20221197 Ver 2_Submitted IP Narrative Report 3027 N Tryon St. Development and Stream Realignment Restoration_20230302

I., A-0
� r
3027 North Tryon Development & Stream Realignment &
Restoration
Individual Permit Supplemental Materials
Prepared by:
4600
Jonathan Hinkle, PE
Engineering Manager— GPI
1308 HWY 258 N
Kinston, NC 28504
910.663.4123
[e-mail]
NCBELS: F-0441
•�� EMBfUY
Development I Construction I Management
Joel Albea
Vice President of Development
1020 NE Loop 410, Suite 700
San Antonio, TX 78209
979.571.0647
[e-mail]
-N

January 16, 2023
Bryan Roden -Reynolds, PWS
Senior Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
[e-mail]
Office: [phone]
Subject: 3027 North Tryon Stream Restoration Project Narrative
Dear Mr. Roden -Reynolds:
GPI has been tasked with designing a stream realignment and restoration at 3027 North Tryon Street in
Charlotte, NC. During the development of the project GPI worked with Embrey through multiple iterations
and designs to create the best feasible project to meet regulatory, financial, and ecological goals for the
proposed development. The existing stream length within the property consists of 775 linear feet of
perennial stream. The existing stream reach that is to be impacted is approximately 750 feet long and
contains two culverts totaling approximately 100 feet resulting in 650 linear feet of jurisdictional impacts.
The proposed realigned stream design ties to the existing channel approximately 25 feet downstream of
the culvert entering the west side of the property and extends to the culvert at Atando Ave on the east side
of the property. The preliminary design can be seen in the exhibits attached, which currently includes
approximately 250 additional linear feet of stream beyond what currently exists.
Proposed example cross sections are also displayed on the exhibits that demonstrate the bank full
floodplain and the native riparian vegetative buffer. The photos attached in Supporting Document Chapter
B show that the existing stream banks have multiple failures, and a portion of the stream has no vegetative
buffer. The existing stream flowing through the industrial park scored "Low" on the NC SAM scoresheet
during the stream field assessment conducted May 03, 2022, see Supporting Document Chapter C. The
tables in the exhibit illustrate how the proposed changes increase the functional lift of the stream by 708%
(see Supporting Document Chapter E). Providing a consistent pool -riffle sequence and broadening the
flood -prone area, the stream classification would change from a Gc to C, which is more indicative of a
stream in this area. Additionally, the proposed realignment and restoration activated will improve the
function of the stream corridor, improve the riparian vegetation community and serve as nature immersion
amenity for the residents.
Greenman -Pedersen, Inc. (GPI)
Sincerely,
Jonathan D. Hinkle, PE
Lead Environmental Engineer / North Carolina Engineering Manager
Assistant Vice President
[e-mail]
910.663.4123
GP11J:-EMBUY 2 1 P a g e
nevelopment I Coesvuction I Management
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

IP Application Response Supplement Document
Block 18: Nature of Activity
The site selected for Embrey's community is the 6.97 acres of land located at the NW
corner of North Tryon and Atando. Embrey's current plan is to develop a 403-unit
residential community with co -working office space. The community is planned to be 4
stories in height and will have a parking garage for resident use. Amenities in the
community will consist of co -working office space, pool, clubhouse, outdoor cooking
lounges and abundant areas of green space and a natural stream area with walking
trails. The community will have studio, one-, and two -bedroom units and will cater to
residents looking for market rate housing options and work from home options in NoDa.
The major feature of the community will be the proposed re -aligned stream that will
wrap the north and east sides of the site. If permitted, this will be a unique feature for
an urban in -fill development not seen in any other residential community in Charlotte.
Rather than proposing to place the stream in a concrete pipe, the team proposes to re-
align, restore, and increase the total linear footage of stream. The plan is to educate
residents about the stream re -alignment and the natural vegetation including names and
descriptions of these features along the banks of the newly designed landscape. The
team envisions this to be a popular sitting and relaxing area for residents while they
enjoy living in this community.
The stream realignment and restoration will consist of redirecting the channel,
reconfiguration of the channel geomorphology and reconnecting the channel to the
floodplain. The existing channel flows onto the project site's northwest corner, down the
western property boundary then doglegs east across the project area exiting along the
eastern property boundary. The proposed channel will connect to the existing channel
approximately 100 feet down stream of where the existing stream enters the project site
and flows along the northern site boundary then turns down along the eastern project
site boundary before tying back to the existing channel. This realignment/restoration will
increase the overall ecological function of the stream by increasing the sinuous channel
with a defined pool riffle sequence and floodplain connection. Planting native vegetation
and increasing stability structures will add to this effect, while also creating along with
instream habitats. The proposed impacted length of the existing stream is approximately
750 linear feet including two culverts (totaling over 100 linear feet), the proposed stream
will add 250 linear feet to the existing stream length. A summary of the existing and
proposed stream parameters can be seen below in Table 1. The existing stream will be
backfilled upon construction and reconnection of the proposed realignment. See
Existing Conditions Map Supporting Document Chapter D and Stream Permitting Sheet
Supporting Document Chapter E.
GFWilk-EMBUY 31 P a g
Development I Consvuction I Management
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

