, resourcefulness, and reliability.
Private and confidential as detailed here (www.terracon.com/disclaimer). If you cannot access the hyperlink, please e-mail
sender.

ZBZBi �A'allol++4J
_ 6024NS'10ap60ai+191no6'000[�
IJV'Id
a
�� ioiuea •a�aar�,�� �,,. _. „�,., ,,, $lI.i07L+L (IVV
fi ® NOIS�fIiiZSN00
yE uJOH#(ADIwiN 2T03 ,LON -- - NOI.LVNOIS:N}1 L4t�3815 T'
:� NO�J .LfIVM3,L5
IN
k
n
F r Y•
X
Q �
a�
a U
U
N
O y
N CO
MATCNLINESTA17H(W I
SEE siiEET c ac V
LU
0
K
FT
fl
+
l
dL
t'
_`JI III J i III i'v3
N
O
0
rn
00
0
m
w
Oa0
O
U
LL
V
O
N
V
co
V
O
O
LL
O
U
w
0
U
rn
0
a�
sZ
0
a�
c
w
rn
in Z3
U
O
0
L
N
L
N R
� � C
i O
a
� U
d
O N a ZO
C d T
t: pp U
U) N W o
ui N
LL
w +O
N O
U v s
N U
2

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
Classic Coffee
Decision of Memorandum
Pagel of 5
June 20, 2012
DECISION MEMORANDUM
FROM: Carolyn Minnich
TO: Will Service, Bruce Nicholson
Subject: Stewart Creek Stream Sampling Data
1013 and 1024 Montana Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
Brownfields Project Number 14006-10-60
Stewart Creek runs through the above referenced brownfields site. The PD collected three
samples on the brownfields property from the creek including sediment and surface water,
upstream, mid stream, and downstream (US, SS, DS, respectively). Mecklenburg County Water
Quality Program collected an additional seven surface water samples along the creek and two
sediment samples in Stewart Creek. In addition, Mecklenburg County collected a sediment and
surface water sample from Little Sugar Creek as a comparison of an urban creek, identified as
MC29A L
In September 1974, Stewart Creek was classified a Class C Stream. Class C is defined as water
protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life
including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, agriculture. Secondary
recreation including wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water
where such activities take place in a infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.
Surface water grab samples were analyzed for the following parameters:
• Temperature (Field)
• Dissolved Oxygen, DO (Field)
• Conductivity (Field)
• pH (Field)
• Fecal Coliform Bacteria
• E-Coli Bacteria
• Enterococcus Bacteria
• Ammonia Nitrogen
• Nitrate + Nitrite
• Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
• Total Phosphorus
• Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
• USGS Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC) Test
• Turbidity (Lab)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
Classic Coffee
Decision of Memorandum
Page 2 of 5
• Hardness
• Biochemical Oxygen Demand
• Chemical Oxygen Demand
• Oil and Grease (HEM)
Volatile Organic Compounds (EPA Methods 8260)
Semi -Volatile Organic Compounds (EPA Method 8270)
Metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium (trivalent and hexavalent),
copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc)
Sediment soil samples were analyzed for the following parameters:
• Volatile Organic Compounds (EPA Methods 8260)
• Semi -Volatile Organic Compounds (EPA Method 8270)
• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
• Metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium (trivalent and hexavalent),
copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc)
Analytical Data
Surface water samples had no detections from volatile organic compounds or semi -volatile
organic compounds above screening levels. The only metal detected was manganese and there is
no standard for this parameter as a Class C water body. The following is a breakdown of the
various parameters
DO: non trout water not less that daily avg. 5.0 mg/L. with instantaneous reading less than 4.0
mg/L.
Comment: field measurement within this range, Stewart 2 low DO.
Fecal: not to exceed 400/100 ML in more than 20 % or samples.
Comment: high values, discuss with county
pH.- 6.0-9.0 range
Comment: 7.03-7.67 in Stewart Creek; Little Sugar Creek 7.62
Temperature: not to exceed 29 C for mountain and upper piedmont.
Comment: below this, around 20 C,
Turbidity: not to exceed 50 NTU
Comment: 3.9-8.5 NTU in field, worst case downstream.
See the excel table for each sample value for various parameters.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
Classic Coffee
Decision of Memorandum
Page 3 of 5
SURFACE WATER
Surface water contaminants (in micrograms per liter, the equivalent of parts per billion), the
unrestricted use standards for which are contained in Title 15A of the North Carolina
Administrative Code, Subchapter 213, Rule .0208 ( _, 201_ version):
Surface Water
Contaminant
Sample
Location
Date of
Sampling
Concentration
Exceeding
Standard
(µg/L)
Standard
(µg/L)
Manganese
Stewart 2
05/22/2012
400
NE
Manganese
Stewart 3
05/22/2012
73
NE
Manganese
Stewart 4
05/22/2012
94
NE
Manganese
Stewart 5
05/22/2012
47
NE
Manganese
Stewart 6
05/22/2012
48
NE
Manganese
Stewart 7
05/22/2012
59
NE
Manganese
Stewart 8
05/22/2012
74
NE
Manganese
Stewart DS
05/31/2012
37.2
NE
Manganese
Stewart SS
05/31/2012
41.0
NE
Manganese
Stewart US
05/31/2012
31.1
NE
Manganese
MC29A1
05/29/2012
31
NE
NE -No established standard
MC29A1 was collected at Little Sugar Creek.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
Classic Coffee
Decision of Memorandum
Page 4 of 5
STREAM SEDIMENT
Soil
Contaminant
Sample
Location
Depth (ft)
Date of
Sampling
Concentration
Exceeding
Screening
Level'
(mg/kg)
Site -Specific
Protection of
GW Screening
Leveh
Arsenic
Stewart 7
Sediment
05/22/2012
1.5
5.8
Arsenic
Stewart 8
Sediment
05/22/2012
1.3
5.8
Arsenic
Sugar Creek
Sediment
05/29/2012
0.90
5.8
Beryllium
Stewart 7
Sediment
05/22/2012
0.40
63
Beryllium
Stewart SS
Sediment
05/31/2012
0.18
63
Trivalent
Chromium
Stewart 7
Sediment
05/22/2012
24
360,000
Trivalent
Chromium
Stewart 8
Sediment
05/22/2012
14
360,000
Trivalent
Chromium
Stewart DS
Sediment
05/31/2012
15.8
360,000
Trivalent
Chromium
Stewart SS
Sediment
05/31/2012
176
360,000
Trivalent
Chromium
Stewart US
Sediment
05/31/2012
6.2
360,000
Trivalent
Chromium
Sugar Creek
Sediment
05/29/2012
14
360,000
Copper
Stewart 7
Sediment
05/22/2012
12
700
Copper
Stewart 8
Sediment
05/22/2012
10
700
Copper
Stewart SS
Sediment
05/31/2012
27.5
700
Copper
Stewart US
Sediment
05/31/2012
9.0
700
Lead
Stewart 7
Sediment
05/22/2012
6.1
270
Lead
Stewart 8
Sediment
05/22/2012
3.5
270
Lead
Stewart DS
Sediment
05/31/2012
2.0
270
Lead
Stewart SS
Sediment
05/31/2012
2.8
270
Lead
Stewart US
Sediment
05/31/2012
1.8
270
Lead
Sugar Creek
Sediment
05/29/2012
11
270
Manganese
Stewart 7
Sediment
05/22/2012
480
65
Manganese
Stewart 8
Sediment
05/22/2012
520
65
Manganese
Stewart DS
Sediment
05/31/2012
112
65

