20120285 Ver 1_Monitoring Plans_20100629

OA�(� Y 6/ 1(pb o
Gaston East -West Connector
STIP NO U 3321
GASTON AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES, NC
CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Prepared for
NORTH CAROLINA
Turnpike Authority
Prepared by
P.* 4 $
b '
�` �PI�M kare -r Y
1616 East Millbrook Road Suite 310
Raleigh North Carolina 27609
June 29, 2010

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10
Introduction
1
20
Background
2
3 0
Modifications to the Preferred Alternative Preliminary Design
2
4 0
Updated Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources
3
5 0
Mitigation Requirements
5
6 0
Potential Mitigation Components
7
6 1 Existing EEP Mitigation Assets
8
6 2 Potential EEP Mitigation Sites Identified in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02
in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
9
6 3 Traditional On -Site Mitigation
11
6 3 1 Site Selection Methodology
11
6 3 2 Summary of Traditional On Site Mitigation
14
6 4 Other On -Site, Adjacent, and Nearby Mitigation Opportunities
16
6 4 1 GIS Analysis Methodology
17
6 4 2 Summary of On Site Potential Stream and Wetland Mitigation
18
6 5 Non - Traditional Mitigation Opportunities
19
7 0
Conclusions
20
Tables
1 Summary of Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Due to Design Refinements and Service
Roads 4
2 Estimated Mitigation Needs for the Preferred Alternative 7
3 EEP Available Mitigation Resources 9
4 Potential Restoration Projects in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties11
5 Parcel Data and Field Evaluated Traditional On Site Mitigation Opportunities 13
6 Summary of Stream Lengths Within On Site and Adjacent Parcels 19
7 Summary of Wetland Acreage Within On Site and Adjacent Parcels 19
8 Summary of Potential Storm Water Control Locations 20
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 — June 2010

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Exhibits
1 EEP Assets in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 g
2 Potential EEP Restoration Sites in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 in Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties 10
Figures (located aftertext)
1 Preferred Alternative DSA 9
2 Mitigation Potential Site 1
3 Mitigation Potential Site 2
4 Mitigation Potential Site 3
Appendices
A Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources
B Meeting Minutes from Agency Meeting on March 16 2010
C Project Atlas for Potential On Site Adjacent and Nearby Mitigation Opportunities
Gaston East West Connector
ST /P Project No U 3321 — June 2010 I I

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
1 0 Introduction
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) is proposing to construct the Gaston East West
Connector also known as the Garden Parkway as a controlled access toll road extending from 185
west of Gastonia in Gaston County to 1 485 near the Charlotte Douglas International Airport in
Mecklenburg County As part of the mitigation strategy to help compensate for expected impacts
caused by this project the NCTA is evaluating several mitigation components These include assets
provided by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) as well as traditional and
non traditional on site mitigation opportunities This Conceptual Mitigation Plan which is the
conceptual mitigation plan for the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design provides a
summation of the mitigation requirements and specifically all the potential mitigation components
that may ultimately comprise the mitigation package for the project These include
Off Site Mitigation Assets available in the 8 digit hydrologic units (RUCs) crossed by the
Preferred Alternative for off site mitigation credits to be provided by the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
�• Off Site Mitigation Potential off site mitigation sites closer to the Preferred Alternative in
Gaston and Mecklenburg identified by EEP for potential future acquisition for mitigation
credit
• On Site Mitigation Traditional on site mitigation opportunities identified for the Preferred
Alternative (3 potential sites)
L On Site Mitigation Other on site mitigation opportunities including preservation and
enhancement opportunities on the following types of parcels 1) landlocked parcels that may
be purchased by NCTA 2) landlocked parcels that have a preliminary service road identified
to provide access 3) adjacent parcels with a portion of their area within the right of way but
the remainder has existing access and 4) nearby parcels that would need to be evaluated by
EEP In addition non traditional mitigation opportunities near the project were identified
_including retrofitting storm water ponds for commercial/industrial areas and runoff
collection ponds for residential curb and gutter communities that drain into streams without
collection systems
With the exception of the EEP mitigation assets already in hand in the 8 digit HUCs the other
potential mitigation resources listed in this report have not been acquired at this time These other
potential mitigation resources require additional evaluation including an assessment of feasibility
more detailed determination of the amount of wetland or stream credits present on the potential site
and contact and buy in with property owners The total amounts of wetland and stream mitigation
potentially available listed in this report should not be construed as the actual amounts that are
feasible or that will be implemented for this project This report serves to document that there are
sufficient potential mitigation sites to cover the compensatory mitigation needs of the Gaston East
West Connector
The NCTA and FHWA will work with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies during
the permitting phase to further refine the mitigation plan for the project
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010 1

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
2 0 Background
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) was published April 24 2009 The Draft EIS
evaluated twelve Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) with DSA 9 identified as the Recommended
Alternative Public Hearings were held in June 2009
Based on the Draft EIS and comments received during the public review period the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) and North Carolina
Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) identified Detailed Study Alternative (DSA 9) as the
Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative is shown in Figure 1
From project initiation in 2001 to 2005 when the project was adopted by the NCTA as a candidate
toll facility the project followed the NCDOT s NEPA/404 Merger Process In 2005 the NCTA
determined that project coordination would continue with a process similar to the NEPA/404 Merger
Process even though the NCTA is not a signatory to the Memorandum of Agreement that created
the NEPA /404 Merger process This process is included in the Project Coordination Plan developed
for the project in accordance with Section 6002 of SAFETEA LU (Safe Accountable Flexible
Efficient Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users)
Concurrence Points 1 2 2a 3 and 4a have been completed for the project The Preferred
Alternative was identified as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
at the October 13 2009 Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL) meeting
The purpose of Concurrence Point 4a in the NEPA/404 Merger Process is to identify additional
avoidance and minimization efforts not included in the preliminaiyAdesign during the alternative
analysis phase of the project Concurrence Point 4a is achieved upon agreement that project
jurisdictional impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable based
on current information and design available at the time When avoiding and minimizing
jurisdictional resource impacts other resources will be considered Concurrence Point 4a was
achieved at the TEAC meeting held February 16 2010
It should be recognized that additional minimization may be achieved during the final design process
with more precise mapping including the project hydraulic design (Concurrence Points 4b and 4c)
3 0 Modifications to the Preferred Alternative Preliminary Design
Several design modifications were made to the Preferred Alternative after the Draft EIS as a result
of public involvement activities coordination with environmental resource and regulatory agencies
and comments received during the Draft EIS public review period
The preliminary design refinements include mainline design changes (median width and
realignment) access road changes interchange reconfiguration-or elimination _and the addition of ;
[service roads as listed below
—Reduce Median by 20 Feet and Revise Typical Section?
�! Modify Access to Matthews Acres Subdivision]
C• Retain the US 29 74 Interchange
Modify the Forbes Road Grade Separation
Compress the Robinson Road Interchange
•� Eliminate the Bud Wilson Road Interchange
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010 2

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
L:• _ Compress the NC 274 (Union Road) Interchange
• Relocate Tucker Road Connection to Canal Road
• Realign Mainline to Avoid Recreation Fields and Provide Access Road to NC 273
(Southpoint Road)
• Reconfigure the NC 273 (Southpoint Road) Interchange to Avoid Historic Boundary of Mt
Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery
• _Relocate Boat Club Road Connection North of Mainline to NC 273 (Southpoint Road)
• Reconfigure the 1485 Interchange and Dixie River Road Interchange
These design changes were made to avoid and minimize impacts to the human and natural
environment and resulted in shifts to the alignment throughout the corridor
4 0 Updated Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources
The refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative results in an approximately 25 percent
( reduction in stream impacts (2 36 miles) an approximately 6 percent reduction in wetland impacts
�(0 4 acre) a slight increase in impacts to ponds (0 4 acre) and a slight decrease in Catawba River
buffer impacts The changes in jurisdictional resource impacts resulting from the individual
refinements are summarized in Table 1 Appendix A includes tables listing impacts by individual
resource
Impacts Grouped by Hydrologic Unit The impacts listed in Table 1 and Appendix A can also
be grouped by hydrologic unit (HU) Most of the project is located in HU 03050101 (Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties) with a portion in HU 03050102 (South Fork Catawba River drainage in
Gaston County)
In HU 03050102 perennial stream impacts (including service roads) would be reduced from
3 149 linear feet to 2 642 linear feet (a change of 507 linear feet) and intermittent stream impacts
would stay approximately the same (previously 1 399 linear feet compared to currently 1 405 linear
feet) as a result of the Preferred Alternative design refinements
In HU 03050101 perennial stream impacts (including service roads) would be reduced from
35 745 linear feet to 26 391 linear feet (a change of 9 354 linear feet) and intermittent stream
impacts would be reduced from 8 702 linear feet to 5 978 linear feet (a change of 2 724 linear feet) as
a result of the Preferred Alternative design refinements
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010 3

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Table 1 Summary of Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Due to Design Refinements
and Service Roads
* Impacts calculated based on slope stake limits plus a 25 foot buffer
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010
Change in Impact to Resource Compared to Draft EIS DSA 9 Preliminary Design
Design Refinement
Catawba
Perennial
Intermittent
Total
River Buffers
Streams
Streams
Streams
Wetlands
Ponds
(square feet)
(linear feet)
(linear feet)
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
Reduce Median Width
Zone 1 6 758
980
174
1 154
032
0
Zone 2 1 356
Modify Matthews Acres Access
0
0
0
0
0
0
Modify Forbes Rd Grade
Separation
0
71
0
71
0
0
Compress Robinson Rd
Interchange
0
170
0
170
0
006
Eliminate Bud Wilson Rd
Interchange
0
3 109
646
3 755
0
0
Compress NC 274 (Union Rd)
Interchange
0
1 823
+398
1 425
+002
+018
Relocate Tucker Road
Connection
0
+37
0
+37
0
0
Realign Mainline At Optimist
Club Fields
0
181
+6
175
0
0
Reconfigure NC 273
(Southpoint Rd) interchange to
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avoid Cemetery
Relocation Boat Club Rd North
Connection
0
135
0
135
0
0
Reconfigure 1 485 Interchange
0
3 783
2 335
6 118
034
0
Zone 1 6 758
TOTAL CHANGE
Zone 2 1 356
10 215
2 751
12 966
064
+012
Impacts Reported in Draft EIS
Zone 1 10 400
for DSA 9
Zone 2 10 215
38 894
10 101
48 995
750
41
Impacts for Preferred
Zone 1 3 642
Alternative (no service roads)
Zone 2 8 859
28 679
7 350
36 029
690
42
Add Service Roads
0
+354
+33
+387
+012
+03
TOTAL IMPACTS FOR
Zone 1 3 642
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Zone 2 88591
29 033
7 383
36 416
702
45
* Impacts calculated based on slope stake limits plus a 25 foot buffer
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
5 0 Mitigation Requirements
Mitigation policy for Waters of the United States has been established by US Environmental
Protection Agency ( USEPA) and US Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) regulations in 33 CFR
Part 332 and 40 CFR Part 230 Subpart J Requirements related to wetlands mitigation are also
contained in the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230 Subpart B) FHWA wetlands and natural
habitat mitigation regulations (23 CFR Part 777) Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961 [1977])
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) mitigation policy directives (46 FR 7644 7663 [1981]) and
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Part 1500)
The USEPA and USACE regulations governing wetlands mitigation embrace the policy of no net
loss of wetlands and sequential consideration of avoidance minimization and mitigation The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical biological and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States Compensatory mitigation is sought only after all reasonable efforts
have been made to avoid or minimize impacts
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practical possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the
United States and Catawba River riparian buffers According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the USEPA and USAGE in determining appropriate and practical measures to
offset unavoidable impacts such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those
impacts and practical in terms of costs existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to Waters of the United States and Catawba River riparian buffers Implementation of
these steps would be requii ed through project modifications and permit conditions Strict adherence
to Best Management Practices (BMPs) would assist in minimizing project impacts Minimization
methods typically include
• Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median width
right of way widths fill slopes and /or road shoulder widths
• Installation of temporary silt fences earth berms and temporary ground cover during
construction
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection of surface
waters and wetlands
• Minimizing clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies
Re establishing vegetation on exposed areas with judicious pesticide and herbicide
management
Bridge lengthening in environmentally sensitive areas
Minimizing in stream activities
The Preferred Alternative incorporates measures to avoid and minimize impacts to Waters of the
United States and the Catawba River buffets
The horizontal alignment of the preliminary engineering design was adjusted whet e possible to
minimize or avoid impacts to streams wetlands and ponds The presence of wetlands and streams
and minimizing or avoiding impacts to these resources was a factor in considering interchange
configurations
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010 5

CONCEPTUAL 'MITIGATION PLAN
Bridge lengths that were extended to maintain roadway and railway access adjacent to the Catawba
River and South Fork Catawba River also avoided of minimized encroachment into Catawba River
buffer areas
To further address avoidance and minimization the NCTA met with the environmental resource and
regulatory agencies (USAGE NC Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] USFWS USEP 4
NC Wildlife Resources Commission [NCWRC]) at Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination
(TEAL) Meetings on February 5 March 4 and April 8 2008 to discuss bridging and alignment
decisions for the DSAs preliminary engineering designs In the NEPA/404 Merger Process this is
Concurrence Point 2a — Bridging /Alignment Decisions
As a result of those meetings there were no changes to the alignments of any of the DSAs including
the Preferred Alternative However (the NCTA agreed to include two bridges in the preliminary
,engineering - design for the Preferred Alternative beyond those required to convey floodwaters to
avoid or minimize stream and wetland impacts These bridge locations aie described below
`• Corridor Segment H3 — bridge Blackwood Creek (Stream S 135)
• Corridor Segment K3A — lengthen the mainline bridge over Catawba Creek (Stream S259) to
span the main body of Wetland W248 This extension also avoids impacts to Catawba River--
ibuffer areas on the east side of the creek j
Compensatory Mitigation and Mitigation Ratios Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and
practicable avoidance and minimization has been incorporated It is the decision of the USACE and
the NCDWQ whether to require mitigation for impacts associated with construction
Because this project would be permitted under an Individual Section 404 Permit mitigation for
impacts to surface waters will be required by the USACE and NCDWQ Furthermore in accordance
with its regulations (33 CFR Part 332) the USACE requires compensatory mitigation when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal Stream impacts
will be greater than USACE and NCDWQ regulatory thresholds and will require compensatory
mitigation
Based on correspondence with USACE and NCDWQ (field verification meeting held on April 12 13
2010) the following mitigation ratios will be required
• Intermittent streams (USAGE stream quality rating score 0 49 [unimportant]) — 0 5 1
(meaning 0 5 linear feet of mitigation should be provided for every 1 0 linear feet of impact)
• Intermittent streams (USAGE stream quality rating 50 100 [important]) — 1 1
• Perennial streams — 2 1
• Wetlands — 2 1
Table 2 lists the projects mitigation needs based on the current estimate of impacts to jurisdictional
resources fiom the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design It should be noted that the
.impact estimates include a 25 foot buffer from the estimated consti uction limits based on the current
preliminary level of design It is likely that actual impacts will be less as the project moves into final
design
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 — June 2010 6

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
,a►., 0. fe nrl Altcrnnfive
(able z C5U111alCU In Iuyauvn
. .... ..._ _. ---
---
Resource
Impacts - Preferred
Alternative Refined
Mitigation Ratio
Estimated Mitigation Need
Preliminary Design
Wetlands
7 0 acres
2 1
14 0 WMUs
Perennial Streams
29 033 If
El
�066 MUs
Intermittent - Important Streams
4 039
MUs
Inte rmittent- Unimportant
3 344
0 5 1
1 672 SMUs
Streams
WMU Wetland Mitigation Unit SMU - Stream Mitigation Unit�pl,p
Catawba River Buffers Based on the refined preliminary design the Preferred Alternative would �!y�
impact 3 642 square feet of Zone 1 buffers and 8 859 square feet of Zone 2 buffers The total impacts L l
to buffers would be 12 501 square feet (0 28 acre) This is less than the threshold of one third acre 1n�
that requires mitigation
T �J During final design the amount of buffer area required would be recalculated Impacts less than
one third acre would still require prior to construction written authorization from the NCDWQ for
t �"� � disturbances to the buffer (15A NCAC 02B 0244)
!� 6 0 Potential Mitigation Components
The preferred intent of the NCTA and the FHWA is to use the EEP s in lieu fee payment program as
the primary means of providing compensatory mitigation for the Gaston East West Connector
project
The EEP was established by the Memorandum of Agreement Among the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the
US Army Corps of Engineers Wtilnitngton District (July 22 2003) According to the three party
Memorandum of Agreement the mission of the EEP is to i estore enhance preserve and protect the
functions associated with wetlands streams and riparian areas including but not limited to those
necessary for the restoration maintenance and protection of water quality and riparian habitats
throughout North Carolina
EEP provides mitigation services on a watershed level basis as compensation for unavoidable
environmental impacts associated with transportation infrastructure and economic development
EEP also focuses on detailed watershed planning and project implementation efforts within North
Carolinas threatened or degraded watersheds
In accordance with the watershed based approach mitigation pi ovided by EEP for a project can be
provided in locations throughout the same 8 digit hydrologic unit
At meetings and in correspondence about the Gaston East West Connector project including a
meeting held March 16 2010 environmental resource and regulatory agencies expressed concern
that much of EEP s available mitigation in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 is not present in Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties but rather at a distance from the project Meeting minutes from the
March 16 2010 meeting are included in Appendix B
In order to address agency concerns the NCTA and EEP have agreed to investigate mitigation
opportunities supplemental to or in addition to the typical EEP programmatic approach In separate
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 - June 2010 7

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
efforts EEP has conducted a search for potential near site opportunities and the NCTA has
conducted a review of on site mitigation and non traditional mitigation opportunities The following
sections provided a review of the potential components of the mitigation plan including
1) Mitigation assets EEP currently has in hand in the two 8 digit HUCs crossed by the
Preferred Alternative — 03050101 (Catawba 01) and 03050102 (Catawba 02)
2) Recent mitigation site search conducted by EEP for potential sites in these two HUCs that
are within Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
3) Traditional on site mitigation
4) Other on site mitigation sources
5) Non traditional on site mitigation
6 1 Existing EEP Mitigation Assets
The EEP has several sites in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 with stream and wetland mitigation
credits still available for commitment to projects Exhibit 1 shows the locations of these EEP
projects
3 1 s
f 5
y
Y
c
f
W . 41i a Catawba 01
es
A �
S
t
t Catawb 01
-h"4
i o
Exhibit 1 EEP Assets to Catawba 01 and Catawba 02
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010 8
F �

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Table 3 lists the available assets at these sites The nearest site to the Preferred Alternative is the
Beaverdam Creek site located just south of the proposed projects interchange with 1485 within
Berewick Regional Park The Beaverdam Creek site (EEP Project 92217) includes 13 014 Stream
Mitigation Units — Restoration (SMU R) and 520 Stream Mitigation Units — Restoration Equivalent
(SMU RE)
11A.a.....4,. -- Orson ...
Resource
Mitigation Type
Watershed*
Total
Catawba 01
Catawba 02
Streams
Restoration
16 352 SMU
18 767 SMU
35 119 SMU
Restoration Equivalent
5 107
0
5 107 SMU
High Quality Preservation
32 928 SMU in
Southern Piedmont Ecoregion
Wetlands
Restoration
8 6 WMU
2 4 WMU
110 WMU
Restoration Equivalent
30
07
3 7 WMU
High Quality Preservation
263 1 WMU in
Southern Piedmont Ecoregion
Source EEP
SMU — Stream Mitigation Unit WMU Wetland Mitigation Unit
62 Potential EEP Mitigation Sites Identified in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 in
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
EEP conducted a GIS site search for potential stream projects in 14 Digit HUCs in Catawba 01 and
iCatawba 02 within Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties The EEP is willing to pursue these potential
projects as pact of the normal process for identifying mitigation credits in Catawba 01 and
Catawba 02 However these mitigation projects would not be tied directly to the Gaston East West
Connector ,
Consistent with the programmatic approach the EEP takes these credits would be applied to future
projects but the Gaston East West Connector would be the influence that steers these future credits
to areas the agencies felt they were most needed This is a normal process in the programmatic
I watershed approach to mitigation
The GIS site search of local watersheds for the Gaston East West Connector included parcels in
Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties that had more than 1 000 linear feet of stream with land use
having restoration potential (open space low density developed pasture herbaceous or cropland)
Project feasibility was evaluated by five criteria
• _Total project stream length greater than 1 500 linear feet with at least one parcel containing
1 000 linear feet
1 to 3 landowners
Drainage area less than 10 square miles
• Streams with narrow or no buffer on at least one side
Riparian corridor without severe constraints
Sixteen sites were identified through the GIS evaluation and subsequently visited via windshield
survey by EEP staff in March 2010 Landowners were not contacted in support of this effort Based
on the site visit the potential feasibility of each site was ranked in three tiers as listed below and
shown in the adjacent exhibit Exhibit 2 shows the locations of these EEP projects
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 — June 2010 9

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Tier 1 — Good project possibility
Tier 2 — Project has significant constraints
Tier 3 — Project is not feasible
Field Assessment Results Potential Restoration Projects in G,
r t
catawbaoz
aT�9 v- ,
V
Fy+
p
ST
Legend
PMJ9CtFe3s1b11lty tier
,tea t
2
®3
® Oad Pao" HV
—& an
P want mm
rx iy lat
0 0500 17= 9 JAO
JI
Catawba 01
Parkway Area
Charibtte
Sr I= Su 7 R
ISMsMuRt
-k-
x1 -1
� a
Exhibit 2 Potential EEP Restoration Sites in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 in Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties
Table 4 lists the potential restoration projects identified as Tier 1 and Tier 2 Lotal potential stream_,
[restoration length is 32 400 linear feet in Tier 1 (most promising sites) and 12 100 linear feet in
Tier 2 (site has significant constraints) There were nine Tier 1 projects and five Tier 2 projects
identified _
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010 10

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Table 4 Potential Restoration Projects In Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 In Gaston and
Mnrlrlcnhnrn Cnnnfia¢
14 Digit HUC
Mayor Stream
Number of
Potential
Projects
Total Project
Length (ft)
Tier 1
Projects (ft)
Tier 2
Projects (ft)
Catawba 01
03050101 170040
Catawba River
0
0
0
0
03050101 180010
Crowders Creek
8
28 500
23 400
5 100
03050101 180020
Catawba Creek
5
14 000
7 000
7 000
Catawba 02
03050102 060020
South Fork Catawba River
1
2000
2000
0
03050102 070030
South Fork Catawba River
1 0
0
0
0
TOTAL
1 14
44 500
32 400 7
12 100
Source EEP
63 Traditional On -Site Mitigation
Traditional on site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities within the project study area were
reviewed and identified in November 2009 For the purposes of this discussion traditional
mitigation is defined primarily as those restoration techniques that are applied directly to a site that
restores or enhances stream and wetland functions For streams traditional mitigation includes the
Priority 1 through 4 options for restoring incised streams (NCSRI) and for wetlands includes
hydrologic manipulations (e g plugging ditches) and intensive native plant community restoration
On site mitigation opportunities were generally restricted to parcels adjacent to the Preferred
Alternative
6 3 1 Slte Selectlon Methodology
Potential traditional wetland and stream restoration and enhancement sites were first identified
through Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis Aerial photography was examined in areas
where wetlands streams and buffer areas were found to be coincident with disturbed land uses
Based on aerial photography interpretation areas fudged to have restoration potential were recorded
and those areas without potential were discounted Specific methodology and data used in
identifying potential wetland and stream restoration sites are described below Aerial photography
used in the identification of all restoration sites consisted of 2008 aerial photography acquired from
the National Agiicultural Imaging Program for Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties Aerial
photography was used in concert with other data sets including soils (Soil Survey Geographic
[SSURGO] database) hydrology (National Hydrography Dataset [NHD]) contour data (NCDOT)
and county parcel data (Gaston and Mecklenburg)
Criteria for the selection of potential wetland and stream restoration and enhancement sites were
established prior to the GIS analysis Site selection criteria were developed with consideration for
guidance from the USACE and the EEP The following guidelines were observed throughout the GIS
analysis
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 — June 2010 11

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
cStream Restoration and Enhancement
• Stream projects must have a minimum of 50 feet conservation easement on both sides of the -
lstream for the entire project length' Easements are measured from the top of the stream
bank on both sides of the stream The easement may be wider if there is room for additional
planting (up to 200 feet from the top on either side of the stream) or if there is a wetland
component to the project (no easement width limit) 7
o_ One side of stream must be free of utilities -
of Streams with a utility on one side must have a 50 foot easement in addition to any.
Lexisting utility easement The width of the utility cannot count towards the 50 foof
easement requitement
• ( The stream segment proposed for restoration must be greater than or equal -to 2 000 linear
Leet in length however exceptions may be made under certain circumstances) There is no
maximum length for a stream project Stream restoration opportunities that are less than-
2 000 linear feet but involve relocation of the existing stream as a result of the proposed
roadway were also considered
• FLess than 10 square mile drainage area (typically 1st and 2 d order streams 3 d order streams
r in some cases) and no greater than a 3 d order stream?
• Proposed stream segments must be perennial as indicated on United States Geological
Survey (USGS) 24K Quadrangle Maps and/or in the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) Soil Surveys No more than 20 percent of the proposed restoration or enhancement
project can be intermittent
`Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
of Hydric soils must be present (might be relic)
• Original wetland hydi ology is altered by ditching tale drains filling or other means caused
by human influences
• Proposed wetland restoration area lacks appropriate wetland vegetation
,__ Minimum of 2 acres (unless associated with a stream project) in size but no maximum
Site is not comprised entirely of invasive vegetation species (i e manageable within t eason)
After identification of potential mitigation opportunities sites were further evaluated in the field
Field evaluations at prospective mitigation sites were performed Evaluations included an
assessment of soils hydrology vegetative cover and landscape /watershed characteristics Sites
were evaluated with consideration for an existing buffer and proximity to existing jurisdictional
systems Notes were collected regarding species composition soil matrix and chroma and any site
constraints (e g active farming culverts utilities) Site photos were also taken
Based on the GIS analysis 20 tax parcels totalling approximately 1 050 acres were identified as
potentially containing mitigation opportunities as listed in Table 5
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010 12

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
-17-11,1- c o ,., ..i n�f� —A C—iri Tirnrlitinnni r)n Aito Mitinnfinn nnnnrhlnitlP_S
PIN Owner
Parcel Address
Size
(acres)
Mitigation Potential
Sites with Mitigation Potential
3535210554
DOCKERY DAVID N
Lin wood Rd
428
Stream Enhancement (Site 1)
3535229884
DOCKERY PROPERTIES LLLP
Hubert St
291
Stream Enhancement (Site 1)
3534287991
DOCKERY DAVID N
2900 Linwood Rd
1016
Stream Enhancement (Site 1)
3562837404
HARRISON CHARLES
6338 Union Rd i
155
Stream Enhancement and Restoration (Site 2)
3562839141
HARRISON CHARLES
6338 Union Rd
193
Stream Enhancement and Restoration
(Site 2)
3562920627
HARRISON CHARLES
6338 Union Rd
223
Stream Enhancement and Restoration
(S to 2)
3562922221
HARRISON CHARLES
Wilson Rd
206
Stream Enhancement and Restoration
(Site 2)
3533650153
FALLS ROBERT P
362 Crowders Creek Rd
216
Wetland Enhancement (Site 3)
Sites with No Mitigation Potential
3535098933
STILES PARKS
1113 Shannon Bradley Rd
15 8
No Mitigation Potential impaired stream
reach too short
3535091505
ROBINSON ROBERT F& ANNIE
Dundeen Dr
26 2
No Mitigation Potential stable stream
3536009443
STILES PARKS
Shannon Bradley Rd
41
No Mitigation Potential impaired stream
reach too short
3552053030
ENTLER EARNEST L
Granny Trail
47
No Mitigation Potential stable stream
3552039171
THOMPSON JAMES C JR
Sparrow Dairy Rd
1793
No Mitigation Potential stable stream
3562438039
FERGUSON MARGARETANN
QUINN
162 Wilson Farm Rd
137 2
No Mitigation Potential functioning
wetland system
3573819339
LAKHANI ZAHID R
1208 Union New Hope Rd
285
No Mitigation Potential functioning
wetland system
3573830015
STOWE JEFFREY W
Union New Hope Rd
835
No Mitigation Potential currently under
construction
4502847583
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Dixie River Rd
750
Completed stream restoration project
4512051925
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Dixie River Rd
1050
Completed stream restoration project
4502649026
LDIXIE RIVER LAND COMPANY
Dixie River Rd
15 9
Completed stream restoration project
4502820480
DIXIE RIVER LAND CO LLC
Dix e River Rd
1028
No Mtt gation Potential stable stream
In most cases the natural resource feature with mitigation opportunity extended across multiple
parcels in which case the parcels were combined to facilitate field evaluation Following field
evaluations seven (7) parcels were found that contain opportunities for stream and/or wetland
mitigation These parcels aie grouped into three (3) sites (Sites 1 3) and are described below
Stream and wetland credit calculations are based on ratios provided on the USACE Wilmington
District webpage (http / /www saw usace aims mil/WETLANDS/bIitigation/index html May 5 2010)
All of the recommended sites will require additional analysis and feasibility studies to determine the
full mitigation potential
Gaston East West Connector
ST/P Project No U 3321 - June 2010 13

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
6 3 2 Summary of Traditional On Site Mitigation
Mitigation potential within Site 1 may include various Priority-1 through 4 stream restoration and
enhancement opportunities along approximately 9 334 linear feet of Crowders Creek and tributaries
Stream restoration may involve activities that result in improvements to the impaired stream and J
riparian core idor that zestore stream geomorphic dimension pattern and profile (USAGE 2003)
Stream restoration and enhancement approaches that are appropriate for this reach of Crowders
Creek may include stream realignment stream bank stabilization (relaxing the grade of overly
steep unstable banks) and excavating a floodplain (or bankfull bench) adjacent to the channel
Additionally planting a riparian buffer will enhance bank stability increase channel shading and
provide additional wildlife habitat C
Discussions with the landowner indicated an interest in selling the entire property NCDOT Natural
Environmental Unit (NEU) is currently moving forward with a site appraisal Additional analysis
and feasibility studies are necessary to determine if mitigation activities are practical and cost
effective
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream restoration and enhancement ranges from 10 to 2 5
depending on the range of techniques that are applied to a site Stream restoration and
enhancement of approximately 9 334 linear feet of Crowders Creek and on site tributaries may
result in upwards of 9 334 stream mitigation units (SMU) The USACE (in conjunction with
NCDWQ and any other relevant regulatory agencies) ultimately determines the mitigation credit
ratio for each project on a case by case basis
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 — June 2010 14

Site 2 6338 Union Road Gastonia NC
Mitigation Opportunity Stream Enhancement and Restoration
Site 2 shown on Figure 3 is located
at 6338 Union Road in southeast
Gastonia The site consists of four
tax parcels that total approximately
77 6 acres The three southernmost
parcels comprise the Harrison
Family Dairy Farm a historic site
determined to be eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) (See Draft EIS
Section 5 2 2) Land use consists of
cattle production with the majority of
the site covered in pasture
CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
The Site contains approximately'
1 700 linear feet of Mill Creek a��
perennial stream that flows south to
a confluence with Lake Wylie` The Narrow riparian buffer along Mill Creek and adjacent pasture
reach of Mill Creek contained within
the Site is characterized by steep banks limited sinuosity and a limited riparian buffer consisting
primarily of the invasive Chinese privet The stream banks are eroded in some areas as a result of
unrestricted access by cattle The Site also contains an intermittent unnamed tributary (UT) that
rtiansitions to a linear wetland before reaching a confluence with Mill Creek The UT loses channel
definition after approximately 200 linear feet and then transitions to wetland due to the impacts of
cattle on the tributary The linear wetland extends to Mill Creek for a distance of approximately 650
feet but lacks the characteristics to be classified as a stream Both streams were delineated during
the natural resources study perfoimed for the Gaston East West Connector
Mitigation potential within Site 2 consists of stream enhancement opportunities along
approximately 1700 linear feet of Mill Creek and stream restoration opportunities along
approximately 270 linear feet of the UT (or more with agency approval to exceed 20 percent of the
perennial reach length) Stream enhancement approaches that are appropriate for Mill Creek
include excavating a floodplain (or bankfull bench) adjacent to the channel cattle exclusion fencing
and invasive species management Additionally planting a riparian buffer will enhance bank
stability increase channel shading and provide additional wildlife habitat Cattle exclusion will
provide for long term stream bank stability reduced erosion and sedimentation and improve water
quality Stream restoration entails the conversion of an unstable degraded stream channel and its
associated riparian corridor to a natural stable condition (USAGE 2003) Restoration of the UT
could be achieved by the excavation of a new channel using the existing floodplain grade of the
stream to be restored (Priority 1 Restoration) Performing riparian plantings along the UT and the
installation of cattle exclusion fencing would also be necessary
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 10 to 2 5 depending on the
techniques that are applied to the site Stream enhancement of approximately 1 700 linear feet of
Mill Creek may result in approximately 680 to 1 700 SMU The mitigation activity multiplier for
stream restoration is 1 0 resulting in approximately 270 SMU from the restoration of 270 linear feet
of the UT The USACE (in conjunction with NCDWQ and any other applicable regulatory agencies)
ultimately determines the mitigation credit ratio for each project on a case by case basis FDue to its
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010 15

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
status as a_ potential significant historic site eligible for listing on the National Register Historic
Tlaces (7NRHP) determining potential for stream restoration on this site will require coordination
nth the State Historic Preservation Office
Sate 3 362 Crowders Creek Road Gastonia NC
Mitigation Opportunity Wetland Enhancement)
Site 3 shown on Figure 4 is located
at 362 Crowders Creek Road at the
intersection with Angler Road near the
Berkley Oaks mobile home park The
Site is approximately 216 acres and is
situated adjacent to Crowders Creek a
303(d) listed stream
(Mitigation potential within Site 3 consists of wetland enhancement opportunities for approximately
7 0 acres Wetland enhancement primarily involves the re introduction of functions that the existing
wetland area previously performed Wetland enhancement approaches that are appropriate for this
Site include removal of timber slash filling /grading ditches ripping /discing areas compacted by
logging equipment and planting characteristic hydrophytic vegetation in wetland areas to restore
the pre disturbance community
The mitigation activity multiplier for wetland enhancement is 0 50 (2 1 ratio) rWetland
enhancement of approximately 7 0 acres may result in 3 5 wetland mitigation unit (WMU) The
USAGE (in conjunction with NCDWQ and any other relevant regulatory agencies) ultimately
determines the mitigation credit ratio for each project on a case by case basis
64 Other On -Site, Adjacent, and Nearby Mitigation Opportunities
NCTA conducted an evaluation of potential on site mitigation opportunities associated with the
Preferred Alternative These opportunities included potential stream and wetland sites and also
potential locations for storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Gaston East West Connector
ST/P Project No U 3321 — June 2010 16

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
For the purpose of this discussion on site refers primarily to sites that would be located in future
landlocked parcels or parcels adjacent to the Preferred Alternative mainline and major crossing
streets rights of way In some cases where an opportunity presented itself particularly when it
extended an existing on site opportunity non adjacent parcels (nearby) were included in the
analysis
The information collected for this on site evaluation has been consolidated into an on site Project
Atlas The Project Atlas is provided in Appendix C Stream and wetland resource opportunities
located in proximity to each other were grouped into 43 sites to assist in presentation and general
site accounting Each project site entry includes a location/resource map and a data sheet with a
project description location details parcel type types of opportunities (restoration enhancement
etc) resource summary and resource details (including stream and wetland ID stream name and
length or area) All sites have been color coded to identify which of the five 14 digit HUCs each site
resides in (Long Creek HU 03050102070020 Crowders Creek HU 03050101 180010 Catawba
Creek HU 03050101 180020 South Fork Catawba River — western side HU 03050102 070030
South Fork Catawba River — eastern side HU 03050102 060020 Catawba River HU 03050101
170040)
6 4 1 GIS Analysis Methodology
Mitigation opportunities were identified through Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis
The following sources of data were used for the streams and wetlands analysis
• Hydrography ftp / /nhditp usgs gov /SubRegions /High/ High resolution NHD Flowline
• NAIP Photography http / /datagateway nres usda gov/ 2009 NAIP
• Wetlands Data http / /www fws gov /wetlands/ NWI Polygons
• Stream and Wetland Delineations EarthTech (AECOM)
• Parcel Data Gaston County GIS Tax Mapping (October 2009) Mecklenburg County (October
2009)
• LiDAR http / /www ncdot org/ it/ gis/ DataDistribution /ContourElevationData /default html
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Generated from April 2007 NC Floodplain Mapping
Program LiDAR and converted to TIN format
• Gaston East West Connector Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design
The following guidelines were observed throughout the GIS analysis
• Evaluated sites including primarily preservation and enhancement sites located on the
following types of parcels
1) Landlocked parcels that may be purchased by NCTA
2) Landlocked parcels that have a preliminary service load identified to provide
access
3) Adjacent parcels with a portion of their area within the right of way but the
remainder has existing access
4) Nearby parcels that would need to be evaluated by EEP
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 — June 2010 17

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
• Adjacent parcels were considered only adjacent to the mainline right of way and mayor
crossing street rights of way The adjacent parcels were extracted from the parcel layer by
selecting the parcels that intersected the Preferred Alternative right of way
• High value opportunities outside of adjacent parcels were included as Nearby Sites These
usually required a connection to stream systems already included in landlocked or adjacent
parcels and could be acquired to create a larger mitigation site
Perennial and intermittent stream layers delineated as part of the project were clipped to
each layer In areas where delineations were not conducted NHD streams were clipped to
the adjacent and landlocked parcel layers The delineations covered the entire study area
corridor and delineated resources took precedence over the NHD layer In some instances a
delineated stream did not connect to an NHD stream outside the study corridor (most likely
because it was too minor a stream to be included in the NHD layer) For these cases
streams connecting outside the corridor were added to the Estimated Streams layer using
LiDAR data to estimate the stream path These streams lengths are only estimates and will
require future field verification
• In some locations adjacent parcels contained a stream that ran along the parcel boundary
In these situations the adjoining parcel would also need to be acquired in order to fulfill the
100 foot buffer requirements These locations were labeled with both sides such as
Landlocked /Adjacent
• Delineated wetlands were clipped to the landlocked parcel layer and the adjacent parcel
layer FWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) polygons were clipped to the adjacent and
landlocked parcel layers and then the areas inside the study area corridor were deleted
because the delineated wetlands inside the study area corridor took precedence NWI
polygons that overlapped with delineated wetlands were erased
• Unlike landlocked parcels in which all stream and wetland opportunities are included with
this analysis adjacent parcel opportunities were sometimes excluded Reasons for such
exclusions include opportunities too far from the right of way due to large parcels that make
such opportunities no longer adjacent Also opportunities in the 100 year floodway could
be excluded due to the likelihood these resources are already protected and are not viable
mitigation opportunities
Also considered in each site are Best Management Practices (BMPs) opportunities for
creating or improving storm water ponds for commercial/industrial areas These sites were
field checked on May 4 and 5 2010 but require further investigation to determine actual
benefit Also residential curb and gutter communities that drain into streams without
collection systems were reviewed throughout the project study corridor but there was no
potential for practical improvements
6 4 2 Summary of On Site Potential Stream and Wetland Mitigation
A total of 43 project sites were identified for potential on site mitigation The distribution of project
sites across the Preferred Alternative corridor is shown in Figure 5 Tables 6 and 7 provide a
summary of stream lengths wetland areas within the potential on site mitigation sites These sites
require additional evaluation to determine feasibility and property owner interest Many sites will
turn out to be infeasible not cost effective of will lack property owner interest However this
evaluation does illustrate that there are numerous potential on site mitigation opportunities in the
project area
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 — June 2010 18

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Table 6 Summary of Stream Lengths within
Types of Parcels Where
Streams Are Located
Stream Length
(Linear Feet)
Landlocked
17 647
Landlocked With Access
10 041
Landlocked / Adjacent
2 220
Landlocked / Nearby Site
572
Landlocked With Access/
Adjacent
3 140
Adjacent
133 700
Nearby Site
13 577
Nearby Site / Adjacent
6 454
Total Potential Stream Length
187 351
Total Perennial
137 699
Total Intermittent
19 273
Total NHD (Unclassified)
30 379
Table 7 Summary of Wetland
Acreage within On Site
-A AA Arrant Parr_PIS
Types of Parcels Where
Wetlands Are Located
Acres
locked
3 7
locked With Access
p
4 4
by Site
1 0
cent
32 3
Total Potential Wetlands
414
65 Non - Traditional Mitigation opportunities
As recognized by the regulatory agencies traditional stream mitigation may not be possible in urban
areas due to multiple landowners physical constraints or hydrologic concerns (e g flooding) The
regulatory agencies also have recognized that the possibility exists for innovative approaches to
mitigation that may also benefit many stream functions including water quality and aquatic life
This is known as non traditional mitigation or Flexible Stream Mitigation
For the Gaston East West Connector project potential opportunities for creating or improving storm
,water ponds were investigated Potential commeicial/industrial and residential sites were identified
using the GIS data and aerial photography Sites were field checked on May 4 and 5 2010 Sic
potential commercial /industrial sites were identified as listed in Table 8 and in Appendix C (as
part of Sites 01 02 10 and 25) These sites require further investigation to determine actual benefit
and whether improvements at these sites would result in mitigation credits
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010 19

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Residential curb and gutter communities that drain into streams without collection systems were '
Vreviewed throughout the project study area but there was no potential fox practical improvements 1
Table 8 Summary of Potential Storm Water cnntrnl I nrafinnc
Site
BMP ID
Existing Storm
Number*
Number
Water Control
Description
Present?
Located in the northeast corner of the WIX plant parcel there is a
01
1
No
possible opportunity for a storm water pond in this grassy area of
approximately 1 acre
Located behind the parking lot of Curtiss Wright Controls Inc
2
Yes
There is the possibility of improvements to an existing BMP The
existing BMP does not appear to hold water
Located at the end of Myrtle Avenue Storm water flow off roof
02
3
Yes
and parking lot directed into an outflow pipe along property line
ending at a headwater stream Potential for storm water pond
creation
10
4
Yes
Located south of the Bi Lo Supermarket proper maintenance of
the existing BMP could increase its effectiveness
Located west of the Family Dollar the existing BMP could be
5
Yes
improved by ensuring flow is restricted and water is held for a
longer time period Additionally the outflow could be better
managed to reduce erosion
25
6
No
Located north of the Carolina Speedway dirt track a new BMP
facility would capture sediment runoff from the clay parking lots
— mppN iiuix %- for iviap OT cite
7 0 Conclusions
The preferred intent of the NCTA and the FHWA is to use the EEP s in lieu fee payment program as
the primary means of providing compensatory mitigation for the Gaston East West Connector
project Other components of the projects ultimate mitigation package could include traditional on
site mitigation other on site mitigation together with adjacent and nearby mitigation and non
traditional mitigation The NCTA and FHWA will work with the environmental resource and
regulatory agencies during the permitting phase to further refine the mitigation plan for the project
This Conceptual Mitigation Plan provides a description of all the potential mitigation components
that may ultimately comprise the mitigation package for the project These are summarized below
EEP Existing Off -Site M1ti>;ation Assets These are assets available in the 8 digit hydrologic
units (HUCs) crossed by the Preferred Alternative for off site mitigation credits to be provided by the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
Existing assets include 73 154 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 277 7 Wetland Mitigation Units
(WMUs) Of these 13 534 SMUs are located in the Beaverdam Creek mitigation site located
immediately southwest of the Gaston East West Connectors interchange at 1485
EEP Potential Off-Site.Mitilzation for Future Protects These are potential off site mitigation
sites closer to the Preferred Alternative in Gaston and Mecklenburg identified by EEP for potential
future acquisition foi mitigation credit Fourteen sites were identified with a total potential stream
restoration length of 32 400 linear feet in Tier 1 (most promising sites) and 12 100 linear feet in
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010 20

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
r
Tier 2 (site has significant constraints) There were nine Tier 1 projects and five Tier 2 projects
identified
Traditional on-Site Mitigation Three potential sites were identified as traditional on site Golf
mitigation opportunities potential mitigation t Linwood S
Course and Site 2 — 6338 Union Road The third s a potential wetland mitigation e Site 3S 362
Crowders Creek Road
Other On Site Adjacent and Nearby Mitigation Opportunities These sites are other on site
mitigation opportunities including preservation and enhancement opportunities on the following
types of parcels 1) landlocked parcels that may be purchased by NCTA 2) landlocked parcels that
have a preliminary service road identified to provide access 3) adjacent parcels with a portion of
their area within the right of way but the remainder has existing access and 4) nearby parcels that
would need to be evaluated by EEP This evaluation identified 187 351 linear feet of potential
stream mitigation (27 688 if of this total is on landlocked parcels and landlocked parcels with
proposed service roads) This evaluation also identified 414 acres of potential wetland mitigation
(8 1 acres of this total is on landlocked parcels and landlocked parcels with proposed service roads)
Non Traditional Mitigation Opportunities These types of opportunities searched for near the
project included new or retrofitted storm water ponds for commercial /industrial areas and runoff
collection ponds for iesidential curb and gutter communities that drain into streams without
collection systems existing storm wlaterscontrol facilities identified
in need storm water
The other two
Of these four are e g ,
would be new storm water control facilities
With the exception of the EEP mitigation assets already In hand m the 8 digit HUCs the other
potential mitigation resources listed in this report have not been acquired at this time These other
potential mitigation resources require additional evaluation including an assessment of feasibility
am credits present on the potential site
more detailed determination of the amount of wetland or stre
and contact and buy in with property owners The total amounts of wetland and stream mitigation
potentially available listed in this report should not be construed as the actual amounts that are
feasible or that will be implemented for this project This report serves to document that there are
sufficient potential mitigation sites to cover the compensatory mitigation needs of the Gaston East
West Connector
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010 21

r�a,

4
�%
Legend
®
Site 2
Delineated /Estimated Streams
w Delineated Wetlands
DSA 9 ROW Boundary
DSA 9 Corridor Boundary
500 0 500
FEET
SCALE 1 IN 500 FT
Data Sources
2008 Aerial Photo (NAIP)
Parcel (Gaston County)
Roads (NC OneMap)
Streams and Wetlands
(NHD and U 3321 delineation) 2
ROW and Corridor (Feb 2010)
r�

MCG I FIGURE
MITIGATION POTENTIAL 11
SITE 3 362 CROWDERS CREEK ROAD
GASTON COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
JG
M
4
AY W
2

APPENDIX A
Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources
Gaston East West Connector
STIP Project No U 3321 —June 2010
CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN

PPE DIXA T BLE
STREAM IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP P I UJ921 G E W t C F I EIS
Str m b dg d hyd I y I iC P t2 t d
Str m mp cts I I t d b d g t f w y I MM p1 b If f25 f tr m I p tak i
S Str m Attr b d DEIS DSA 9 Imp cts N t I R T h I R p R fo th G E t W f Co t E rth T h l F b ry 2008
d th T mp k E m I Ag y C tl M G g h Id Ap 8 2008
I P f dAlt m Imp PBSBJ
eras
©�©
a■�����■�
�®
mss
�
eras
®aaa
®m■.
©�©
a��
aa.
as■
®�■���
®����
®
®�
�®
®®
®®
®®
�■saausa
�easisa
..
a
a�aa����■
®�����
�®
�m
®tea
..
a
®■�����
�®
�assm©
aa•
®���®
�®
Will 11 1 11111 �ill
�
e�eammm:.
®saa���a������
aa.at���■�
as■■s����
■�ssm
®
®s�:■e�ssm�aa
�®
�®
e�e■e�iama
mama
a�■����■�
a��■sm��
�®

APPEND X A TABLE 1
STREAM IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REF NED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP Prof UJ32 G E t W t C ct F I EIS
S m b dg d f hyd I Y 1 f C P 2 d
Str m mp is I I d d ght fw ylmtspl b R f25f h m h I p k I
S f Str mAMb t dDEIS OSA 91mp M N to I T h I p tfo th G t E tW tC t E hT h I F b ry 2008
d th T p k E m t I Ag cy C d b M b g h I Ap 1 8 2008
S f P f dAR m Imp PBSBJ
���
�
®aaa
..
aa•a•���
��
�
®aaa
aa■a•���
��
�
®aaa
a�a•���
��
�
®aaa
aa■
®���
��
�
®aaa
aa■
®
®��
��
�aaaaa
..
a
®a•���
®�a•
aaa
®aa
aa�����

APPEND X A TAB E 1
S REAM IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP P 7 U -3321 G E W t C F EIS
Str m b dg d f hyd I y I f C P t2 td
S m p Is I I db d ght fw yimtspl b If f25 ttr m h I p tak I
S f Str m Attr b t d DEIS DSA 9 Imp 1s N t f R T h I R p rt 1 th G t E t W t C t E h T h I F b ry 2008
d th T mp k E m I Ag cy C d b M b g h Id Ap 18 2008
S f P f dAlt m Imp PBSBJ
S m D
C d
S gm
Hydrol
S m N m
g
U
mt t I
Pre H
B k A
9h W
(ft)
re9 D
dth (ft)
pth
()
S b t
C
W
O i ty
R• t
USACE
S re
D
NCDWO 9
S re
ft EIS D A
prel m ry
D g R
Pref red
Alt m t
f d D g
Pref red
A m
S ry
Road
247
J f
UT t C wb C k
3050101
1 m tt
1
1 5
2 fi
d/
C
54
27 25
2 7
J1f
UT C t wb C k
3050101
P I
1-4
4 12
4 b
9
k
C
63
44
437
259
K3
C wb C k
3050101
P 1
3-6
25 50 14
15
d g bbl
C
71 8fi
51 57 5
B dg d
B Og d
265
K3
UT C wb C k
3050101
P 1
2 5
3 4
2
d g k
C
59
34 5
266
K3
UT t C wb C k
3050101
P 1
1 2
3
5
d k
C
69
7
39
267
K3
UT C t wb C k
3050101
1 t m tt
2 3
3 4
2
d m 0
C
27
23 5
120
268
K3
UT C t wb C k
305010
P 1
2 4
2 10
2 5
d q I bbl k
C
46 80
3525 52
270
Ki
UT I: C wwb C k
3050101
P 1
4 8
6 9
8
d I bbl k
C
fit
50
6 0
578
271
K1
UT t C t wb C k
3050101
P 1
4 8
3 6
4
d I bbl k
C
64
65
133
1105
272
Kt
UT t C wb C k
3050101
P
1 2
2 5
1
d I bbl
C
65
3575
273
27
wb C k
t w b C k
3050101
3050101
P I
P I
1
1 3
2
1 5 3 5
2
4
d I bbl
d I bbl
C
C
66
35 5
275
t wb C k
3050101
P I
1 5 3
2 fi
t
276
&UTtC
tawb C k
3050101
P 1
2 3
3 7
4
d I bb
C
62
42
277
t wb C k
3050101
P 1
1 2
2
3
d 1
C
49
40 75
278
t wb C k
3050101
1 t m tt t
1
2 5
2
d I
C
58
22 5
279
2B0
K3
t wb C k
UT C t wb C k
3050101
3050101
1 m tt
1 1 m tt t
1
1
1 2
1 5
3 fi
1
l d
d I
C
C
57
59 5
285
225
843
843
281
K3
UT t C wb C k
3050101
P 1
1 2
2
3
d g I k
C
59
30
286
K3
UT t S F C wb R
3050102
1 t m tt t
1
1 2
1 S
I d I
WSV
54
21 275
285
K3
UT t S F C t wb R
3050102
P 1
1.4
2 7
4-6
S It d I bbl
WSV
62
31
286A
K3
UT S F C t wb R
3050102
1 mtt
1
1 2
1
SI d
WSV
NA
NA
287
K3
UT t S F C t wb R
3050102
m
1 t
1
2 3
4
S I d
WSV
36
23
287
K3
UT t S F C wb R
3050102
P 1
6
4 6
4
S d I
WS V
36
NA
293A
K3
UT t S F C wb R
3050102
1 f mtt
1
1 2
1
S I d
WS V
54
22 75
293A
K3
UT t S F C wb R
3050102
P I
1
2 3
31
S I S d
WSV
54
NA
295
296
K3
K3
UT t S F C t wb R
U7 $ F C t wb R
3050102
3050102
P 1
P I
24
4
3 5
6
1 4
2 4
Si d 1 bbl
S It S d i
WSV
WSV
58
655
32 3225
34
578
557
297
K3
UT t S F C t wb R
3050102
P I
1-4
3 6
1 4
S l t bbl b Id
WSV
83
31 5
917
652
298
K3
UT t S F C wb R
3050102
1 t m tt
1 2
3
1
sit d g I
WS V
45
19
298
K3
UT I: 5 F C wb R
3050102
P 1
1 2
3
S I d g 1
WSV
45
19
299
K3
UT t S F C wb R
3050102
1 t mtt t
12
3
12
S It S d 9 1
WS V
67
26 5
299
300
K3
K3
UT t S F C t wb R
UT t S F C t wb R
3050102
3050102
11
1 4
3
S It S d
51 d I bbl
WS V
WS V
67
79
26 5
23 5
1399
1405
300
UT t S F C t wb R
3050102
3
S I d
W
00A
UT t S F C t wb R
3050102
I
WSItS
1 3
S It S d I
WS V
42
301
UT S F C t wb R
3050102
1
6
1 2
S It S d I
301
VK3
T F C tawb R
50 2
7
1 6
S It tl
01A
UT S F C wb R
50 02
1 3
S d 1
WSV
51
19 5
3018
UT S F C t wb R
3050 10
5
1 3
S t S d
WSV
51
19 5
302
K3b
UT t C t wb R
3050101
1 m tt
24
3
2
S I d
WSV B
65
19 5
303
K31,
UT t C wb R
3050101
1 t m tt t
1
2
1
S d I
WS V B
42
23
303
304
304
K3b
K3b
K3b
UT t C t wb R
UT C l wb R
UT t C wb R
3050101
3050101
3050101
P 1
I mtt t
P I
2 3
1
3
24
3
3 5
1 3
1 2
1 4
S I d I bbl
S I d
Sit d I bbl
WS V B
WSV B
WSV B
42
85
85
31
22
31
260
484
260
568
305
K3b
UT t C wb R
3050101
P 1
34
4 6
3 10
S it d I bbl
WSV 8
82
31 5
135
310
K3
UT t C wb R
3050101
1 t m tt t
12
1 3
1 2
S It d g I
WSV B
NA
NA
311
K3
UT t C t wb R
3050101
I t m tt t
1
1 2
1
S It d I
WS V B
46
19
311
K3
Ui t C t wb R
3050101
P I
1 4
3 10
2 12
8
b Id
WSV 8
57 77
35 39
K3
UT t C t wb R
3050101
1 t m tt t
1
1 2
1 2
S It d
WSV B
49
23 5
K3
UT t C t wb R
3050101
1 t m tt t
1
2 3
1
S It d
WS V B
53
23 5
52
26
K3
8 d m C k
3050101
P 1
3 5
8 10
2 12
S 11 t bbl b Id
C
66
50
973
742
M
K3
UT t C t wb R
3050101
1 t m tt t
1
2
2
S It d
WSV B
47
19
K3
UT t C t wb R
3050101
1 t m tt t
4
2 8
2
S It S d I
WS V B
63
22
K3
UT I: 8 d m C k
3050101
1 I m tt
1 3
3 5
2
S It S d g I
C
42
19
314A
K3
UT t B d m C k
3050101
1 mtt t
13
45
1 3
S I d g I bbl
C
50
21 75
226
314A
K3
UT B d m C k
3050101
P 1
12
24
1 2
S It d g 1 bbl
C
63
33
969
S315
K3
UT t C wb R
3050101
1 mtt
1
1 2
1 3
Sit d g I
WSV B
50
27
315A
K3
UT t B d m C k
3050101
1 t mtt t
1 2
2
1 2
S I d 9 1 bbl
C
NA
NA
176
K3
UT t 8 k
305316A 0101
1 t m tt t
1 2
3
1 2
S It d g I
C
53
235
317
K3
UTt B d mC k
3050101
1 t mtt t
1
23
12
!IS It d g I
C
50
225
318
K3
UT B d m C k
3050101
1 t m tt t
1 3
2 5
1 3
S It bbl b Id
C
47
25
464
466
318
K3
UT B d m C k
3050101
P I
NA
NA
NA
NA
C
47
25

APPENDIX A TABLE 1
STREAM IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP P I t 3321 G E t W C F I EIS
Str m b dg d f hyd I y It f C P t2 t d
Str m mp is I I d b d gh I. y l m t pi b if 125 f fr m h I p mk I
S f Str mAttrb dOE1SDSA91mp is N IR T h IR p f h G E tW t. t E hT h I F b ry 2008
d th T p k E m t I Ag cy C d b M b g h Id Ap 18 2008
S f P f dAl b Imp ct PBSBJ
mmmmmmml
®®®®®m
�■®
�
®yam
a�����
ss
Str m b. t t b ty th tr m with th P f d Alt m t C d I t d
e
2 sem sen ro sa 22 23 sa ce M T
B dg d b q so ce g th T E to g C g
8 - to ro I( w g )p DWO
8 200 R g ccese

APPENDIX A TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP P of t U 3321 G t E t W t C t F I EIS
Wetlands or dged as a result of Conc rrence Po nt 2a re roted
Weil d mp is cal lated b d on ght-of way I m is pl a b ff r of 25 f at f om ach sl pe stake I ne
Sources for Attr b tes and Draft EIS DSA 9 Impacts Nat rat Reso rces Techn cal Report for the Gaston East West Connector Earth T ch I Feb ry 2008
and the Tump ke n ronme t I Agen y Coord n t on M et g held Apr 18 2008
Sources for P eferred Alternat a Impact PBSU
W tl d N tuber'
Corr d S gm t
W tla d
S
(a )
C w d
Clas f at
DWQ Rat g
Wetl d Q I ty
R t g P
Draft EIS DSA 9
I m ary D s g
P of d
Alte t o
R f d D g
P f r d
Altern t S ry
R d
25
H2
003
PEM1B
37
L w
26
1-12a
001
PEM1F
20
Low
27
H2
001
PSS3C
31
L w
28
1-12a
001
PEM1B
27
1-w
29
1-12a
014
PSS1C
40
Low
010
010
30
1-12a
003
PSS1 /3C
44
Low
003
003
31
H2a
070
PEM1Fh
39
Low
32
1-12a
002
PSS1B
31
L w
33
H2a
0101
PFO1C
47
Med m
34
1-12a
291
PF01C
73
H gh
007
35
H2
117
PEM1 /SS1C
78
H gh
117
117
36
1-12a
006
PFO1B
40
L w
006
006
37
H2a
006
PFO1B
21
L w
37A
H2
001
PFO1B
23
L w
38
H2
004
PEM1B
21
L w
39
1-12a
038
PFO1C
47
Medi m
40
H2
005
PFOtA
26
L w
41
H2
002
PFO1B
31
Low
42
H2
0002
PFO1B
32
L w
43
1-12a
001
NA
NA
NA
001
001
44
H2
037
PF01 G
42
L w
0 05
0 05
45
H2
004
PFOtAh
19
Low
46
H3
057
PSStBds
69
H gh
47
H3
011
PFO1Cs
16
L w
004
48
H3
009
PFO1C
59
M d m
001
49
H3
016
PFO1C
34
L w
50
H3
014
PF01C
28
Low
51
H3
207
PFO1C
70
H gh
135
125
52
H3
023
PFO1Cd
55
Med m
53
H3
020
PF01C
22
Low
54
H3
046
PFO1C
22
L w-
58_
H3
006
PEM1C
36
Low
001
001
59
H3
038
PSS1Fh
46
M d m
001
001
77
H3
002
PFO1C
39
L w
78
H3
022
PEM1 /SS1F
36
Low
004
003
79
H3
002
PEM1tSS1Fd
39
L w
001
80
H3
001
PFO1G
36
L w
81
H3
003
PFO1 B
20
L w
003
003
82
H3
038
PFO1Cd
20
Low
021
021
83
H3
010
PFO1Cd
20
L w
001
001
84
H3
006
PSS1B
32
L w
001
001
85
H3
035
PF01C
63
H gh
86
H3
003
PEM113
27
L w
003
001
87
H3
014
PFO1B
19
Low
001
001
95
H3
002
PFO1 14C
23
Low
99 J4a 219
PFO1C /PUBH
34
Low
046
038
100 J4a 026
PFO1 /EM1C 24
Low
004 002
103 14a 670 PFOtC 83
H 9 h
106 J4a 047 PFO1C /B 39 Low 0011

APPENDIX A TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP Pro/ It U 3321 G t E t W t C n ctor F I EIS
W Hands br dged s It of Conc rren e P nt 2 are noted
Wed d mp t calc let d b d ght -0f way I m t pl b ff f 25 feet f m h to t k I
S r for Attr b tes d D ft EIS DSA 9 Impacts Natu al Reso rces Tech cal Report for the Gaston East West Connector Earth Te h I c Febr ary 2008
d the T mp ke En r m tal Agency Coord nat M tang held Apr 18 2008
S for Preferred Alt t Imp cis PBSBJ
W tla d N mb
Corr dor S gm t
W tla d
S z
(acre )
C w d
Cla f to
DWQ Rat ng
Wetla d Q at ty
Rat ng
D aft EIS DSA 9
P I m nary D g
P fe r d
Alternat
R r of De gn
P eferred
Alternat a Sery c
R d
107
J4
044
PF0/SS1 Fh
48
Med m
001
0 01
108
J4a
004
PEM1 C
16
Low
004
004
109
J4
0031
PFO1 /EM1C
28
Low
003
003
142
J2d
1 52
NA
NA
NA
147
J2d
002
PFO1
36
Med m
148
J2d
020
FEW
41
Med m
149
J2d
017
PFO1
33
Low
150
J2d
040
PFO1
39
M d um
151
J2d
1 003
PFO1
35
Medi m
152
J2d
032
PFO1
39
Med m
153
JX4
005
PFOt
37
Med m
154
JX4
042
PF01 F
43
Med m
155
JX4
013
PFO1
9
Low
157
JX4
0391
PFO1
30
Low
158
JX4
001
PFOt
8
L w
159
JX4
063
PEM1
25
L w
160
JX4
005
PFO1
13
L w
161
JX4
0 17
PFO1
33
L w
001
001
16
JX4
010
PFO1
21
Low
163
JX4
003
NA
NA
NA
164
JX4
002
PFO1
4
Low
002
002
165
JX4
035
PFO1
35
M d m
166
JX4
005
PFO1
7
L w
005
005
167
JX4
0061
PFO1
19
Low
168
JX4
017
NA
NA
NA
169
JX4
021
PFO1
42
Med m
176
JX4
0 004
PFO1
0
L w
177
JX4
001
PFO1
13
L w
178
JX4
001
PFO1
13
L w
179
JX4
0221
PFO1
55
Med m
180
JX4
003
PFO1
21
Low
181
JX4
0 004
PFO1
13
L w
182
JX4
001
PFO1
2
L w
183
JX4
005
PFO1
23
L w
184
JX4
003
PFO1
8
L w
187
JX4
056
PFO1A
53
M d m
188
JX4
054
PFOtA
43
Med m
017
016
189
J1e
551
PSS1
51
M d m
036
033
190
J1
009
PFO1
13
L w
191
J1e
020
PFO1
13
Low
192
J1e
0991
PFO1
59
Medium
214
J1e
015
PFOt
58
Medium
214
J1e
PFO1
58
Medium
215
J1e
002
PFO1
4
Low
216
11
001
PFO1
4
Low
217
11
002
PFOt
8
L w
002
002
218
J1e
005
PEM1
17
Low
005
005
219
J1e
001
PEM1
15
Low
001
001
220
J1e
003
PEM1
17
Low

APPENDIX A TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP P t t U 3321 G to Ea t W t C ct F I EIS
Weil nds b dg d as a It of C nc rre Po nt 2a ar led
Well d mpact calc Iat d based r ght -0f way I m is pi a b ff r of 25 feet fr m each lope stak I ne
So rces f r Attr b t and D aft EIS DSA 9 Impacts Nat rat Resources Techn cal Report for the Gasto East West Connector Earth T ch I Febr ary 2008
and th T mpike En ronmental Ag ncy C rd net n Meet ng held Apr 18 2008
So rces f r Preferred Alternati Imp@ is PBS &J
W tland N nib
C r do S gm t
W it d
S
la
C w rd n
Cl f at on
DWQ Rat g
W it d Q al ty
R t g Prel
D aft EIS DSA 9
m ry D gn
Pr fe d
Alt t
R f d D gn
P ferr d
Alt at S ry c
R ad
221
JIB
012
PFOt
18
Low
222
11
002
PFO1
18
Low
223
J1e
009
FEW
17
Low
224
J1e
002
PFO1
12
Low
225
J1e
006
PFO1
18
Low
226
J1f
006
PFO1
23
Low
227
J1f
018
PFO1
23
Low
228
J1f
012
PEMt
16
Low
229
J1f
022
PEM1
16
Low
230
J1f
006
FEW
28
L w
231
J1f
010
PEM1
23
Low
232
Jtf
120
PEM1
21
Low
233
J1f
007
PSS1
0
Low
234
Jtf
003
PFO1
11
Low
003
235
J1f
005
PEM1 /PFOt
61
M d m
001
235A
Kta
007
PFO1
17
Low
236
K1
001
PFO1
0
Low
001
237
K1 a
056
PFO1
37
Med m
236
K1a
013
PFO1
35
M d m
239
Kta
002
PEM1
18
L w
239A
K1
005
PEM1
28
L w
240
K1a
009
PFOt
22
L w
241
K1 a
1 34
PFO1
39
Med m
089
083
242
K1a
015
PSS1
13
Low
243
K3
010
PFO1
20
Low
244
K3a
006
PFO1
25
L w
245
K3a
059
PFOtAh
77
H gh
246
K3a
008
PFO1 Ah
77
H gh
003
008
247
K3a
126
PFOtAh
77
High
248
K3a
476
PFO1 Ah
93
High
066
066
249
K3a
018
PFO1Ah
61
Medium
252
K3a
042PEM1
/PSS1 /PFO1
9
Low
001
252A
K3a
001
PFO1
7
Low
253
K3a
035
PEM1
26
Low
035
035
254
K3a
Oil
PEMt
15
L w
001
255
K3a
001
PEM1
15
Low
001
001
256
K3
002
PEM1
15
Low
278
K3b
018
Pal strne
23
L w
283A
K3a
001
Pal str ne
70
H gh
284
K3a
047
Pal strin
70
H h
265
K3a
005
Pal str n
44
M d m
004
286
K3a
033
Pal str n
68
H gh
287
K3a
002
Pal str n
42
M d m
288
K3a
0 004
Pal str a
46
Med um
001
001
289
K3b
023
Pal str ne
43
Med um
023
023
290
K3b
005
Pal str ne
64
M d m
291
K3b
007
Palustrne
9
Low
292
K3b
001
Palu tr e
32
Low
293
K3b
0 02
P lustrine
23
Low

APPENDIX A TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP P le t U 3321 Ga to E t W t C n t F al EIS
Wetl d br dged a r It of Con r P t 2a a t d
Wetland mp is calc fated bas d an right of way limits plus a b ffer of 25 feet from each slope stake I ne
S s for Aft to t of Draft EIS DSA 9 Impa t Natu al Reso ces Te h cal Report fo the Gaston East West Connector E rth T h I February 2008
and the T mp ke En lronmental Age cy Coord uon Meet ng h Id April 8 2008
So rc f P eferred Alter t Impacts PBS &J
W flat d N mb
C dor S gm t
Wetla d
S
(a r)
Cowa d
CI f at
DWQ Rat g
W tland Q I ty
Rat g
D ft EIS DSA 9
P l m ary Des gn
P f d
Alt t
R f d Des g
Preferr d
Alt nat a Sery c
R d
293A
K3b
000
Pal t
23
Low
294
K3b
018
Pal st
38
Med m
295
K3b
001
P I t ne
22
L w
296
K3c
001
Pal str ne
NA
NA
297
K3c
030
Pal t
58
M d m
317
K3c
478
P I t in
62
M d m
037
037
317A
K3c
003
P lustr ne
31
Low
318
K3c
009
P lu trine
24
L w
319
K3c
0301
Pal str ne
23
Low
320
K3c
001
Pal str ne
23
L w
001
321
K3
002
Pal str
14
Low
002
002
323
K3c
002
Pal t o
17
L w
002
002
324
K3c
002
P I t ne
22
L w
002
002
325
K3
003
Pal t
15
L w
003
002
326
K3c
0081
P I tr ne
41
M of m
327
K3
012
Pal str
60
Med m
328
K3
003
Pal st
53
Med m
329
K3c
056
Pal t
43
M d m
042
329A
K3c
000
Pal t 1
27
Low
330
K3
005
Pal st n
19
Low
331
K3c
0051
Palustr ne
17
L w
331A
K3c
001
Pal st
38
Med m
332
K3
010
Pal strne
38
Med m
010
333
K3
005
Pal t
17
Low
002
002
333A
K3
001
Pal t
16
Low
0 01
334
K3c
014
P Iu tr ne
42
Med m
002
003
335
K3
043
Pal t
33
Med m
336
K3
007
Pal str
11
Low
337
K3
023
Pal st a
68
High
337A
K3
003
Pal str
27
Low
3378
K3c
002
Palustnne
35
Medium
338
H3
035
FEW
16
Low
340
H3
0021
PFO1B
36
Hgh
TOTAL
75
69
01
vv ❑ a mice t t 0 a ly to w th th H t d Alt t C rr d I t d
1 Wth t t d g th C t wb C k b dg th mp t t W ti d 248 w Id b 1 50 a r s

APPENDIX A TABLE 3
POND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP P 1 ct U 3321 G t E t W t C t F I EIS
P d mp t mall t d b d ght f w y l m t pl b If 12 5 f t f m h I p t k I
S f d Att b t d DSA 9 Imp t N t mI R m Tech I R p rt f th G t E t W t C ect E rth hl F ti . ry 2008
S fo R f d D g Imp t PBS &J
E rth T h
P d ID
C d
S gm t
G I L t Al g
C d
T t IA m
W th C rt d
C w d
CI f t
0 ft EIS DSA 9
Prel m ry
D g
Pmf red
Alt t R f d
D g
Pref d
Alt m t S ry
R d
4
H2A
S th IS If t D
131
PEM1 /PUBHh
5
H2A
S th f If t
156
PUBHh/PEM1Fh
033
10
H3
L w d Sp g G If
C
082
PUB3Hh
11
J4
L w d Sp g G If
C
093
PUB3Hh
12
J4
L w d Sp g G If
C
123
PUB3Hh
123
123
17
J4
N rth f N w H D
026
PUB3H
18
J4
Adf It C wd C k
Rd
007
PUB3Hh
003
0 03
24
J2d
E t f R b Rd
143
PUBHh
1 15
1 09
25
J2d
E t f R b Rd
193
PUBHh
26
E t f R b Rd
027
PUBHh
27
W t f B d VAI Rd
072
PUBHh
28
E t f dWl Rd
090
PUBHh
29
E t f B d WI Rd
017
PUBHh
30
ff2d
E t f B d WI Rd
0 68
PUBHh
0 68
0 6 8
31
E d f D h t D
0 08
PUBHh
32
E t f P t k Rd
0 30
PUBHh
37
E t fWl F mRd
047
PUBHh
034
034
38
J1f
E t fU Rd INC 274)
054
PUBHh
052
40
K1A
E t fR fu R t hf dRd
041
PUBHh
041
007
41
K1A
W t f R f R t hf d Rd
065
PUBHh
44
K3A
W t fS thN w p
Rd SR 279
242
PUBHh
45
K3B
E t f thN w p Rd
(SR 279 )
1 00
PUBHh
46
K38
E t f S th New H p Rd
(SR 279 )
1 04
PUBHh
52
K3B
E t IS tCl bRd
020
PUBHh
020
020
56
K3C
W t 1`1485
106
PUBHh
57
K3C
W t f1485
006
PUBHh
006
006
58
K3C
E t 11 485
1 063
PUBHh
T t I
I
1
1 41
42
03
Th I m I d m I d Y I
P d mb t t b ca ly th w th th P f d Alt m t St dy C d I t d

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
APPENDIX B
Meeting Minutes —March 16 2010 Agency Meeting
Gaston East West Connector
ST/P Project No U 3321 —June 2010

NORTH
io
Meeting — Gaston East -West Connector
MEETING MINUTES
Date March 16 2010
100 pm to 400 pm
NCDOT Board Room — Transportation Building Raleigh NC
Project STIP U 3321 Gaston E W Connector— STP 1213(6)
Gaston E W Connector— Meeting Regarding Mitigation
Attendees
George Hoops FHWA
Donnie Brew FHWA
Steve DeWitt NCDOT NCTA
Jennifer Harris NCDOT NCTA
Todd Tugwell USACE
Mickey Sugg USACE
Chris Militscher USEPA
Polly Lespinasse NCDENR DWQ
Brian Wrenn NCDENR DWQ
Bill Gilmore NCDENR EEP
Jim Stanfill NCDENR EEP
Marc Recktenwald NCDENR EEP
Beth Harmon NCDENR EEP
Via Telephone
Liz Hair USACE
Andrea Leslie NCDENR EEP
Amy Simes NCDENR
Leilani Paugh NCDOT NEU
Bill Barrett NCDOT NEU
Linda Fitzgerald NCDOT NEU
Greg Thorpe NCDOT PDEA
Missy Pair NCDOT PDEA
Jeff Dayton HNTB
Jill Gurak PBS &J
Michael Gloden PBS &J
Jens Geratz PBS &J
Presentation Materials
• Agenda
• Handout — NCTA Garden Parkway Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources
• Handout — EEP Garden Parkway Project Search GIS Search and Field Reconnaissance Results
• Handout — EEP Available Assets in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02
• Presentation on Site Search Conducted by EEP Powerpoint Slideshow Printout
Purpose
Discuss and agree upon the mitigation approach for the Gaston East West Connector for impacts to jurisdictional
resources
Mitigation Meeting - 03/16/10

Page 2 of 6
Introduction and Presentation
Donnie Brew opened the meeting with introductions He then asked the attendees whether there were any high
level regulatory issues regarding permitting of the Garden Parkway project and the proposed approach of using
programmatic mitigation through EEP
NCDWQ stated that the location of the mitigation does not hinge on the fact that there are several 303d
listed streams impacted by the project However because there are numerous of 303d listed streams
then mitigation implemented nearby may be more appropriate NCDWQ always prefers on site mitigation
where feasible and since there are so many 303d listed streams NCDWQ would like to see more local
mitigation However NCDWQ is not opposed to off site mitigation
Bill Gilmore asked whether the project was following the merger process In the merger process mitigation is
normally discussed after a Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) is identified
The project is following a modified merger process and Concurrence Points (CP) 1 through 4a have been
achieved LEDPA (CP 3) was identified in October 2009 Avoidance and Minimization (CP 4a) was
achieved in February 2010 The refined designs for the Preferred Alternative reduced impacts substantially
(by 12 966 linear feet) NCTA has been providing annual updates to EEP on estimated impacts NCTA
has also discussed mitigation with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies since last summer
at the monthly meetings
USACE requested a summary of past discussions with USEPA since Mickey Sugg Todd Tugwell and Liz Hair had
not attended the meetings Steve Lund recently retired has been the USACE representative on the project
NCTA stated that Kathy Matthews of USEPA has expressed concern about the magnitude of impacts and
potential impacts to 303d listed streams When it was discussed that EEP would be the primary source for
mitigation Ms Matthews recommended also looking at other potential mitigation such as on site mitigation
or non traditional mitigation
Chris Militscher stated that Ms Matthews notes indicated she had three basic concerns One was the use
of Bobs Pocket for mitigation credit on this project since the Bobs Pocket is far away from the project and
the Bobs Pocket site is not under immediate threat of development Another recommendation was to have
a more aggressive approach to searching for local or more nearby mitigation opportunities and to make
sure no good local opportunities were being missed Finally USEPA always prefers on site mitigation if it
makes sense from ecosystem water quality and cost perspectives
Polly Lespinasse noted that the amount of mitigation available for this project was a concern for NCDWQ
since there are other projects in the area that also will need mitigation
Todd Tugwell stated he was aware of some of USEPA s concerns and that there was also concern that mitigation
ratios at Bobs Pocket would not be high
Jim Stanfill asked if the permitting agencies thought this project is a unique situation (no immediate responses)
EEP prepares mitigation in advance for many transportation projects and does not know which mitigation site
credits will be applied to each project until the permit is issued In the case of the Garden Pay kway there is some
opportunity to look at mitigation beforehand which does not happen often Normally all mitigation is already in
hand before permits and mitigation discussions occur for a project
Donnie Brew stated that agreement between the agencies for the programmatic approach to mitigation is an
effective approach but sometimes there can be exceptions
Jill Gurak provided an overview of the project impacts to jurisdictional resources She noted
• Draft EIS signed in April 2009
• Draft EIS included impacts for 12 Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) based on preliminary engineering
designs
• LEDPA and Preferred Alternative is DSA 9
• Design refinements made to DSA 9 reduced stream impacts by over 12 000 linear feet (12 966 linear feet)
These included
• Reducing median width by 20 feet
• Eliminating the Bud Wilson Road interchange (substantial savings at this location)
Mitigation Meeting - 03/16/10

Page 3 of 6
• Reducing the footprint of the Robinson Road NC 274 (Union Road) and NC 273 (Southpoint
Road) interchanges
• Redesigning the 1 485 interchange and reducing the footprint (substantial savings at this location)
Impacts were calculated based on the preliminary engineering design construction limits with a 25 foot
buffer which is standard NCDOT practice for calculating impacts based on preliminary level design
There will be incentives for the Design Build team to further reduce impacts
The impacts to 303d listed streams noted in the handout are impacts to unnamed tributaries that feed
named streams included in the Final 303d list (2008) and are not listed streams themselves The listed
named streams are bridged including an extended bridge over Catawba Creek to span an adjacent
wetland
The Draft 2010 list also included South Fork Catawba River which would be bridged and McGill Branch
and South Crowders Creek neither of which are impacted by the Preferred Alternative
Donnie Brew asked if any of the attendees thought the proposed project would not be able to obtain a permit
None of the attendees replied in the affirmative
Michael Gioden provided an overview of the on site mitigation survey conducted for the Preferred Alternative
(Technical Memorandum — On Site Mitigation Field Review PBS &J January 2010) He noted
. 20 tax parcels containing 1 050 acres were initially identified using GIS
. The field survey narrowed the sites to seven parcels grouped into three locations Additional evaluations
are still needed as well as discussions with the property owners
1 Stream enhancement of approximately 5 600 linear feet (Linwood Springs Golf Course)
2 Stream enhancement and restoration of approximately 1 700 linear feet (Harrison Family Dairy
Farm)
3 Wetland enhancement of approximately 6 acres (logged site)
Enhancement means measures such as revegetation and bank repair
Leilani Paugh stated the report provides a good survey of sites based on a traditional approach but there may be
opportunities for more creative or non traditional mitigation For example stormwater issues in stream work and
watershed preservation If a potential site is immediately adjacent to the project then condemnation for this
mitigation would not be prohibited NCDOT is in the process of scheduling a site visit with permitting agencies in
Mecklenburg County for a couple projects that include some non traditional mitigation
USEPA is interested in non traditional mitigation opportunities Chris Militscher stated he thought there
were some good opportunities near the Carolina Speedway and he believes a number of the systems in
the project area have degraded over the last several years even without the proposed project having been
implemented
NCDWQ is interested in considering non traditional mitigation However Brian Wrenn stated the measures
would need to be above and beyond what would be required by regulation in order to receive mitigation
credit
USACE stated that it is difficult to determine mitigation ratios for non traditional mitigation and when
enough is proposed Mr Tugwell asked if there has been any monitoring of non traditional sites
Leilani Paugh stated NCDOT has not conducted any monitoring in the project area NCDOT
currently is establishing a monitoring program for a project on the coast
Jim Stanfill suggested that the Charlotte mitigation bank may be the closest example site They
are conducting some monitoring
EEP has enough mitigation credits now to permit the project fully EEP provided a list of available assets in a
meeting handout However no other project would be able to be permitted until additional mitigation credits were
obtained in the watershed Most of the credits that would be used for the proposed project are located in the lower
Catawba Less than half of the credits available from the Bobs Pocket site might have been applied to the Garden
Parkway The available credits are in the monitoring stage with dust a couple sites in the design stage Required
ratios for a project are not normally known until the permit is issued Historically ratios have been between 1 1 —
2 1 with the ratio average usually about 1 5 1 The EEP plans for a ratio of 2 1 to be conservative
Mitigation Meeting - 03/16/10

Page 4 of 6
Andrea Leslie gave a Powerpoint presentation (attached) on EEP watershed planning in the project area She
noted
• EEP uses a watershed planning approach based on 8 digit Catalog Unit Catawba 01 and 02 have several
local watershed plans although none are in Gaston County
• EEP currently has the following assets (see full list in handout)
• Restoration Catawba 01 — 16 352 Stream Mitigation Unit (SMU) Catawba 02 — 18 767 SMU
• Restoration Equivalent — High Quality Preservation Southern Piedmont ecoregion 32 928 SMU
and Catawba 01 — 5 107 SMU
o EEP also has riparian wetland credits available as listed in the handout
• The GIS site search of local watersheds for the Garden Parkway included parcels in Mecklenburg and
Gaston Counties that had more than 1 000 linear feet of stream with land use restoration potential Project
feasibility determined by five criteria total project stream length greater than 1 500 linear feet 1 3
landowners drainage area less than 10 square miles streams with narrow or no buffer on at least one
side and riparian corridor without severe constraints
• The GIS analysis sites were then visited in the field in March 2010 After field reconnaissance EEP
identified 8 projects in Crowders Creek drainage (14 digit HU = 3050101180010) 5 projects in Catawba
Creek drainage (HU = 3050101180020) and 1 project in South Fork Catawba River East (HU =
3050102060020) Total potential stream restoration length is 32 400 linear feet in Tier 1 (most promising
sites) and 12 100 linear feet in Tier 2 (project has significant constraints)
• Further evaluation is needed along with property owner contact
Greg Thorpe asked if the agencies would consider mitigation across the state line in South Carolina since the
project is close to the state line USACE will not accept mitigation outside North Carolina USEPA and NCDWQ
agreed with this statement
Donnie Brew reviewed some of the main points of the programmatic agreement for mitigating the impacts of
transportation projects in North Carolina
Requires mitigation to be in the ground before the project is constructed The mitigation should be in the
same 8 digit hydrologic unit and be of the same type as the impacted resource
• Mitigation ratios are typically 1 1 for restoration and 2 1 for restoration equivalent
The benefits of the programmatic approach include achieving mitigation in advance of an impact and
implementing mitigation based on watershed planning The programmatic approach allows focus on
problem watershed areas This approach also results in predictability for the NCDOT and FHWA in
planning and scheduling projects
Mr Brew stated that if the programmatic approach is not used for the Garden Parkway then mitigation already in
the ground would not be applied to this project and there would be a project delay while other mitigation is
implemented The programmatic approach does not have a static direct link between particular mitigation sites and
projects until the project permit is issued then the locations /origins of the credits are established so the same
credits are not used for another project
Bill Gilmore stated the EEP program matches impacts of all types of projects in a watershed area with overall
watershed needs
Donnie Brew asked again whether the programmatic mitigation approach would be acceptable for the Garden
Parkway Donnie Brew suggested that the programmatic approach would allow for the EEP to focus future efforts
in watershed areas where mitigation is needed These credits would be applied to future projects but the Garden
Parkway would be the influence that steers these future credits to areas the agencies felt they were most needed
This is a normal process in the programmatic watershed approach to mitigation
USEPA wants FHWA and NCTA to document on site mitigation opportunities more fully and also whether
there are potential mitigation sites within 1 2 miles of the project Non traditional measures also should be
fully evaluated and their feasibility or infeasibility documented in the mitigation plan
Mitigation Meeting - 03/16/10

Page 5 of 6
Mr Brew noted this suggestion for studying nearby (not adjacent) mitigation and non traditional
measures would not be the normal process The non traditional measures would be difficult to
assign ratios to so would these be bonus mitigation?
USACE stated non traditional opportunities would be implemented only because traditional approaches not
available The programmatic approach was acceptable
NCDWQ would consider on site mitigation as the first priority NCDWQ s permit constraints likely would be
related to providing mitigation in Piedmont streams not Mountain streams (i e using credits that are from
the same ecoregion) NCDWQ would not be as concerned with thermal classification (cold /cool /warm)
However NCDWQ was comfortable with the programmatic approach to mitigation for the Garden Parkway
with a programmatic adjustment in the focus of the location of mitigation projects in the Catawba 01 and
Catawba 02 areas
EEP noted that there are a number of mitigation opportunities in the Catawba 01 watershed
NCDWQ stated that the Catawba 01 watershed is large and crosses several ecoregions Some mitigation in this
region may not be appropriate for the project if it occurs in a different ecoregion
USACE stated that if NCDWQ wants mitigation to occur in specific 14 digit HUCS then the permit would need to
specify this requirement Greg Thorpe stated that a restriction such as this would likely result in EEP spending
more money to find specific mitigation
EEP has nearby mitigation credits available at Beaverdam Creek of approximately 13 000 linear feet of stream
credit The search for potential nearby mitigation projects presented by Andrea Leslie identified another 32 000
linear feet of Tier 1 projects (those with good possibility) for potential stream mitigation The EEP would be willing
to pursue these potential projects as part of the normal process for identifying mitigation credits in Catawba 01 and
Catawba 02 However these mitigation projects would not be tied directly to the Garden Parkway
Todd Tugweli also noted that the USACE likely will require mitigation for some intermittent streams Polly
Lespinasse stated that based on her field visits many of the intermittent streams would be considered important
from a permitting perspective
Jim Stanfill noted that EEP does try to provide associated credits that are of the same stream regimen (i e cool
stream mitigation for cool stream impacts) However Catawba 01 is large and a few projects in the past have had
cold /cool and cool /warm credits allowed
Chris Militscher noted that USEPA has been providing comments on the proposed project since 2001 and the
FHWA and NCTA have known about the impacts and should have been pursuing on site and nearby mitigation for
this project A conceptual mitigation plan was requested to be included in the Draft EIS
The Preferred Alternative was identified in October 2009 and an on site mitigation survey was initiated
shortly afterward following standard procedures The refined preliminary designs reduced stream impacts
by approximately 12 966 linear feet NCTA was not in a position in the Draft EIS to develop a conceptual
mitigation plan The Final EIS is not completed yet and FHWA and NCTA intend to include a conceptual
mitigation in the Final EIS
USEPA stated that they cannot comment on the proposed mitigation until there is a more formal presentation of
mitigation that considers on site mitigation nearby (or near site) mitigation and non traditional measures USEPA
also is concerned about the potential amount of indirect and cumulative impacts since waters in the area are
already impaired The Clean Water Act prohibits actions that further degrade already degraded waters
FHWA stated they would work with USEPA separately to try to address concerns NCDOT and FHWA do not
mitigate for indirect and cumulative effects
Marc Recktenwald stated EEP can focus efforts on the potential nearby mitigation sites identified in Andrea Leslie s
presentation and have more information to include in a conceptual mitigation plan regarding the feasibility of these
sites EEP can also provide a list of projects already implemented that have benefited the watershed
NCDOT will work with NCTA and their consultants to evaluate non traditional measures
Leilani Paugh will provide examples of other conceptual mitigation plans for use in developing the plan for the
Garden Parkway
Mitigation Meeting - 03/16/10

Page 6 of 6
Conclusions
A conceptual mitigation plan for the Preferred Alternative will be prepared and summarized in the Final EIS
EEP has enough credits in hand to permit the Garden Parkway project including 13 000 linear feet of stream
mitigation credits at Beaverdam Creek dust south of the Preferred Alternative
The programmatic approach is acceptable to NCDWQ and USACE EEP should initiate a programmatic
adjustment in the focus of the location of mitigation projects in the Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 areas
NCDWQ permit constraints may include provisions related to providing mitigation in Piedmont streams within
Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 (rather than Mountain streams)
The USACE and NCDWQ will not accept credits outside of North Carolina (i e credits in South Carolina)
NCDWQ and USEPA prefer on site mitigation where feasible The on site mitigation search should be fully
documented including contact with property owners
NCDWQ and USEPA are interested in more information regarding the feasibility of non traditional measures for on
site mitigation and possibly near site mitigation NCDOT NEU and NCTA will evaluate non traditional measures
and will report the results in the conceptual mitigation plan
USEPA will not comment until they review the conceptual mitigation plan USEPA would like to see on site and
near site mitigation and non traditional measures They are also concerned with indirect and cumulative effects
and further degradation of area streams
Action Items
• EEP will provide additional information about the potential mitigation projects identified in the 14 digit RUCs
near the project
• NCTA and NCDOT NEU will evaluate the feasibility of non traditional mitigation measures for on site
mitigation
• NCTA will contact the property owners of the three site identified in the on site mitigation survey to
determine their interest
• NCTA will prepare a conceptual mitigation plan and include a summary in the Final EIS
• NCTA will coordinate with USACE and NCDWQ to determine the remaining tasks required to identify which
intermittent streams are important Follow up — For this project NCDWQ indicated that only perennial
streams wdl require mitigation The project was far enough in the planning process that the new
requirement for intermittent stream mitigation does not apply The mitigation ratio will be 9 1
Mitigation Meeting - 03/16/10

Garden Parkway Project Search GIS Search and Field Reconnaissance Results
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
10 March 2010
Introduction
This document summarizes the results of a stream restoration project search in the 14-digit
hydrologic units affected by the preferred alternative of Garden Parkes ay A GIS based
project search A as performed in December 2009 and modified in February 2010 All
possible projects identified through the GIS analyses were visited in the field to determine
feasibility in March 2010
There are five 14-digit hydrologic units that have streams that may be impacted by the
Garden Parkway comdor three of these are in Catawba 01 and M o are in Catav ba 02
Most of this 177 square mile area is in Gaston County although a portion is also in
Mecklenburg County Much of Gastonia as A ell as portions of Kings Mountain Bessemer
City Belmont and Charlotte are contained in this area
GIS Methods & Results
The follow ing steps were performed via GIS
1 Mecklenburg and Gaston County parcel data from 2009 v ere intersected v ith
124 000 NHD streams clipped to the 5 14-digit HUs that contain the Garden
Parkway corridor
2 The resulting dataset was dissolved in order to determine total stream length by pin
number
3 Parcels v ith at least 1 000 ft of stream length A ere selected
4 Land use /cover (2001 NLCD) v as reclassified and converted to a vector dataset in
order to determine buffer type for restoration potentril Two land use /cover
classes v ere determined those v ith restoration project potential and without
potenti it Those land use /cover categories used as restoration potential w ere -
21 Developed Open Space of less than 20% impervious cover
22 Developed Low Density A here impervious cover is 20-49%
71 Grassland /Herbaceous not subject to intensive m inagement but can be
used for grazing
81 Pasture /Hay
82 Cultivated Crops
5 The parcel dataset determined in step 3 w is clipped by the land use /cover with
restoration potential
6 Parcels with stream length of at least 1 000 ft of stream length were selected and a
new dataset containing 92 potential projects was created
7 Each potential project was then analyzed for feasibility v ith parcel ov nership
information and 2005 aerial photographs Possibility for upstream and
downstream extension of the project was examined The following criteria were
used to determine v hether a project w as feasible
1 Stream length >1500 ft
1

b <4 landow ners
c Drainage area <10 square miles
d Streams with little or no buffer on at least one side
e Riparian corridor w ithout severe constraints such as large buildings large
roads and large pow er line right of ways
Sixteen projects that met the criteria in step 7 above were found in the search area (see
Table 1 and Figure 1) which comprise 49 300 ft of stream Three of the sixteen projects
are in golf courses Most of the sixteen projects are in the western two hydrologic units of
Catawba 01 Only 15 900 ft of project were found within 1 mi of the Garden Parkway
corridor 22 400 ft of project (which includes the 15 900 ft within 1 mi) were found
w ithin 2 mi of the corridor Limitations in finding feasible projects were primarily due to
the small size of most parcels in this developed area and constraints within the riparian
corridors Those 76 projects that were rejected due to criteria in step 7 are listed in Table
2
1 able 1 1 ossible restoration projects in the Uarden Parkway area
Total Project length Project length
Number project w /in 1 mi of w /in 2 mi of
of length Parkway corridor Parkway corridor
14 -digit HU Major stream projects (ft) (ft) (ft)
03050101170040
03050101180010
03050101180020
Catawb-i R
Crowders Cr
Catawba Cr
0
9
5
0
31500
14000
6900
7000
10900
9500
iCatZwl;FQ0
S Fk Catawba R
03050102060020
Eaat
1
2000
2000
2000
S Fk Catawba R
03050102070030
West
1
1800
TOTAL
16
49300
15900
22400
2

r~
a�
a�
J
AO
O
6J
J
O
Ss+
r
G
U
O
DA
w
'=t
,tih n x
{
� h
13 ELK I
I
fib
i
r
r
ro
Y
CD
RS m
N
U a
0 1
CL
� � f
f� \
1
• V
s�
syl
rram
LL o I
n
0
°o
m
0
ra
`o
o a
a
E o
O U
O
O
_
N
� �
T
o �
E
� cv
1 0 1
oaj F,
LL o I
n
0
°o
m
0
ra

Table 2 Potential projects that did not meet ninimal criteria
¢� r
z�
Pro eet #
Li iting factors for rejected sites Tm O 9 }j
a
Forested
buffer,
�
Wq ,s >4�
landowners
� <1500 "ft
DrainageF
areas >10
�sq mi y
s t � fi A"
k a `� 5���� ,� � �� � �4g
Phvsical�constraints)q ,:
19
x
pond
271
x
along mayor road
46
x
54
x
55
x
59
x
pond downstream
65
x
golf course
72
x
83
x
85
x
86
x
school in construction?
87
x
107
x
113
x
118
x
golf course manicured to stream
123
x
x
124
x
126
x
127
x
130
1 x
Igolf course manicured to stream
131
x
Igolf course manicured to stream
132
x
136
x
137
x
138
x
corridor constrained by buildings
141
x
1powerline
154
x
155
x
160
x
x
165
x
x
in line pond
166
x
167
x
168
x
x
175
x
x
176
x
powerlines in corridor
185
x
powerlines in corridor
186
x
x
187
x
stream culverted under soccer field
189
x
190
x
x
191
x
x
192
x
in line pond
193
x
194
x
196
x
197
x
199
x
Japartment
complex corridor constrained
202
x

Table 2 Potential projects that did not meet minimal criteria (cont)
14
Pro ect #p
{ L�mitm factors for rejected sites"'`
Drainage
g� >4�� are >'10��
Forested _ } ^ v
buffery, Jandowners <1500 Tt ~ tisq mi � ���� Ph s, -a constraints
204
x
in line pond
205
x
224
x
227
x
x
229
x
x
230
x
x
231
x
x
233
x
roads in for future development in corridor
234
x
x
235
x
in developing property of Franklin Square Mall
237
x
x
247
x
buffer on 1 side
255
x
x
257
x
259
x
263
x
x
powerline in corridor
265
x
267
x
x
condominiums along narrow corridor
269
x
272
x
upstream of pond
273
x
upstream of pond
279
x
in line pond
280
x
x
in line pond
281
x
in line pond
295
x
x
near WTP or WWTP
296
x
x
lin line pond
300
x
in line pond
312
quarry

Results of Field Reconnaissance
Each of the 16 projects identified through the GIS screen were visited in March 2010
Due to limited time available lando A ners w ere not contacted to determine interest in a
project Projects on private land A ere not thoroughly evaluated feasibility A as determined
based on what could be seen from public right of v ays
Projects were placed in one of three feasibility tiers (Table 3) which are
1 Tier 1 good project possibility
2 Tier 2 project has significant constraints
3 Tier 3 project is not feasible
Nine projects (for a total of 32 400 ft) are in Feasibility Tier 1 Five projects (for a total of
12 100 ft all in Catawba 01) are in Feasibility Tier 2 Two projects ,�Aere dropped and are
in Feasibility Tier 3 See Figure 2 for project locations and Table 4 for descriptions of each
of the sixteen projects evaluated in the field
Table 3 Possible restoration projects in the Garden Parka ay area post field
reconnaissance
IN
A
Total
Tier 2 (ft)
Number
project
Tier 1 (ft)
(projects have
of
length
(good project
considerable
14 digit HU
Mayor stream
projects
(ft)
possibility)
constraints)
Catawba0lL i�
�J
�'fr
cc
03050101170040
Catawba R
0
0
03050101180010
Crowders Cr
8
28500
23400
5100
03050101180020
Catawba Cr
5
14000
7000
7000
Catawba 02 fi
s°
Ir
S Fk Catawba R
03050102060020
East
1
2000
2000
S Fk Catawba R
03050102070030
West
0
0
TOTAL
14
44500
32400
12100
IN
A

J
G
K
v
K
G".
O
J
v
i-+
J
�a
QJ
N
QJ
2
i-�
QJ
�a
L
V
K
W
CC
J
N
O
P4
K
y
O
N
6J
s.
Cq
ME

a
ra
1J
J
O
O
G
O
a�
v
'G
w
::
v
D
4,
4"
K
�
0
XV
3
u
.s4 Xy`
O
O
G
o
o
a
o
El
o
v
c
G
r
O
n
E
J
O
PO-
v
5
c
-o
3
>
=
0
3°
y
o
aoy
N
a-
c
L
a
o
G
o
v
G
o
�
5
f
�
ti
�
ti
3
❑
o
c,
n
Y
o
„
5
�
-
o
a
3
v
3
3
°,
�,
c
v
�
v
-c
N
o
G
v
>
C
O
G
O
O
U
P,
n
U-1
O
cz
3
Vol
C�
24
v
v
�
0
O
-2
o
>'
G
G
n
� a
cz
G
-°
°o
°o
o°
°o
°o
°o
°o
CD
G
Flo �
o
o
CD
v°
(D
°
°
°
o
an
L�
D

r
4:
0
J
U
O
G �
a II
M
u
v
O
J
G
K
J
v n
n �
J
r �
5 II
� N
�J
v �r.
G
O J
r cc O
O
U ° o
s°.
C)
0
ap O
� O
' 4 DA
S-+
O II
N
CD u �
4
l_i'
7
r�
4
w
cG
°rte°
r
u
x
J
C
ar t
Iz
v O
b
G
c
o
oy a
J
N
N
J
O
C ice+
�
'"'
6�
QJ
�
�'
�
CD
v
FAY
�
•-C
N
�=.
O tir.,
�
.�N.
-i.J �
El
p
aC
a ;
°
3
a r
G
v
v
OF
�
r
'_"
QOJ
-r
�"
"Y
N
G
rte' Y
V
r
G
u
Y°
a
o
v
ti ti
0
O
U
O
O
U
3 0
°o
o
o
a�
-r,
x3
CD w U
U
0
U
U U
w
�Y
O
o CD
C)
N
CD
M
6J
O
1
r
4:
0
J
U
O
G �
a II
M
u
v
O
J
G
K
J
v n
n �
J
r �
5 II
� N
�J
v �r.
G
O J
r cc O
O
U ° o
s°.
C)
0
ap O
� O
' 4 DA
S-+
O II
N
CD u �
4
l_i'
7