Table 1: Stream Morphological Characteristics
Drainage Area:
115.2 Acres
0.18 Square Miles
Existing
Proposed
Proposed Ranges e/
1. Stream Type
G1/4c
C1/3
C1/3
2. Bankfull Area, A (sq ft) a/
13.3
13.0
9.0- 57.5
3. Bankfull Width, W (ft) a/
11.1
11.0
8.3-22.1
4. Mean Bankfull Depth, d (ft) a/
1.2
1.2
1.1 - 1.3
5. Maximum Depth, dmax (ft) a/
1.8
1.8
1.3-2.6
6. Width/Depth Ratio, WDR Range
9.2
9.3
7.5 - 17
7. Flood prone Width, Wfpa
13.7
30.0
30 - 70
8. Entrenchment Ratio, ER = Wfpa/W d/
1.2
2.7
0.8 - 8.4
9. Bank Height Ratio, BHR = LBH/dmax c/
2.0
1.0
1.0 - 1.1
10. Sinuosity, K = Lchannel/Lvalley
1.10
1.18
1.15 - 1.2
11. Avg Water Surface Slope, S (ft/ft)
0.010
0.010
0.008 - 0.010
12. Riffle Slope, Srif (ft/ft)
0.025
0.020
0.020 0.068
13. Riffle Length, Lrif Range
20
15
8-30
14. Max Depth Pool, dpool (ft) b/
3.0
1.3
1.0 - 2.0
15. Pool to Pool Spacing, p-p Range
50
45
30-60
16. Pool Length, Lpool Range
30
20
15-40
17. Inner Berm Area, Aib (sq ft) a/
12.0
6.4
6.0 - 11.5
18. Inner Berm Width, Wib (ft) a/
12.0
8.0
7 - 11.5
19. Mean Inner Berm Depth, dib (ft) a/
1.0
0.8
0.4 - 1.0
20. Inner Berm Maximum Depth, dmaxib (ft) a/
1.5
1.0
0.5 - 1.2
a/ Measured at typical riffle
b/ Measured at typical pool
c/ Low Bank Height divided by Bankfull Depth measured at same section
d/ Channel width measured at two times the Bankfull Depth divided by the Bankfull Width
e/ Proposed values compared to proposed values from the typical riffle
GPI 1EMBREY 41 Page
�h Development I Construction I Management
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