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
Classic Coffee
Decision of Memorandum
Page 5 of 5
Manganese
Stewart SS
Sediment
05/31/2012
232
65
Manganese
Stewart US
Sediment
05/31/2012
159
65
Manganese
Sugar Creek
Sediment
05/29/2012
250
65
Mercury
Stewart DS
Sediment
05/31/2012
0.031
1.0
Nickel
Stewart 7
Sediment
05/22/2012
4.4
130
Nickel
Stewart DS
Sediment
05/31/2012
1.3
130
Nickel
Stewart SS
Sediment
05/31/2012
56.9
130
Nickel
Stewart US
Sediment
05/31/2012
4.6
130
Nickel
Sugar Creek
Sediment
05/29/2012
5.9
130
Selenium
Stewart 8
Sediment
05/22/2012
0.64
2.1
Thallium
Stewart 8
Sediment
05/22/2012
0.65
0.28
Zinc
Stewart 7
Sediment
05/22/2012
30
1200
Zinc
Stewart 8
Sediment
05/22/2012
36
1200
Zinc
Stewart DS
Sediment
05/31/2012
19.8
1200
Zinc
Stewart SS
Sediment
05/31/2012
36.4
1200
Zinc
Stewart US
Sediment
05/31/2012
25.7
1200
Zinc
Sugar Creek
Sediment
05/29/2012
36
1200
Zinc
Stewart US
Sediment
05/31/2012
25.7
1200
Notes:
1. Bold values exceed screening levels for Protection of Groundwater.
2. Sediment samples had low levels of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
detected. They were below the Protection of Groundwater PSRG for the IHSB.
C olichision
Stewart Creek is an urban creek in Mecklenburg County with fair water quality. Based on the
sampling event, the brownfields property is not impacting the creek with chlorinated solvents
that have been detected on the brownfields property. At this time, no additional sampling is
required in the creek.

(Page 29 of 34)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
B28726 - P698
Exhibit 2
The most recent environmental sampling at the Property reported in the Environmental
Reports occurred in January 2012. The following tables set forth, for contaminants present at the
Property above unrestricted use standards, the maximum concentration found at each sample
location and the applicable standard or screening limit:
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater contaminants in micrograms per liter (the equivalent of parts per billion),
the standards for which are contained in Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code,
Subchapter 2L, Rule .0202; April 1, 2013 version:
Groundwater
Contaminant
Sample
Location
Date of
Maximum
Concentratio
n Sampling
Maximum
Concentration
above
Unrestricted
Use Std. (µg/L)
Date of
Most
Recent
Sampling
Concentration
at Most
Recent
Sampling
Event
Unrestricted
Use Std. (for
reference
only)'
L
(µg/ )
Tetrachloroethylene
MW-10162
5/22/2006
150
0.7
Tetrachloroethylene
MW-1024
5/22/2006
140
01/19/2012
68.4
0.7
Tetrachloroethylene
MW-1
5/22/2006
51
01/19/2012
23.7
0.7
Tetrachloroethylene
MW-2
5/22/2006
56
01/19/2012
24.0
0.7
Trichloroethylene
MW-10162
5/22/2006
3.1
3.0
Trichloroethylene
MW-1024
07/23/2009
3.3
01/19/2012
3.3
3.0
Trichloroethylene
MW-2
05/22/2006
10
01/19/2012
3.4
3.0
1,1-Dichloroethane
MW-1
05/22/2006
27
01/19/2012
15.0
6.0
1,1-Dichloroethane
MW-2
05/22/2006
51
01/19/2012
19.8
6.0
1,2-Dichloroethane
MW-2
05/22/2006
2.2 1
01/19/2012
<1.0
0.4
'would apply if Property's use were not restricted
MW-1016 was destroyed and could not be sampled on 07/23/2009 or 01/19/2012

(Page 30 of 34)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
B28726 - P699
Groundwater
Sample
Date of
Maximum
Unrestricte
Contaminant
Location
Maximum
Concentration
Date of
Concentration
d Use Std.
Concentratio
above
Most
at Most
(for
n Sampling
Unrestricted
Recent
Recent
reference
Use Std. (mg/L)
Sampling
Sampling
only)'
Event
(mg/L)
Chromium, total
MW-1016
05/22/2006
0.39
0.01
Chromium, total
MW-1024
05/22/2006
0.10
01/19/2012
0.03
0.01
Chromium, total
MW-1
05/22/2006
0.059
01/19/2012
0.0573
0.01
Chromium, total
MW-2
05/22/2006
0.013
01/19/2012
<0.005
0.01
Lead, total
MW-1016
05/22/2006
0.24
0.015
Lead, total
MW-1024
05/22/2006
0.035
01/19/2012
0.0063
0.015
Lead, total
MW-1
05/22/2006
0.014
01/19/2012
0.0085
0.015
Lead, total
MW-2
05/22/2006
0.024
01/19/2012
<0.005
0.015
Manganese
MW-1024
01/19/2012
1.61
01/19/2012
1.61
0.05
Manganese
MW-1
01/19/2012
1.61
01/19/2012
1.61
0.05
Manganese
MW-2
01/19/2012
0.222
01/19/2012
0.222
0.05
lwould apply if Property's use were not restricted
z. MW-1016 was destroyed and could not be sampled on 07/23/2009 or 01/19/2012