Block 19: Project Purpose
The plan for the site is to redevelop a dilapidated heavy industrial use into a modern
high density residential development with co -working space. Several key factors about
the project and the proposed future use show the City of Charlotte and North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality's support for the re -development of this parcel.
The City of Charlotte showed their full support of the proposed project as the site plan
specific rezoning request was passed unanimously by the City Council. Within the City
Staff report, it was mentioned that older urban industrial sites are not likely to be
redeveloped into new industrial uses due to the changing industrial market. Additional
support for the proposed use was that it is close to a light rail station, and it was
compatible with existing neighborhoods.
The City of Charlotte, along with the Internal Revenue Service has designated this site
to be in a Qualified Opportunity Zone ("QOZ"). A QOZ is an economically distressed
community where new investments can qualify for preferential tax treatment, the goal of
which is to encourage investment in these communities. Often, QOZ's are located in a
city's path of growth which is the case of our site. This site was selected due to its
designation as a QOZ.
The State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has
determined that the site is eligible to enter into a Brownfields Agreement in connection
with the planned redevelopment. The DEQ defines a Brownfields site as "an
abandoned, idled or underused property where the threat of environmental
contamination has hindered its redevelopment." The overall goal of the DEQ
Brownfields Program is to encourage the redevelopment of idled and orphaned
properties that have been environmentally impaired from historical uses while providing
liability protection to non -responsible developers in exchange for the public benefit the
project will provide and the developer's commitment to make the redeveloped property
safe for its intended use. Due to its low -density use in a rapidly densifying area of
Charlotte and based on the potential for environmental impacts attributable to historical
on -site and off -site operations, DEQ determined that the project qualified as a
Brownfields site. Results of initial environmental testing have confirmed the presence of
contaminants on -site (see Supporting Document Chapter F). During the DEQ
Brownfield Program initial investigation the potential risks associated with known
contaminantion have been evaluated. The DEQ Brownfields Program will prepare a
Brownfields Agreement and associated documents that outline mitigation measures
designed to safely redevelop this site. By following the guidelines set forth in the
Agreement, DEQ provides non -responsible party liability protections to developers, their
affiliates, lenders, and future owners and operators of the property. DEQ has sent a
letter of support per the investigation (see Supporting Document Chapter F).
GPU•kl:-EMBUY 51 Page
development I Consvuction I Management
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

Each of the regulatory approvals described above underscore the public support for the
project. The location and history of properties like these make development more
challenging then historically greenfield sites, and the developer intends to use its
resources to provide public benefit in all aspects of its development. In particular, the
stream realignment/restoration portion of the proposed project is intended to maximize
the development within the project area while enhancing the ecological, hydraulic, and
groundwater hydrologic function of UT to Derita Branch, a currently impaired stream.
This restoration and enhancement will also add a unique natural and healthy stream
show piece for the residents as the setting is in a highly urbanized, industrial section of
Charlotte. By realigning and restoring the stream the team will maximize the area for
development on the property. The alignment was also chosen to help minimize overlap
with areas of known contamination from the previous industrial activities (see
Supporting Documents Chapter F) and increasing stream length allows for a more
natural channel configuration.
Table 2 illustrates the projected schedule for start and completion dates for the
proposed activities. The times and schedules are subject to change relative to
permitting and other unforeseen delays during construction.
Activity
Anticipated Start
Anticipated Completion
Stream Restoration
July 2023
July 2024
Demolition and Abatement
May 2023
June 2023
Buidling Site Grading
October 2023
November 2023
Building Foundations
December 2023
July 2024
Building Construction
August 2024
February 2026
Table 2: Project Timeline
Block 20: Reasons for Discharge
The proposed development includes the placement of fill in the existing channel (UT to
Derita Branch) after the construction/realignment of the channel during the stream
restoration portion of the project. Following completion of the channel realignment, the
old channel will be backfilled with suitable material. This area will then serve as the
foundation of the structural improvements on the site. To prevent short circulating and
undermining the building structure, a clay plug will be installed at both the up and
downstream ends of the stream. Backfill will consist of suitable materials from the
channel excavation portion of the project. See Figure 1 below.
GP6I•k' EMBUYPage
development I Coesvuclion I Management
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

l
.�
r l 9T
0I
`F
,j
f
/
�.r.
l ! C
/
Figure 1: Proposed Fill Map (Blue line: represents 650 locations of 650 LF of fill)
Block 23: Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation
During the investigation of the proposed project, the team considered a multitude of
options when selecting the site and the layout of the proposed activities to ensure the
regulatory, financial, and ecological goals were met ( see supporting documents, Site
Criteria Map within Chapter A)
Site Selection Criteria
The following criteria was used to analyze the site options.
1) Proximity to a Light Rail Station: Residents would be within walking distance to a
light rail station increasing access to Charlotte's numerous popular destinations
and neighborhoods. Access to the light rail is an important marketing attribute of
the site.
a. All three sites are within a'/2 mile walking distance to the 36t" Street Rail
Station.
2) Visibility and Access: Successful residential and commercial developments have
good visibility from major thoroughfares and are easily accessible from the street.
Residents live in high density multifamily communities in urban areas for
GPI 1.11:- ' E M B RE Y
I Development I Construction I Management
71 Page
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

conveniences not found in suburban living so the ability to easily access their
community by foot, car, or train is important.
a. All three sites have frontage and visibility along N Tryon and an
intersecting street that is signalized. This is important as new entry
driveways along N Tryon are typically not approved.
3) Site Zoning: In order to develop this land, the parcel must have appropriate
zoning in place. In this case, the proper zoning for the site would already need to
be in place or can rezone the site through the City of Charlotte.
a. None of the sites studied were zoned for Multifamily use. Based on
feedback from a local zoning attorney, all three sites had the potential to
be approved for zoning if the proper application process was carried out.
The Rezoning Application for site #1 was submitted on 10/27/2021 and
approved on 7/18/2022.
4) Parcel Size: A parcel should be of adequate size to meet the needs of the
development. A general rule for a four-story, high density residential
development is 70+/- residential units per acre. This equates to a minimum
parcel size of 4'/2 buildable acres.
a. Site #1 is 4.48 acres, which can support a 300-unit project if the stream is
built over. The stream does reduce the buildable area but still allows for a
cost-effective development.
b. Site #2 is 8.27 acres which is a combination of land from seven different
Landowners. However, the Derita Branch stream and associated buffers
reduce the usable area dramatically, making the site not feasible.
c. Site #3 is 12.873 acres, more than is required. The cost of this parcel is
not within project budget. To utilize this property, it would need to be
divided into an affordable acreage.
5) Parcel Economics: The cost of the land is a major component of the overall cost
of the project and thus the financial feasibility of the project. The overall cost of
the site needs to include land price, costs for excessive grading or filling,
demolition costs of existing structures, offsite infrastructure (turn lanes, utility
extension, utility relocations). For example, if a site is $5,000,000 but has
$1,000,000 in additional offsite infrastructure, the real cost to the developer is
$6,000,000 but the landowner only receives $5,000,000. Working with a
landowner that understands this is important. There is often a gap in what a
landowner thinks their land is worth and what the real value is due to overall
development costs both on -site and off -site.
GPU•k':-EMBUY 81 Page
development I Consvuction I Management
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

a. Site #1 conceptually works assuming 300+ units at four floors of
construction.
b. Site #2 is not a viable option due to the inability to construct the required
number of units on the site because of the large stream area and unique
geometry of remaining site.
c. Site #3 was too large of a parcel decreasing the cost effectiveness of the
proposed project.
6) Landowner/Seller Cooperation. Most developers work with landowners who are
willing to sign a purchase and sale agreement that has a lengthy duration from
the time the contract is signed until it is closed (escrow period). This duration
allows prospective developers time for due diligence, design work, permitting,
and financing. It is necessary that a land seller understand the process of that a
developer will undertake and allow them to have the necessary time to execute
their plan. Often, the contract escrow period exceeds one year. Finding a site
that works for a developer's plan and then having a cooperative land seller is a
very difficult task.
a. Site #1 had a Landowner willing to cooperate with the team.
b. Site #2 had consisted of seven landowners but only one was willing to
work with the team. Five would be needed in order to purchase the
required amount of land for a viable project.
c. Site #3 did not have a Landowner willing to negotiate with the project
team.
See attached Site Selection Criteria Exhibit for proposed site locations. All three sites
are located almost entirely within the flood plain. All three sites included streams that
would need to be considered in order to develop and access the site for a multifamily
project. Table 3 illustrates the reasoning for selecting site #1 as the optimal parcel.
Table 3: Site Selection Scorecard
Site Selection Scorecard
Site
#1
Site #2
Site
#3
1. Proximity to Light Rail
Station
Yes
Yes
Yes
2. Visibility and Access
Yes
Yes
Yes
3. Site Zoning
Yes
Yes
Yes
4. Parcel Size
Maybe
No
Yes
5. Parcel Economics
Yes
No
No
6 Landowner/Seller
Cooperation
Yes
Yes/No
No
GP11:d:0.EMBUY 91 Page
�
Development I Donstiuction I Management
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

Based on the above criteria, Site #1 was selected for this project, and a Purchase Sale
Agreement with the Landowner was signed in July of 2021. Site planning was the next
phase of the project process.
Site Plan Options for Site #1
Option 1
The initial site plan looked at placing the stream in a pipe and building over the stream
to maximize the buildable area of the 4.46-acre site. This yielded 305 units in an
economical four-story wrap and met many of the project metrics but was not an ideal
solution for the existing stream on site. Based on feedback from the Charlotte DOT, the
entry drive on Atando Avenue did not allow for adequate car stacking for the left turn
lane. Also, the proposed entry drive on N Tryon would not be approved by NCDOT
because the distance between Atando and the Norfolk Southern Rail Line do not meet
minimum spacing requirements.
GPI 1-11 E MB REY
gevelopment I Construction I Management
101 a
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

Option 2
j -
rr =-3
9F,
Vk r - --
•tea -----
The second site plan left the stream in place and provided a post construction buffer on
the 4.46-acre site. This greatly reduced the buildable area of the site. To mitigate the
loss of buildable area, a fifth floor was added. In this plan, the site only yielded 295
units which did not prove financially viable based on land and additional construction
costs. Altering the location of the entry drive was also discussed in this option. The entry
drive on Atando Avenue would be closer to N Tryon in order to reduce impact on the
stream and not require an additional culvert. This created an unsafe traffic condition
and did not allow for adequate car stacking for the left turn lane.
GPI 1.1%EMBREY 111Page
1 Development I Construction I Management
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

Option 3
fajV l �t►+ht,.JF
�'U:c joj GIubWas
Goa
In this site plan, relocation of the stream and providing a post construction buffer on the
4.46-acre site proved to offer a more efficient layout. This yielded 320 units but still
required building a five -story wrap which did not prove financially viable based on land
cost and the additional construction and stream relocation costs despite the additional
units. This option did not meet the entry drive requirements for Charlotte DOT for the
same reasons as Options 1 and 2.
GPI I:Ll:-E NAB REY
o' pevelopment I Construction I Management
121 Page
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

Option 4
4<
1
AM!"
m - -
fie
l
I�
_ ✓ 7'Y �.r rr �r��
This option includes additional land to the north of the purchased parcel as an adjacent
Landowner approached the group and offered his property as part of the project. This
option looked at combining the two sites for a total of 6.97 acres, relocating the stream
along the perimeter of the site to provide more efficient and contiguous buildable area,
entry drive access that would meet Charlotte DOT standards, and hopefully increase
unit count enough to offset the additional land and stream relocation cost.
This yielded 400 units in an efficient four-story wrap, reducing construction cost on a per
unit basis enough that when combined with the additional rent would cover the
additional land cost and stream relocation cost. This also allowed for an entry drive on
Atando further from N Tryon (250' further) that would provide adequate stacking for
turning and would not cause traffic issues on either Atando or N Tryon.
GPII:d:0E NAB UY
o' pevelopment I Construction I Management
131 Page
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

Option 5
Final site layout based on Option 4 with revisions based on comments received during
Zoning Review, Approved Zoning Schematic attached in Chapter Q. Land development
GPII:d:0E NAB UY
o' Development I Donsouction I Management
141 a
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

and stream restoration in final permit review with Mecklenburg County and the City of
Charlotte.
Stream Relocation and Restoration Alternatives
The realignment/restoration of the existing stream UT to Derita Branch will strike an
optimal balance of buildable area but will also decrease the effect of impacting the
existing stream. As described above the site selection of Site 1 was deduced to be the
most feasible alternative given the regulatory and financial constraints that best suits the
community's needs. As listed above in the site layout selection, scenarios of leaving the
stream in place were cost prohibitive to the project and piping the stream for the entire
parcel (piping approximately 650 linear feet of stream) was not preferred due to traffic
pattern but also the negative ecological impacts that would occur. The realignment
option (Option 5) offered both a feasible and cost effective, buildable area for the project
and the opportunity to take the existing degraded UT to Derita Branch stream to a
higher ecological function and realigned the stream away from known contaminated
groundwater hotspots within the project area (see Supporting Documents Chapter F).
During preliminary investigation, it was also determined that the site had no significant
historic areas on or directly adjacent to the property via the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office GIS database (See Supporting Document Chapter G). Although
there was potential habitat for threatened and endangered species within the property
limits outline from the USFWS IPaC tool (see Supporting Document Chapter H), site
investigation found no sign of the listed species or indicators of prime habitat therefore
posing no conflicts to the project location. A soils investigation was also conducted
within the projects limits to ensure the stream project was feasible and ensure there
were no wetland impact beyond the field investigation/ reconnaissance, (see Supporting
Document Chapter I Soils Mapping).
Once the general location of the stream restoration project was determined the team
analyzed restoration alternatives including length of stream impacted, stream
configuration and geometries. These alternatives were based on development designs,
regulatory comments, and hydraulic and hydrologic modeling of the proposed
conditions.
When determining the length of the stream the team tried to minimize the impacts by
leaving the maximum amount of existing channel in place but attempting to achieve the
threshold of 870 linear feet for the original intent of obtaining a NW 29 (1 /10 acre: 5-foot
channel). It was conveyed after the NWP permit application that regional conditions
allow no more than 435 feet triggering an Individual Permit.
EIV�BREY
15� Page
GPU�kl:--,,.
development I Consvuction I Management
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

The channel geometry had multiple constraints including the available constructable
space while maintaining adequate riparian buffer to meet regulatory standards along
with the hydraulic constraints of managing both base flow, 100-year, and 100-year plus
storm event flows for floodplain development permitting, Charlotte stormwater permitting
and CMSWS as CMSWS requires management of 100-year from the maximum
watershed buildout. The team utilized natural channel design, reference stream, and
regression analysis to determine the general geometries of the stream. Initially due to
the confined area and depth of channel needed to tie upstream to downstream
elevations while maintaining a stable stream slope the team proposed steep banks (1:1-
1:1.5) with gabions, encapsulated fill, and other methods. These alternatives were
determined to be detracted from the ecological goals by decreasing riparian buffer
vegetation potential and the building and land development was shifted to the southwest
to offer more space to daylight the stream banks at a more stable slope using geolift
and maintaining riparian plantings.
As part of this project, Embrey has secured approval from the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services to purchase mitigation credits, please see Chapter K. The project
also includes the realignment and restoration of the existing channel offering a
functional lift of over 700% on a stream currently traversing an industrial site that had a
"LOW' NC SAM score. As part of the permitting process, Embrey has already secured
an Individual Water Quality Certification (#DWR 22-1197). Securing that permit, NC
DWR required a mitigation ratio of 1:1, given the current low functional value of the
existing stream and the functional improvement of the new stream. Additionally, there is
a requirement to monitor for four bankfull events. During previous discussions with
USACE personnel, Embrey is offering monitoring for three years following the
completion of the project (base year/as-built, Monitoring Year #1, Year #2, and Year
#3). This monitoring activity would be done in accordance with NC IRT Stream
Monitoring Guidance
(https://www.saw. usace.army. m il/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/publicnotices/2013/Mitigati
on Monitoring Update Final.pdf) or any updates during the monitoring period. Given
the stream restoration portion of the project and the ecological uplift that will bring to this
watershed, Embery would propose a total 1:1 mitigation ratio between the Corps and
NC DWR requirements based on the stream restoration, functional lift, and 250
additional linear feet of stream this project would add.
GPU•kl:-EMBUY 161 Page
development I Coesvuction I Management
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx

Block 26: List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials received from
other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described
Table 4: Agencies and Certifications Required
AGENCY
TYPE
IDENTIFICATION
DATE
DATE
DATE
#
APPROVAL
APPLIED
APPROVED
DENIED
NCDEQ-
Mitigation
N/A
9/1/2022
9/26/22
DMS
Services
NCDWR
Individual 401
DWR# 22-1197
9/23/22
10/27/22
WQC
CharMeck
Land
LDUMUDD-2022-
8/30/22
Development
00046
Submittal 1
CharMeck
Footing to
435641
11 /01 /22
Podium Permit
CharMeck
Vertical Permit
435643
11/22/22
CharMeck
Individual
11/16/22
Approved
Floodplain
Pending
Development
401 /404
Permit
approval*
CharMeck
WQ Buffer
12/22/22
Approved
Distribution
Pending
Application
401 /404
Submittal
approval*
CharMeck
CLT Water
CWSP-2022-00211
12/22/22
New Services/
CAP Submittal
1
Charlotte
Conditional
RZP-2021-248
10/27/2021
7/18/2022
City Council
Zoning
and
Planning
Department
GP11:d:0.EMBUY 171 Page
�
pevelopment I Construction I Management
N:\Projects\2022\FLA-2200811.00\70-Permitting\71-Application\I P\20230124 I P
Supplemental Narrative .docx