(Page 31 of 34)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
B28726 - P700
SOIL VAPOR
c. Sub -slab vapor contaminants (in micrograms per cubic meter of air), the
screening levels for which are contained in "Industrial/Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening
Levels for Air, Soil Gas, and Groundwater" of the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch of DENR's
Superfund Section (July 2012 version):
Sub -Slab Vapor
Sample
Date of Maximum
Maximum
Unrestricted
Contaminant
Location
Concentration
Concentration
Use
Sampling
above Screening
Screening
Level
Level1,2 (for
(ug/m3)
reference
only)
(ug/m3)
Tetrachloroethylene
SG-5
01/19/2012
719
350
Tetrachloroethylene
SG-6
01/19/2012
1690
350
'Screening levels for carcinogens are for 1E-05 risk target; for non -carcinogens they are for 0.2 hazard
index.
zwould apply if Property's use were not restricted
3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9DO2
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG
FOR REGISTRATION
J. David Granberry
REGISTEER OF DEEDS
20161JAnNu28 County
BK:30563 PG:415-417
INSTRUMENT$#620016003887
TAYLORD
'='0sI87
Returned to cu-stomer
IVI'�!1611P�1d'��'��Ii�MI�VI'
TAX CODES 06915539,
06915540,
06915541,
06915543
ADDRESS: r
STORM WATER EASEMENT
THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT is made this /-day of 4ti,??/6 -2015, by and between EAST BEST,
LLC (hereinafter referred to as GRANTOR), and MECKLENBURG COUNTY, a political subdivision of
the State of North Carolina, hereinafter called "GRANTEE".
The designation GRANTOR and GRANTEE, as used herein, shall include said parties, their heirs,
successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as required by
context.
GRANTOR is the owner of that land (hereinafter "Premises") as follows:
• Parcel 06915539 Deed Book 30360 Page 338
• Parcel 06915540 Deed Book 30360 Page 338
• Parcel 06915541 Deed Book 30360 Page 338
• Parcel 06915541 Deed Book 30360 Page 338 in the Mecklenburg Public Registry.
Said GRANTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terns and conditions, hereby grants and conveys to
said GRANTEE an easement across the Premises having a width of up to 100 feet (50 feet either side of the
existing creek center line) of the storm drainage facilities as installed or improved, and corrunonly known as
Stewart Creek ("Easement Area") for the purpose of laying, constructing, reconstructing, operating and
maintaining storm drainage facilities.
This Storm Water Easement replaces in its entirety any Right of Way Agreement previously granted to
Mecklenburg County by the Grantor of this Storm Water Easement, or by his/her/ or its predecessor in title,
with respect to the area covered by both the old Right of Way Agreement and this new Storm Water Easement.
Drawn by and return to: Mecklenburg County
Storm Water Services
700 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
The following rights are also granted to GRANTEE: to enter said Premises to inspect said storm drainage
facilities, to perform necessary maintenance and repairs, and to make alterations and additions thereto; to
obtain samples of storm waters from time to time for testing purposes; to remove from the Easement Area,
now or at any time in the future, trees, structures, or other obstructions that may endanger the proper
maintenance and operation of said storm drainage facilities, except for the following pre-existing items:
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Easement Area hereinbefore described unto the GRANTEE, its
successors and assigns, for the aforesaid uses and purposes and none other.
It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the GRANTEE shall have the right of
ingress, egress, and regress over and upon any lands of the GRANTOR adjacent to or in the vicinity of the
Premises as may be essential to the use thereof for the aforesaid purposes, and no entry for such purposes shall
be deemed a trespass. Any damage which may occur outside the Easement Area to fences, buildings, or other
structures resulting from the GRANTERS exercise of the right of ingress, egress, and regress shall be repaired
by the GRANTEE.
It is further understood that the GRANTOR shall erect no permanent structure of any kind within, over or
across this Easement Area. For purposes of this Easement, permanent structure includes, but is not limited to:
buildings including sheds, walls, and other masonry structures, tennis courts, and swimming pools. The
GRANTOR shall not attempt to block or otherwise impede the natural flow of water, pollute the surface water,
or remove the function of the channel as a restored or improved stream (including cutting, removing, mowing,
or destructing any vegetation within the Easement Area.
This Easement is given to permit the construction, reconstruction, operation and maintenance of storm drainage
facilities to be installed. The GRANTEE has the right to maintain the storm drainage facilities it installs, but
has no liability for any failure to do so.
Improvement to existing facilities or installation of new facilities does not guarantee that the Premises will be
free of all flooding and/or erosion. No work performed by GRANTEE is warranted to keep the Premises free
of water.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has hereunto set his hand and seal, or if corporate, has caused this
instiument to be signed in its corporate n e by its ly authorized officers and its seal to be hereto affixed by
authority of its Board of Directors, this day of >°CLD� ✓ 20�.
[Signatures on following page}
2

DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CDEFC1-0960-4342-894F-C9BAEBDB9D02
GRANTOR: EAST BEST, LLC
Authorized Signature:
Title: 0 V)IJ
Print Name: �1 CTQ -
Name
North F_arolina, County of N11 C/�I Z n 616�1
Date
Date 1 �>-/4 / -15
a notary public of said county and state aforesaid,
certify that , person lly appeared before me this day and
being duly sworn stated that in his/her presence, (� r
signed the foregoing instrument. Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, this day of
20 (� . r 4 r 12 .. .
TNU'1'AlZY PUBLIC)
My coiuinission expires MQ\J—X
SEAL -STAMP VIRGINIA R. MULLIS
NOTARY PUBLIC
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA