20120285_Merger Process Documentation_20100216

Obo"
Turnpike Authority
Gaston East -West Connector
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
STIP No U -3321
Merger Process Concurrence Point 4a -
Avoidance and Minimization
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
a Project Description
b Preferred Alternative
c Purpose of Concurrence Point 4a
2 Summary of Concurrence Point 2a for DSA 9 (Preferred Alternative)
3 Design refinements for Preferred Alternative (from west to east)
a Reduce Median by 20 feet and Revise Typical Section
b Modify Access to Matthews Acres Subdivision
c Retain the US 29/74 Interchange
d Modify the Forbes Road Grade Separation
n e Compress the Robinson Road Interchange
f Eliminate the Bud Wilson Road Interchange
g Compress the NC 274 (Union Road) Interchange
h Relocate Tucker Road Connection to Canal Road
i Realign Mainline to Avoid Optimist Club Recreation Fields and Provide Access to NC
273 (Southpoint Road)
I Reconfigure the NC 273 (Southpoint Road) Interchange to Avoid Historic Boundaries
of Mt Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery
k Relocate Boat Club Road Connection North of Mainline to Southpoint Road
1 Reconfigure the 1485 Interchange and Dixie River Road Interchange
4 Service Road Study
a Service Road Evaluation Methodology and Design Criteria
b Proposed Service Roads
5 Jurisdictional Resources Impact Summary
6 Conceptual Mitigation Plan
7 Protected Plant Species Survey Update

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
ATTACHMENTS
A Concurrence Point 3 Form
B Impacts to jurisdictional Resources
TABLES
1 Impact Reductions for DSA 9 Associated with Bridge Crossing Agreed upon in Concurrence
Point 2a
2 Change in Stream Impacts Due to Elimination of Bud Wilson Road Interchange
3 Change in Stream Impacts Due to Compressed Interchange at NC 274 (Union Road)
4 Change in Wetland and Pond Impacts Due to Compressed Interchange at NC 274 (Union
Road)
5 Change in Stream Impacts Due to Refined Design of Mainline Near Belmont Optimist Club
Recreation Fields
6 Change in Stream Impacts Due to Refined Design of 1485 Interchange
7 Change in Wetland Impacts Due to Refined Design of 1485 Interchange
8 Service Road Recommendations
9 Summary of Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Due to Design Refinements and
Service Roads
10 Impacts to 303(d) Listed Streams
FIGURES
1 Preferred Alternative
2 Refined Typical Section for Preferred Alternative
3 Matthews Acres Subdivision
4 Forbes Road Grade Separation
5 Robinson Road Interchange
6 Bud Wilson Road Interchange
7 NC 274 (Union Road) Interchange Area
8 NC 273 (Southpoint Road) Interchange Area
9 1485 and Dixie River Road Interchange Area
10 (a m) Preliminary Service Roads
11 Potential On Site Mitigation — Site 1
12 Potential On Site Mitigation Site 2
13 Potential On Site Mitigation Site 3
2

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a —Information Packet
February 16 2010
1 Introduction
a Project Description and Preferred Alternative
The Gaston East West Connector also known as the Garden Parkway would be a
controlled access toll road extending from 185 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to
1485 near the Charlotte Douglas International Airport in Mecklenburg County
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) was published in 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 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) The Project Coordination Plan is included in
Appendix A 7 of the Draft EIS
Concurrence Points 1 2 2a and 3 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 (TEAC) meeting The Concurrence Point 3 form is included in
Attachment A
b Concurrence Point 4a
The purpose of Concurrence Point 4a in the NEPA /404 Merger Process is to identify
additional avoidance and minimization efforts not included in the preliminary design
during the alternative analysis phase of the project Concurrence Point 4a will be
completed upon agreement that project jurisdictional impacts have been avoided and
nunimnzed to the maximum extent practicable based on current information and design
available at the time When avoiding and nunnmizing jurisdictional resource impacts
other resources will be considered
3

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4o — Information Packet
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)
The information included in this packet (see Table of Contents above) is provided in
accordance with NCDOT guidelines on information to be presented at a Concurrence
Point 4a meeting
2 Summary of Concurrence Point 2a for DSA 9 (Preferred
Alternative)
The preliminary designs for all of the DSAs incorporated measures to avoid and
minimize impacts to Waters of the United States and the Catawba River buffers where
possible based on the information available at the time
To further address avoidance and minimization the NCTA met with the environmental
resource and regulatory agencies at TEAC Meetings on February 5 March 4 and April
8 2008 to discuss bridging and alignment decisions for the DSAs preliminary
engineering designs (Concurrence Point 2a)
As a result of those meetings agreement on alignment was achieved and there were no
changes implemented for any of the DSAs However the NCTA agreed to include
several bridges in the preliminary engineering designs beyond those required to convey
floodwaters to avoid or rrunirruze stream and wetland impacts Table 1 shows locations
where bridges were agreed upon for DSA 9 (Preferred Alternative) to avoid or minimize
stream and wetland impacts along with the estimated impact reduction associated with
each bridge
Table 1 Impact Reductions for DSA 9 Associated with Bridge Crossings Agreed Upon in
Concurrence Point 2a
The crossing of Bessemer Branch with an access road to the Matthews Acres subdivision (Belfast Drive) eliminated in the
Preferred Alternative Refined Design and replaced with a revised access road that does not cross Bessemer Branch
4
Previously
Impact Acreage (ac)/
Crossing
DSA 9
Proposed
Structure Proposed in
Linear Feet (If) as
Segment
Structure
Draft EIS
Previously Proposed
Bessemer Branch
H2A
Triple 7x10 ft
Bridge
340 If
Box Culvert
Blackwood Creek (5135)
H3
Triple 11x10 ft
Bridge
304 If — 5135
Box Culvert
296 If -5134
Catawba Creek (5259) and
Lengthen Bridge to span
its buffers and Wetland
K3A
Bridge
Wetland W248
15 ac
(also avoids buffers on
W248
east side of creek)
The crossing of Bessemer Branch with an access road to the Matthews Acres subdivision (Belfast Drive) eliminated in the
Preferred Alternative Refined Design and replaced with a revised access road that does not cross Bessemer Branch
4

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a —Information Packet
February 15 2010
The areas listed above are discussed below from west to east as they are located along
the Preferred Alternative
Changes in impacts to the human natural and physical environments between the Draft
EIS DSA 9 prehrrunary design and the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design
are discussed as applicable Impacts to each jurisdictional resource within the Preferred
Alternative study corridor were recalculated using the refined prehrrunary design
Tables listing impacts by jurisdictional resource (ponds wetlands and streams) for the
Draft EIS DSA 9 preliminary design and the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary
design are included in Attachment B
Impacts to other resources that are estimated using proposed construction limits
including impacts to farmland and natural communities will be calculated for the Final
EIS They are discussed qualitatively in this information packet
a Reduce Median by 20 Feet and Revise Typical Section
Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS The preliminary design typical section for DSA 9
(Preferred Alternative) and all DSAs included six through lanes and a 46 foot median
(Draft EIS Figure 2 3) The preliminary design also included an additional auxiliary lane
in each direction between the NC 273 (Southpoint Road) interchange and the 1 485
interchange The Draft EIS acknowledges that the number of through lanes might be
reduced to four based upon updated 2035 traffic projections (Draft EIS Section 2 41)
with the resulting median with a four lane road being a 70 foot median
Comments Received The environmental resource and regulatory agencies requested
consideration of additional avoidance and minimization measures to reduce the
project s footprint
Refined Preliminary Design for the Preferred Alternative Traffic forecasts were
updated for the Preferred Alternative including updates to the horizon year from 2030
to 2035 The forecasts are documented in the Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Traffic
Forecast Memorandum 2009 and 2035 No Build /Build (HNTB November 2009)
Based on a review of year 2035 traffic projections (Toll Scenario) for the Preferred
Alternative two through lanes in each direction are needed along with general
auxiliary lanes in each direction between the NC 273 (Southpomt Road) interchange and
the 1485 interchange With this configuration the mainline is projected to operate at
LOS D pr better through 2035
The median was reduced from 70 feet in the original preliminary designs to 50 feet in the
revised preliminary designs This change also would reduce the typical right of way
width by 20 feet from approximately 300 feet to 280 feet

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
Based on the information in the table the additional bridging along DSA 9 (Preferred
Alternative) reduced stream impacts by 940 linear feet and wetland impacts by 15 acres
3 Design Refinements for Preferred Alternative
Several design modifications were made to the Preferred Alternative as a result of public
involvement activities (including the practical design workshop held August 26 2009)
coordination with environmental resource and regulatory agencies and comments
received during the Draft EIS public review period The purpose of the practical design
workshop was to develop ideas and potential measures for constructing a cost effective
project within the context of the project environment that meets the transportation needs
with a reasonable application of design and construction standards
The US Environmental Protection Agency US Fish and Wildlife Service NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality and NC
Wildlife Resources Corrurussion provided comments on the Draft EIS that included
general requests for additional consideration of avoidance and minimization measures
for jurisdictional resources In addition the US Environmental Protection Agency
specifically requested that the NCTA review the mainline design and interchange
configurations for opportunities to reduce the proposed project s footprint The NC
Wildlife Resources Commission specifically requested consideration of a narrower
median
The design refinements considered in this section include mainline design changes
(median width and realignment) access road changes and interchange reconfiguration
or elimination as listed below
a Reduce Median by 20 feet and Revise Typical Section
b Modify Access to Matthews Acres Subdivision
c Retain the US 29/74 Interchange
d Modify Forbes Road Grade Separation
e Compress the Robinson Road Interchange
f Eliminate the Bud Wilson Road Interchange
g Compress the NC 274 (Union Road) Interchange
h Relocate Tucker Road Connection to Canal Road
i Realign Mainline to Avoid Optimist Club Recreation Fields and Provide Access
to Southpomt Road (NC 273)
j Reconfigure the NC 273 (Southpomt Road) Interchange to Avoid Historic
Boundaries of Mt Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery
k Relocate Boat Club Road Connection North of Mainline to Southpomt Road
1 Reconfigure the 1485 Interchange and Dixie River Road Interchange

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a— Information Packet
February 16 2010
Although not part of the ultimate project if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the
future beyond the horizon year they would be constructed to the inside resulting in a
26 foot paved median (two 10 foot shoulders and six feet for a barrier bridge piers
signs etc ) instead of the original 46 foot median
Figure 2 shows the revised typical section
Changes in Impacts The 20 foot reduction in median width reduces the project s
footprint width by 20 feet (both the right of way limits and the slope stake hnuts) This
change reduces estimated direct impacts particularly impacts to wetlands streams
ponds and Catawba River/Lake Wylie buffers Other impacts calculated by project
footprint also would be reduced including impacts to farmland and natural
communities Outside of the design refinements discussed below the reduction in
median width would result in reductions to jurisdictional resources Stream impacts
would be reduced by approximately 1 154 linear feet and wetland impacts would be
reduced by approximately 0 32 acres Pond impacts would not be affected
b Modify Access to Matthews Acres Subdivision
Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS The preliminary design for DSA 9 (Preferred
Alternative) shown on Figure 2 9b in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public
Hearing Maps (dated April 24 2009) shows existing access to the Matthews Acres
Subdivision would be cut off and new access provided via a westward extension of
Belfast Drive to Diane 29 Theater Road This extension would cross Bessemer Branch
and the crossing type was changed from a triple box culvert to a bridge as a result of
Concurrence Point 2a (see Table 1 above) Existing access to Matthews Acres is via
Belfast Drive to Brightington Lane to Shannon Bradley Road (SR 1135)
Comments Received Several residents of Matthews Acres subdivision provided verbal
comments to the Project Team during the Pre Hearing Open House held on June 22
2009 at the Gastonia Adult Recreation Center Members of the Broomfield
Neighborhood Watch (includes neighborhoods surrounding Shannon Bradley Road)
provided comments at a small group meeting held July 7 2009 The residents of the area
requested that the proposed access be modified to more directly connect to US 29/74
closer to Shannon Bradley Road Residents of Matthews Acres are included in the
broader neighborhood area that surrounds Shannon Bradley Road north of US 29/74
There are also three churches on Shannon Bradley Road in this area (Broomfield
Methodist Church Holy Jerusalem Church and St Titus AME Zion Church)
Refined Preliminary Design for the Preferred Alternative In response to these
comments the preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was altered by
extending Belfast Drive eastward under the mainline to tie directly back into Shannon
Bradley Road The mainline would be bridged over the Belfast Drive extension
7

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
This new access would be similar to the access that currently exists (i e Matthews Acres
access is from Shannon Bradley Road) and would provide the shortest route to
reconnect Matthews Acres to the rest of the community surrounding Shannon Bradley
Road Figure 3 shows the Draft EIS DSA 9 preliminary design and Preferred
Alternative refined preliminary design in this area
Changes in Impacts These design modifications would eliminate a bridge crossing of
Bessemer Branch The new access under the Preferred Alternative mainline would not
impact any jurisdictional resources
c Retain the US 29/74 Interchange
Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS The preliminary design for DSA 9 (Preferred
Alternative) shown on Figure 2 9e in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public
Hearing Maps (dated April 24 2009) includes a half clover leaf interchange with
US 29/74 Section 2 4 51 of the Draft EIS discusses the option of eliminating this
interchange and that a final decision on mclusion /elimination will be documented in the
Final EIS
Comments Received The environmental resource and regulatory agencies asked
NCTA to consider the removal of this interchange due to estimated impacts to wetlands
and streams NCTA committed to evaluating the feasibility of ehminatmg this
interchange after a Preferred Alternative was selected (Draft EIS Section 2 4 5 1)
Decision Not to Revise the PreliminaryDesigns for the Preferred Alternative The
NCTA updated the Traffic and Revenue Study for the Preferred Alternative including
an evaluation of the effects on toll revenue if the US 29/74 interchange was elinunated
from the project Based on the results from the updated Traffic and Revenue Study
(Wilbur Smith and Associates December 2009) there would be substantial revenue loss
from elimination of the US 29/74 interchange There would be approximately 12 13
percent fewer transactions and approximately 5 percent less revenue In the vicinity of
the Gaston East West Connector US 29/74 is a four lane divided arterial that provides
direct access into downtown Gastonia
Based on the updated traffic and revenue forecasts described above and the importance
of US 29/74 as a direct route to downtown Gastonia the NCTA has determined that the
US 29/74 interchange should be retained as part of the Preferred Alternative s ultimate
design However it should be noted that this interchange may not be a part of the first
construction phase but may be built in a subsequent phase
Changes in Impacts Since the interchange is retained in the Preferred Alternative
impacts would still occur to the resources in the interchange area that were discussed in
Section 2 4 51 of the Draft EIS However there would be a reduction in impacts to

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
jurisdictional resources in this area due to the reduction in median width Impacts to
three streams would be reduced by approximately 300 linear feet (If) Stream S46 (9231f �g MO , ,,.1
to 698 If) Stream S52 (7261f to 6631f) and Stream S54 (1881f to 1771f) Impacts to (�l• WW
Wetland 51 would be reduced from 135 acres to 125 acres W Ut,
d Modify Forbes Road Grade Separation
Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS The preliminary design for DSA 9 (Preferred
Alternative) shown on Figure 2 90 in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public
Hearing Maps (dated April 24 2009) shows a grade separation of Forbes Road over the
mainline
Comments Received No specific comments were received regarding this grade V,lt'J1
separation The access road was realigned to avoid a population of Schwemitz s �a,' .1t,
sunflower discovered during the November 2009 Schweimtz s sunflower surveys of= L`� d l.JCa
service roads (see Section 7 of this document) oLe, 140IL &&A"t -
Refined PreliminqU Design for the Preferred Alternative The curve radius of the
grade separation of Forbes Road over the mainline was reduced so that the proposed
right of way and construction lirruts would avoid direct impacts to a small Schweinitz s
sunflower population located on the north side of Forbes Road The right of way would
be approximately 40 feet from the plants while the construction limits would be
approximately 100 feet
The modified prelirrunary design and original preliminary design from the Draft EIS are
shown in Figure 4
Changes in Impacts The modification to the Forbes Road grade separation would
eliminate impacts to Stream S148 The impact was previously 71 linear feet
e Compress the Robinson Road Interchange
Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS The preliminary design for DSA 9 (Preferred
Alternative) shown on Figure 2 9q in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public
Hearing Maps (dated April 24 2009) includes a partial clover leaf interchange with
standard ramps in the northeast and northwest quadrants and a loop and standard
ramp in the southeast quadrant Pam Drive was proposed to be closed at Robinson
Road and subdivision traffic routed to Saddlewood Road to access Robinson Road
Comments Received During the Pre Hearing Open Houses and public review period
several comments were received from residents in the Pam Drive neighborhood
expressing their desire to keep Pam Drive connected to Robinson Road Also the
property owner in the northwest quadrant requested that design modifications be
E

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
considered to reduce impacts to their property The proposed ramp shown in the Draft
EIS passed close to their house and access control along Robinson Road would extend
past their property The property owner across Robinson Road in the northeast
quadrant supported this request
The environmental resource and regulatory agencies requested consideration of
additional avoidance and minimization measures to reduce the project s footprint
Refined Preliminary Design for the Preferred Alternative In response to these
comments the preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was altered by
connecting Pam Drive to Robinson Road at the ramp terrrunus and by moving the
ramps in the northeast and northwest quadrants closer to the mainline Traffic
projections and operations analysis indicate that future loop ramps in the northeast and
northwest quadrants (accommodated in the previous interchange design) likely would
not be needed Figure 5 shows the Draft EIS DSA 9 preliminary design and Preferred
Alternative refined preliminary design in this area
Changes in Impacts These design modifications reduce impacts to perennial Stream
S177 in the northeast quadrant by 170 linear feet (from 9561f to 7861f) and to Pond P24
by 0 06 acre (from 115 acres to 109 acres)
Control of access along Robinson Road to the north of the interchange was shortened as
a result of moving the ramps closer to the mainline so the existing access driveway to
the property in the northwest quadrant can be maintained The refined design also
moves the right of way to approximately 300 feet from the house on the property in the
northwest quadrant and the interchange ramps to approximately 380 feet from the
house A farther distance would result in lower noise levels and less visual impacts to
this home Reductions in impacts to farmland and pine hardwood forest also would
occur
Eliminate the Bud Wilson Road Interchange
Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS The preliminary design for DSA 9 (Preferred
Alternative) shown on Figure 2 9s in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public
Hearing Maps (dated April 24 2009) includes a diamond interchange at Bud Wilson
Road
Comments Received The environmental resource and regulatory agencies requested
consideration of additional avoidance and minimization measures to reduce the
project s footprint Also the NCTA desires to reduce project costs where reasonable and
feasible
Refined Preliminary Design for the Preferred Alternative In response to these
comments the projected traffic volumes at all interchanges were reviewed to identify
10

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a —Information Packet
February 15 2010
candidate interchanges for elimination The Bud Wilson Road interchange was the only
one identified for possible elimination Additional modeling conducted for the
Preferred Alternative in the updated Traffic and Revenue Study (Wilbur Smith and
Associates December 2009) showed that eliminating this interchange would decrease
transactions by approximately 9 percent and revenue by 4 percent Unlike US 29/74 a
major urban arterial that provides direct access to downtown Gastonia Bud Wilson
Road is a rural collector The Robinson Road interchange and NC 274 (Union Road)
interchange would provide access to the same areas as the Bud Wilson Road
interchange
Based on the updated traffic and revenue forecasts described above and the fact that
other interchanges would provide similar access the NCTA has determined that the
Bud Wilson Road interchange will be eliminated as part of the Preferred Alternative s
ultimate design
Figure 6 shows the Draft EIS DSA 9 preliminary design and Preferred Alternative
refined preliminary design in this area During final design the Bud Wilson Road grade
separation likely would be redesigned to shorten the length of the improvements on Bud
Wilson Road and reduce costs
Changes in Impacts Table 2 shows the changes in impacts to jurisdictional resources
resulting from elimination of the Bud Wilson Road interchange Only stream impacts
have changed Total reduction in stream impacts as a result of eliminating the Bud
Wilson Road interchange would be approximately 3 755 linear feet The revised designs
also may reduce relocations by approximately 6 7 homes and would reduce impacts to
farmland pine hardwood forest and hardwood forest
11

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a —Information Packet
February 16 2010
Table 2 Change in Stream Impacts Due to Elimination of Bud Wilson
Road Interchange
Stream
Number
Perennial (P)/
Intermittent (1)
Impacts in Draft EIS
for DSA 9
Preliminary Design
(linear ft)
Impacts for Preferred
Alternative Refined
Preliminary Design
(linear ft)
181
P
567
340
182
1
183
0
182
P
1 866
891
183
P
1 474
707
184
P
121
35
196
P
1 175
516
198
P
159
0
199
1
311
0
200
I
562
562
201
I
152
0
202
P
487
251
Total Impacts
7 057
3 302
Total intermittent
1208
562
Total Perennial
5 849
2 740
Total Change
3 755
Intermittent
Change
646
Perennial Change
3 109
g Compress the NC 274 (Union Road) Interchange
Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS The preliminary design for DSA 9 (Preferred
Alternative) shown on Figure 2 9v and Figure 2 9x in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor
Design Public Hearing Maps (dated April 24 2009) includes a half clover leaf
interchange at NC 274 (Union Road) The half clover leaf interchange form was
selected to minimize impacts to the Carolina Speedway located on the east side of NC
274 The Carolina Speedway is a privately owned 0 4 mule clay oval vehicular race track
with spectator stands built in 1962 It was determined not eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Place (NRHP)
Comments Received Operators of the speedway provided input to the project team at
the Pre Hearing Open Houses in June 2009 and also at a site visit on October 19 2009
The operators were concerned about parking and maintaining operations in the pit
area on the north end of the speedway
12

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a— Information Packet
February 15 2010
The speedway operators stated that on any given race night approximately 850 people
will be in the grandstand during the race along with approximately 400 people in the
pit area The pit area has held up to 110 vehicles during larger race events The main
grassy parking area in front of the grandstand can hold approximately 500 vehicles
Overflow parking across the street can accommodate an additional 300 vehicles
The environmental resource and regulatory agencies requested consideration of
additional avoidance and minimization measures to reduce the project s footprint
Refined Preliminary Design for the Preferred Alternative In response to these
comments the preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was altered by shifting
the mainline alignment northward and changing the interchange from a half clover leaf
to a compressed diamond
The modified preliminary design and original preliminary design from the Draft EIS are
shown in Figure 7
Changes in Impacts These design modifications would minimize impacts to operations
at the Carolina Speedway The pit area which they stated is important to the operation
of their events would be maintained
Table 3 shows the change in impacts to streams resulting from compressing the NC 274
(Union Road) interchange Table 4 shows the change in impacts to wetlands and ponds
Total reduction in stream impacts as a result of compressing the NC 274 (Union Road)
interchange would be approximately 1 425 linear feet Impacts to wetlands and ponds
would increase slightly (0 02 acre for wetlands and 0 18 acre for ponds)
13

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4o — Information Packet
February 16 2010
Table 3 Change in Stream Impacts Due to Compressed Interchange at
NC 274 (Union Road)
Stream
Number
Perennial (P)/
Intermittent (1)
Impacts in Draft EIS
for DSA 9
Preliminary Design
(linear ft)
Impacts for Preferred
Alternative Refined
Preliminary Design
(linear ft)
237
P
1 257
1 114
238
P
75
70
239
1
249
249
242
P
2 178
0
243
1
0
512
246
1
114
0
247
P
437
0
270
P
610
578
271
P
133
1 105
W234
Total Impacts
5 053
3 628
W235
Total Intermittent
363
761
W236
Total Perennial
4 690
2 867
P37
Total Change
1 425
034
Intermittent
Change
+398 (increase)
0
Perennial Changel
1 823
Table 4 Changes in Wetland and Pond Impacts Due to Compressed
Interchange at NC 274 (Union Road)
14
Impacts in Draft EIS
Impacts for Preferred
Wetland (W)
Cowardin
for DSA 9
Alternative Refined
or Pond (P)
Classification
Preliminary Design
Preliminary Design
Number
(acres)
(acres)
W217
PFO1
002
002
W218
PEM1
005
005
W219
PEM1
001
001
W234
PFO1
0
0 03
W235
PEM1 /PFO1
<0 01
0
W236
PFO1
001
0
P37
PUBHh
034
034
P38
PUBHh
0
052
P40
PUBHh
041
007
Total Wetland
009
0 11
Impacts
Total Change
+002
Total Pond
075
093
Impacts
Total Change
+0 18
14

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
h Relocate Tucker Road Connection to Canal Road
Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS The preliminary design for DSA 9 (Preferred
Alternative) shown on Figure 2 9cc in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public
Hearing Maps (dated April 24 2009) includes a reconnection of Tucker Road south of
the interchange since the proposed project would eliminate Tucker Road s connection
with Southpoint Road This reconnection would extend south to Canal Road which
connects to Southpoint Road (NC 273) This connection crosses perennial Stream S300
(approximately 193 linear feet of impact)
Comments Received No specific comments were received regarding this access road
The access road was realigned to avoid a population of Schweinitz s sunflower
discovered during the November 2009 Schwemitz s sunflower surveys of service roads
(see Section 7 of this document)
Refined Preliminary Design for the Preferred Alternative The extension connecting
Tucker Road to Canal Road was moved north to be adjacent to the south side of the
electric power easement The new connection would still need to cross Stream S300
The modified preliminary design and original preliminary design from the Draft EIS are
shown in Figure 8
Changes in Impacts These design modifications change the impacts to perennial
Stream S300 from 193 linear feet to 230 linear feet an increase in 37 linear feet
It should be noted that this segment of Stream S300 had not been delineated when the
Draft EIS was published because it was outside the original study corridor boundaries
Existing GIS data was used to estimate impacts to this stream As part of the service
road study conducted for the Preferred Alternative (see Section 4 of this document) this
stream segment was delineated and the new delineation was used to estimate impacts
from the Tucker Road connection
i Realign Mainline to Avoid Optimist Club Recreation Fields and
Provide Access to Southpoint Road (NC 273)
Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS The preliminary design for DSA 9 (Preferred
Alternative) shown on Figure 2 9cc in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public
Hearing Maps (dated April 24 2009) encroaches on the Belmont Optimist Club s newly
expanded football field and the back edge of their baseball field
The Draft EIS preliminary engineering designs were created prior to the improvements
the Optimist Club made to the site The site is privately owned by Duke Energy and is
under a long term lease to the Belmont Optimist Club (therefore it is not a Section 4(f)
15

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 15 2010
resource) No access road was shown to the recreational fields in the Draft EIS
preliminary designs
Comments Received Project engineers met on site with the Belmont Optimist Club
President Mr Kelvin Reagan on May 11 2009 to review the Draft EIS preliminary
designs in relation to the recreational fields and to provide information about the use of
the fields After this meeting, it was determined that minor design modifications could
be made that would avoid the newly expanded recreation fields A letter and figure
showing the modified preliminary design for the Recommended Alternative mainline
was sent to the Optimist Club President on June 18 2009 demonstrating it was possible
to avoid their fields
Refined PreliminaryDesign for the Preferred Alternative The Recommended
Alternative was selected as the Preferred Alternative and the revised design described
above has been incorporated into the Preferred Alternative The revised design shifts
the mainline slightly northward Access to the Optimist Club recreational fields and
other landlocked properties in the southeast quadrant of the project s interchange with
Southpomt Road (NC 273) would be provided by constructing a new access roadway
from Southpoint Road north and east to Boat Club Road Figure 8 shows the Draft EIS
DSA 9 preliminary design and Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design in this
area
Changes in Impacts The Belmont Optimist Fields are avoided as well as two electric
transmission towers Table 5 shows the change in impacts to streams resulting from
adding the access road and realigning the mainline to avoid the Optimist Club Fields
Only stream impacts have changed Total reduction in stream impacts would be
approximately 175 linear feet
Table 5 Change in Stream Impacts Due to Refined Design of Mainline
Near Belmont Optimist Club Recreation Fields
Stream
Number
Perennial (P)/
Intermittent (1)
Impacts in Draft EIS
for DSA 9
Preliminary Design
(linear ft)
Impacts for Preferred
Alternative Refined
Preliminary Design
(linear ft)
297
P
917
652
300
1
1 399
1 405
304
P
484
568
Total Impacts
2 800
2 625
Total Intermittent
1399
1405
Total Perennial
1 401
1 220
Total Change
175
Intermittent
Change
+6 (increase)
Perennial Change
181
16

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a —Information Packet
February 16 2010
Reconfigure the NC 273 ( Southpomt Road) Interchange to Avoid
Historic Boundaries of Mt Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery
Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS The preliminary design for DSA 9 (Preferred
Alternative) shown on Figure 2 9cc in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public
Hearing Maps (dated April 24 2009) includes a loop and ramp in the northwest
quadrant of the NC 273 (Southpomt Road) interchange As noted in the Draft EIS
Section 3 2 61 this quadrant would require approximately 21 acres of land from the
south and east sides of the parcels currently owned by Mt Pleasant Baptist Church for
the Mt Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery
Public Comments Received A petition was received with 109 signatures which
opposed DSAs that would impact the Mt Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery (DSAs 4 9
22 27 58 68 76 and 81)
Refined Preliminar Design for the Preferred Alternative During the intensive
archaeological surveys conducted for the Preferred Alternative by Coastal Carolina
Research gravesites with headstones were discovered south of the parcels currently
owned by Mt Pleasant Baptist Church Research indicated that the cemetery once
extended south of the current property boundaries into the area where the gravesites
were found
The refined prelirrunary design will reconfigure this quadrant of the interchange from a
loop and ramp to only a ramp This modification would avoid the historic boundary of
the cemetery where the gravesites are located Land would still be required from the
undeveloped wooded parcel adjacent to NC 273 but no gravesites were found in this
location The design is not completed yet for this refinement
Changes in Impacts Impacts Although this design refinement is not yet completed it is not
anticipated that this change will result in changes to jurisdictional resource impacts i�Q�(, 7
k Relocate Boat Club Road Connection North of Mainline to Southpomt
Road (NC 273)
Prelimma�Design in the Draft EIS the Draft EIS The preliminary design for DSA 9 (Preferred
Alternative) shown on Figure 2 9cc in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public
Hearing Maps (dated April 24 2009) includes a reconnection of Boat Club Road north of
the interchange This reconnection would extend north to Mary Tate Road Mary Tate
Road connects to Henry Chapel Road which connects to Southpomt Road (NC 273)
This connection crosses perennial Stream S305 impacting approximately 135 linear feet
of the stream
Comments Received Comments were received from two citizens on Drennan Horne
Drive (a short road off of Boat Club Road) requesting a shorter route back to Southpomt
Road (NC 273)
17

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 15 2010
Refined Preliminary Design for the Preferred Alternative The extension connecting
Boat Club Road to Henry Chapel Road was replaced with a shorter reconnection directly
to Southpomt Road (NC 273) The current proposed connection would move the
existing intersection of Boat Club Road and Southpomt Road approximately 500 feet
north to a location outside the interchanges access control area resulting in a shorter
service road and shorter route to Southpomt Road compared to the connection
originally shown
Figure 8 shows the Draft EIS DSA 9 preliminary design and Preferred Alternative
refined prehrrunary design in this area
Changes in Impacts These design modifications eliminate 135 linear feet of impacts to
perennial Stream 5305
1 Reconfigure the 1485 Interchange and Dixie River Road Interchange
Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS The preliminary design for DSA 9 (Preferred
Alternative) shown on Figures 2 9ee g& hh and 11 in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor
Design Public Hearing Maps (dated April 24 2009) includes a half clover leaf
interchange at Dixie River Road and a system interchange at 1485 The system
interchange at 1485 maintains route continuity between the Gaston East West
Connector and 1485 with traffic desiring to continue from eastbound Gaston East West
Connector to West Boulevard exiting to the right This interchange is near the
Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CDIA)
Comments Received The NCTA has been coordinating with CDIA and the Charlotte
Department of Transportation (CDOT) throughout the project development process to
share information on projects in the area At the time the Draft EIS preliminary
engineering designs were created the CDIA was planning /constructing a third parallel
runway (opened in January 2010) and had plans for an Intermodal Facility on the south
side of the airport between the second and third runways CDIA and CDOT also had
plans for realigning West Boulevard south of the airport and for paving the currently
graded but unpaved ramps at the 1485 interchange with Garrison Road With the
exception of the runway project project schedules were uncertain at the time the Draft
EIS preliminary engineering designs were completed
The CDIA and CDOT projects have continued to progress along with the Gaston East
West Connector Coordination meetings with NCTA NCDOT CDIA and CDOT were
held on November 4 2009 January 6 2010 and January 19 2010 The CDIA stated that
the Intermodal Facility is scheduled to be opened in late 2011 Access to 1485 is
important for the operations at the facility and the Garrison Road interchange ramp
paving project and West Boulevard extension project will be completed prior to opening
the Intermodal Facility In order to preserve the investments made in these
m

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a— Information Packet
February 16 2010
improvements CDIA and CDOT requested that NCTA reevaluate the I 485 /Gaston East
West Connector interchange The reevaluation should focus on determining the
feasibility of incorporated the existing Garrison Road bridge over 1485 and a planned
bridge over a Norfolk Southern (NS) railroad spur (part of the Intermodal Facility) and
of maintaining full access to /from 1485 and West Boulevard during construction of the
Gaston East West Connector
Refined Preliminary Design for the Preferred Alternative Based on the coordination
with CDIA NCDOT and CDOT described above the Gaston East West Connector
Preferred Alternative interchange at 1485 was modified The modifications at this
interchange also required modifications to the Dixie River Road interchange and the
Garrison Road extensions
Figure 9 shows the Draft EIS DSA 9 preliminary design and Preferred Alternative
refined preliminary design in this area
Changes in Impacts The interchange modifications would result in a direct impact to
the Dixie Community Center located on Garrison Road lust west of 1485 The original
preliminary designs would avoid taking the center The NCTA intends to conduct
additional coordination with this community and to develop a mitigation plan for this
relocation
The revised preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative would avoid taking land
from Berewick District Park The original preliminary design would require land from
the north and northeastern edges of the park Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation
Department agreed that the required land would not impact the functions of the park
(Draft EIS Section 5 4 31) The FHWA anticipated making a finding of de minimus
impact to this park in the Final EIS (Draft EIS Section 5 4 3 1) However it would be a
benefit to be able to avoid direct impacts to park property
Tables 6 and 7 show the change in impacts to streams and wetlands respectively
resulting from the modifications to the mterchanges at 1485 and Dixie River Road Total
reduction in stream impacts would be approximately 6118 linear feet Total reduction
in wetland impacts would be approximately 0 34 acre
19

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
Table 6 Change in Stream Impacts Due to Refined Design of 1 485
Interchange
Stream
Number
Perennial (P)/
Intermittent (1)
Impacts in Draft EIS
for DSA 9
Preliminary Design
(linear ft)
Impacts for Preferred
Alternative Refined
Preliminary Design
(linear ft)
5312
1
52
26
S312A
P
973
742
S314A
1
226
0
S314A
P
969
0
S315A
1
176
0
5318
1
464
466
S318A
1
131
131
S318B
1
0
90
S321
P
1 610
830
5323
P
99
25
5326
1
239
336
S330
P
74
9
5332
P
317
58
5335
P
180
19
S338A
1
0
34
S338B
1
68
0
5339
1
735
238
S339A
1
63
0
5340
1
1 082
13
5340
P
1 244
0
S340A
1
359
182
5341
1
282
0
Total Impacts
9 291
3 173
Total Intermittent
3 825
1 490
Total Perennial
5 466
1 683
Total Change
6 118
Intermittent
Change
2 335
Perennial Change
3 783
20

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 15 2010
Table 7 Changes in Wetland and Pond Impacts Refined Design of 1 485
Interchange
Wetland (W)
or Pond (P)
Number
Cowardin
Classification
Impacts in Draft EIS
for DSA 9
Preliminary Design
(acres)
Impacts for Preferred
Alternative Refined
Preliminary Design
(acres)
W317
Palustrine
037
037
W320
Palustrine
001
0
W321
Palustrine
002
002
W323
Palustrine
002
002
W324
Palustrine
002
002
W325
Palustrine
003
002
W329
Palustrine
042
0
W332
Palustrine
0
010
W333
Palustrine
002
002
W333a
Palustrine
001
0
W334
Palustrine
002
003
P37
PUBHh
006
006
Total Wetland
I
Impacts
0 94
0 60
Total Change
034
Total Pond
Impacts
0 06
006
Total Change
00
4 Service Road Study
A Draft Gaston East West Connector Service Road Study (PBS &J February 2010) was
prepared for the Preferred Alternative The objective of this study was to identify
parcels whose access would be eliminated by the Preferred Alternative (i e landlocked
parcels) refined preliminary design and to evaluate the feasibility and reasonableness of
providing service roads to restore access to those parcels The recommendations in the
Service Road Study are preliminary Final decisions on service roads will be made during
final design
a Service Road Evaluation Methodology and Design Assumptions
The refined preliminary designs for the Preferred Alternative were reviewed to identify
those parcels that would likely have their access elirrunated with implementation of the
project Once the impacted parcels were identified they were then evaluated to estimate
the cost of constructing a service road to the property from existing roadways near the
project This cost was then compared to an estimate of the total acquisition cost based
on tax values for the isolated or remnant portions of the parcel Several factors were
21

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
used in formulating approximate costs to provide service roads These factors include
the cost associated with constructing the service road any major hydraulic structures
that may be necessary environmental rrutgation costs and additional right of way
necessary to develop the service road
In addition design criteria were developed to guide the design of each service road
These criteria were developed to serve the land locked parcel with safe and cost
effective access The intended use and expected traffic volumes including vehicle mix
were major considerations in developing the following design criteria
Design Speed The design speed selected for the service roads is 30 miles per hour
(mph) with an anticipated posted speed of 25 mph These facilities are intended to be
low volume roadways providing access only to local mainly residential properties
Some of the service roads would provide access to only one parcel but others could
potentially serve two or more adjacent parcels Design speed adjustments were made
for unusual circumstances and unique property use situations as necessary
Typical Section The service road typical section consists of two 11 foot lanes with 2
foot unpaved shoulders on each side Depending on the profile roadside ditches would
be provided to convey drainage away from the roadway facility and reduce future
maintenance costs
Alignment and Grade The alignments of the individual service roads vary based on
property configurations Each situation was unique and treated as such to develop the
best design solution The goal was to minimize the loss of adjacent properties by
paralleling the control of access portion of the facility as closely as possible Where
following the control of access was not an option or would result in an unusually long
service road the alignment typically paralleled or straddled the property line to balance
the loss of property between the adjacent parcels The grades of the proposed service
roads were dictated by existing topography to reduce earthwork
Hydraulic /Environmental Feature Crossings Some of the service roads cross drainage
features as well as streams and wetland areas In these cases efforts to avoid impacting
these resources were made by adjusting the horizontal alignments and /or reducing
footprint impacts to these environmental features to the extent possible by tightly
controlling the profile and steepening side slopes as necessary through these areas
b Proposed Service Roads
Based on the analysis conducted as described above fifteen preliminary service roads
are recommended These are listed in Table 8 and shown in Figure 10a m It should be
noted that the layout and design of these service roads may be modified during final
22

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
design based on potential cost and material savings or to accommodate modifications
requested by individual land locked property owners
Table 8 Recommended Preliminary Service Roads
Service
Nearest
Number
Stream
Wetland
Pond
Road
Corridor
Location
of Parcels
Label
Label
Label
Label
Segment
1
Served
Impacts
Impacts
Impacts
(linear ft)23
(a cres)2
(a cres)2
1
H2A
Parcels north of 1 85
16
S28(1) 33
W34 — 0 07
2
H3
Parcels northwest of
9
S46 (P ) 125
P5 — 0 33
US 29/74 Interchange
Parcels southeast of US 29/74
3
H3
11
S52 (P) 83
Interchange
Parcels southwest of
W47 — 0 04
4
H3
US 29/74 interchange
6
W48 — 0 01
Connect Parcel to Stablegate
5
H3
Dr south of Penny Park Dr
1
6
J4a
Connect New Haven Dr to
20
Crowders Creek Rd
7
JX4
Reconnect Dorchester Rd
3
8
JX4
Connect parcel to Scott Dr
1
9
Jlf
Reconnect Crawford Rd to
11
5235 (P)
NC 274 (Union Rd)
Connect parcel to
10
K1A
Rufus Ratchford Rd
1
11
K3A
Reconnect Suzanne Dr to
12
NC 279 (South New Hope Rd)
Reconnect Teakwood Dr to
12
K3A
NC 279 (South New Hope Rd)
10
Reconnect Tucker Rd to
NC 273 (Southpoint Rd)
13
K3A
Northwest of NC 273
17
Interchange
Connect parcels southwest of
14
K3C
Dixie River Rd interchange to
1
Dixie River Rd
Connect parcels on Horton Rd
15
K3C
to Garrison Rd southwest of
8
1 485 interchange
1 Parcels are highlighted on Figure 10a m
2 Impacts to streams wetlands and ponds calculated using a 25 foot buffer around the proposed slope stakes
3 P Perennial Stream I Interm ttent Stream
r�po� P
U, ,,n- r,WX& 1L ,
Impacts to wetlands streams and ponds were avoided wherever possible in the design
of the prelimmary service roads However five preliminary service roads would impact
jurisdictional resources as noted in Table 8 These service roads are discussed in more
detail below
Service Road 1 This service road shown on Figure 10a would provide access to
residential and commercial parcels along Shannon Bradley Road north of 185 The
23

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
service road would connect the parcels to Delta Drive which ties into NC 274 (Bessemer
City Road) The service road was located so that it would be a sufficient distance from
the Delta Drive/NC 274 intersection and also to avoid electric transnussion towers
located in an easement that runs south of and parallel to Delta Drive
Service Road 2 This service road shown on Figure 10b would provide access to
residential and commercial parcels in the northwest quadrant of the project s
interchange with US 29/74 Two commercial parcels in this quadrant cannot be
reconnected to US 29/74 without crossing perennial stream S46 Existing driveways and
parking areas for these two parcels also make it more reasonable to connect them in the
area that would impact pond P5
Service Road 3 This service road shown on Figure 10c would provide access to the
commercial parcel in the southeast quadrant of the project s interchange with US 29/74
This parcel includes an automotive junkyard and acquisition should be avoided if
possible In Section 4 6 2 of the Draft EIS this site is identified as having low to medium
potential for geoenvironmental impacts In order to provide access to several buildings
on the site perennial stream S52 is crossed Coordination with the property owner
during final design may result in modification to this service road
Service Road 4 This service road shown on Figure 10b would provide access to a
commercial parcel in the southwest quadrant of the project s interchange with US 29/74
This parcel includes an automotive junkyard and acquisition should be avoided if
possible In Section 4 6 2 of the Draft EIS this site was identified as having low to
medium potential for geoenvironmental impacts In order to provide access to the site
at an existing driveway location two wetlands may be impacted More refined designs
prepared during final design may result in modification to this service road and further
avoidance and nunirruzaton of impacts to these wetlands
Service Road 9 This service road shown on Figure 10h would provide access to
homes remaining on Crawford Road north of the project s interchange with NC 274
(Union Road) The crossing of perennial stream S235 is unavoidable in order to connect
Crawford Road back to NC 274 (Union Road) in a location that is a reasonable distance
from both the NC 274 (Union Road) intersection with Union New Hope Road and the
NC 274 (Union Road) interchange ramps
24

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a —Information Packet
February 15 2010
5 Jurisdictional Resources Impact Summary
The refined designs for the Preferred Alternative result 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 9
Attachment B includes tables listing impacts by individual resource
Impacts Grouped by Hydrologic Unit The impacts listed in Table 9 and Attachment B
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 Diver drainage in Gaston County)
In HU 03050102 perennial stream impacts (including service roads) would be reduced
from 3 149 linear feet to 2 642 if (a change of 5071f) and intermittent stream impacts
would stay approximately the same (previously 1 399 if compared to currently 1405 If)
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 if (a change of 9 354 If) and mternuttent stream impacts
would be reduced from 8 7021f to 5 9781f (a change of 2 7241f) as a result of the
Preferred Alternative design refinements
25

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
Table 9 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
26
ange' in I act to Resource Compared to Draft EIS DSA. 9 Preliminary Design*
Catawba
Design Refinement
River
Pe enmal
Intermittent
Total Streams
Wetlands
Ponds
Buffers
St ams
Streams
(linear ft)
(acres)
(acres)
(li ear ft)
(linear ft)
(sq ft)
Zone 1
Reduce Median Width
980
174
1 154
032
0
Zone 2
1 356
Modify Matthews Acres Access
0
0
0
0
0
0
Modify Forbes Rd Grade
0
71
0
71
0
0
Separation
Compress Robinson Rd
0
170
0
170
0
006
Interchange
Eliminate Bud Wilson Rd
0
3 109
646
3 755
0
0
Interchange
Compress NC 274 (Union Rd)
0
1 823
+398
1 425
+002
+018
Interchange
Relocate Tucker Road
0
+37
0
+37
0
0
Connection
Realign Mainline At Optimist
0
181
+6
175
0
0
Club Fields
Reconfigure NC 273
(Southpoint Rd) interchange to
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avoid Cemetery
Relocation Boat Club Rd North
0
135
0
135
0
0
Connection
Reconfigure 1 485 Interchange
0
3 783
2 335
6 118
034
0
Zone 1
57S8
TOTAL CHANGE
10 215
2 751
12 966
064
+012
Zone 2
1 356
Zone 1
Impacts Reported in Draft EIS
10 400
38 894
10 101
48 995
750
41
for DSA 9
Zone 2
10 215
Zone 1
Impacts for Preferred
3 642
28 679
7 350
36 029
690
42
Alternative (no service roads)
Zone 2
8 859
Add Service Roads
0
+354
+33
+387
+012
+03
Zone 1
TOTAL IMPACTS FOR
3642-
29 033
7 383
36 416
702
4S
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Zone 2
8 859
* Impacts calculated based on slope stake limits plus a 25 foot buffer
26

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
Impacts to 303(d) Listed Streams According to the currently approved Final 2006
303(d) list of impaired water bodies (NCDWQ Web site
http Hh2o enr state nc us /tindl /documents /303d Report pd f) Abernethy Creek
Crowders Creek and Catawba Creek are listed as having unpaired biological integrity
These streams are all located in Gaston County The 303(d) designation also applies to
unnamed tributaries of these streams if the tributaries do not carry their own specific
designation Table 10 lists the estimated impacts to 303(d) listed streams
Table 10 Impacts to 303(d) Listed Streams
303(d) Listed Stream'
Perennial
Intermittent
Total
Stream Impact (linear feet)
Draft EIS DSA 9
Preliminary Design
Preferred Alternative
Refined Preliminary
Design
Preliminary Service
Roads
Abernethy Creek —
Unnamed Tributaries
Perennial
0
0
0
Intermittent
0 1
0
0
Tota 1
0 1
0
0
Crowders Creek—
Unnamed Tributaries
Perennial
18 729
14 464
208
Intermittent
2 508
1 816
0
Total
21 237
16 280
208
Catawba Creek— Unnamed
Tributaries
Perennial
5 280
3 789
146
Intermittent
1077
1394
0
Total
6 357
5 183
146
Totals for 303(d) Listed
Streams
Perennial
24 009
18 253
354
Intermittent
3 585
3 210
0
Total
27 594
21 463
354
The main stem of Crowders Creek and Catawba Creek would be bridged Abernethy Creek is not crossed The impacts in this
table are only those to 303(d) listed streams The proposed project also impacts other streams
6 Conceptual Mitigation Plan
A Conceptual Mitigation Plan will be included in the Final EIS The plan will include
discussion of the anticipated use of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and
potential on site mitigation opportunities
a On -Site Mitigation Survey
An on site mitigation survey was conducted for the Preferred Alternative to document
potential wetland and /or stream restoration sites in the immediate vicinity of the
Preferred Alternative corridor Results of the survey are documented in the Gaston East
West Connector On Site Mitigation Field Review (PBS &J January 2010) W C,(xc®
27

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 15 2010
Potential wetland and stream restoration sites were first identified through analysis of
uv..
GIS mapping and 2008 aerial photography The following general guidelines were used
to identify potential wetland and stream restoration sites for further field evaluation 0
Stream Restoration Sites
• Stream projects must have a minimum of 50 feet conservation easement on both
sides of the stream for the entire project length One side of the stream must be
free of utilities Streams with a utility on one side must have a 50 foot easement
in addition to any existing utility easement
• The stream segment proposed for restoration must be greater than or equal to
2 000 linear feet in length however exceptions may be made under certain
circumstances Stream restoration opportunities that are less than 2 000 linear
feet but involve relocation of the existing stream as a result of the proposed
project also were considered
• The stream segment should be a 1 t 2 d or 3 d order stream
• Proposed stream segments must be perennial with no more than 20 percent of
the proposed restoration or enhancement being intermittent
Wetland Restoration Sites
• Hydric soils must be present (might be relic)
• Original wetland hydrology is altered by ditching the drains filling or other
means caused by human influences
• Proposed wetland restoration area lacks appropriate wetland vegetation
• Wetland site should be a mmimum of 2 acres (unless associated with a stream
project)
• Wetland site is not entirely comprised of invasive vegetation species
Based on the GIS analysis 20 tax parcels totaling approximately 1 050 acres were
identified for field evaluation
As a result of the field evaluation, three sites were identified that contain potential
opportunities for stream and /or wetland mitigation Additional analysis and feasibility
studies are necessary to deterrnme if rrutigation activities would be practical and cost
effective These sites are described below
Site 1— 2900 Linwood Road, Gastonia, NC (Linwood Springs Golf Course) This
potential stream restoration site is shown in Figure 11 and consists of three tax parcels
totaling 173 5 acres The site is an existing golf course that contains approximately 5 600
linear feet of Crowders Creek Crowders Creek is a 303d listed stream The reach of
28

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a— Information Packet
February 16 2010
Crowders Creek on this site is deeply entrenched and characterized by steep and
eroding banks limited sinuosity and a poor riparian buffer Mowing occurs along both
stream banks with only a limited stream buffer consisting of shrubs and grasses
Discussions with the land owner (David Dockery) indicated an interest in making
improvements to Crowders Creek provided mitigation activities would not interfere - n
with the continued operation of the golf course Coordination with adjacent land 0
owners may be necessary along a portion of the creek that flows adjacent to the parcel
boundary
Site 2 - 6338 Union Road, Gastonia, NC This potential stream restoration site is shown
in Figure 12 It consists of four tax parcels totaling 77 6 acres The three southernmost
parcels comprise the Harrison Family Dairy Farm an historic site determined eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Draft EIS Section 5 2) Current land
use consists of pasture for cattle The site contain approximately 1 700 linear feet of Mill
Creek a perennial stream that flows south to a confluence with Lake Wylie This reach
of Mill Creek is characterized by steep banks limited sinuosity and a lirruted 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 that transitions to a linear
wetland before reaching a confluence with Mill Creek The unnamed tributary loses
channel definition after approximately 200 linear feet then transitions to wetland due to
the impacts of cattle The linear wetland extends to Mill Creek for a distance of
approximately 650 feet but lacks the characteristics to be classified as a stream
In addition to coordination with the land owners (Charles Harrison and Harriett
Armstrong) coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office would be required
Ms Armstrong spoke at the June 23 2009 Public Hearing in opposition to the project
Site 3 - 362 Crowders Creek Road, Gastonia, NC This potential wetland restoration
site is shown in Figure 13 It consists of a 216 acres parcel adjacent to Crowders Creek
Approximately 6 0 acres of the site consists of jurisdictional wetlands delineated during
the 2007 natural resources surveys performed for the Draft EIS (Wetland W103) When
the wetland was delineated in February 2007 the site was forested and characterized as
a high quality system The majority of the site has since been logged with the exception
of a narrow riparian buffer along the eastern property boundary Slash deposits remain
from the timber harvest and ditches were observed
Mitigation potential consists of wetland enhancement opportunities for approximately 6
acres
29

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
b Ecosystem Enhancement Program
NCTA intends to work with the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
to provide nutgatron whether on site or as part of the EEP program
7 Protected Plant Species Survev Update
Background Information Federally protected plant species listed for Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties are the Schweinitz s sunflower (Helianthus Schweinitzu) (Gaston
and Mecklenburg) Michaux s sumac (Rhus michauxu) (Mecklenburg) and smooth
coneflower (Echinacia laevigata) (Mecklenburg)
Previous surveys for these plants within the DSA corridors are summarized in Sections
6 5 3 and 6 5 41 of the Draft EIS No populations of Michaux s sumac were found The
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) record for Michaux s sumac in
Mecklenburg County is historic with locations documented more than one mule from
the DSAs No populations of smooth coneflower were identified NCNHP does not
document any known populations of smooth coneflower within one mule of the DSAs
One population of Schweimtz s sunflower was found within the DSAs in Gaston
County and NCNHP documented a known population about 4 900 feet south of the
DSAs in Gaston County
New Surveys Some of the service roads proposed for the Preferred Alternative and
some of the y lines shown in the Draft EIS are located outside the original study
corridor boundaries for the DSAs These areas outside the original DSA study corridor
boundaries had not been previously surveyed for jurisdictional resources (Section 5
above) or protected plant species'
Surveys were conducted November 13 17 and 18 2009 for Schweimtz s sunflower in
the portions of the Preferred Alternative preliminary engineering design not previously
surveyed (Memo to NCTA — Endangered Species Surveys for Gaston East West Connector
PBS &J February 8 2010) Surveys for Michaux s sumac and smooth coneflower were
not possible in mid November due to lack of vegetative indicators for these species
' Surveys performed for the Carolina heelsplitter applied to a broader geographic area and do not need to be
resurveyed The Biological Conclusion is No Effect No freshwater mussels were found in the Tributary
Abernathy Creek Oates Creek Bessemer Branch Tributaries Crowders Creek Crowders Creek McGill
Branch Mill Creek Tributaries Catawba Creek Catawba Creek Tributaries South Fork Catawba River
Tributaries Catawba River and Beaverdam Creek It is apparent that the Carolina heelsplitter does not occur
in the project vicinity Protected Species Survey Report for the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) for the
Proposed Gaston East West Connector (NCDOT October 24 2005)
30

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
However based on the information summarized in the Draft EIS the likelihood of
occurrences of Michaux s sumac and smooth coneflower is low
Prior to the November 2009 surveys a known population of Schweinitz s sunflower was
visited in order to determine if there were enough vegetation indicators available to
perform surveys and to become familiar with the species morphology phenology and
habitat associations Approximately five individuals were observed at the site Field
surveys were conducted in potential suitable habitat by an intensive plant by plant
search using overlapping transects
Survey Results Three populations of Schweimtz s sunflower were located within the
newly surveyed areas as described below Additional details including maps showing
the locations of the three populations are included in the February 8 2010 memo
Population A This population consists of approximately 200 individual plants along
Canal Road (which is off of Southpoint Road (NC 273)) lust south of its intersection with
Tanglewood Cove Road An additional individual was identified nearby off of Tucker
Road on the north side of a powerlme easement
Population B This population is located along Union Road (NC 274) adjacent to the
south side of Jaybird Lane This population has less than 10 individuals
Population C This population is located along Forbes Road west of the intersection with
Verde View Road There are fewer than five individuals in this population
Impact Evaluation None of the newly identified Schweimtz s sunflower populations
would be directly impacted by the refined preliminary designs for the Preferred
Alternative
Indirect impacts also are unlikely to Populations A and C Population A is located near
a proposed reconnection of Tucker Road that would restore access to Southpoint Road
(NC 273) severed by the proposed project New or improved access is not being
provided by the project
Population C is located near where Forbes Road would be grade separated with the
proposed project New or improved access to this area is not being provided by the
project
Population B is located south of the proposed Union Road (NC 274) interchange beyond
the access control point on a 0 63 acre undeveloped parcel fronting Union Road It is
possible that unproved access to this area via the new interchange could influence
development surrounding the interchange and indirect impacts could occur
31

Gaston East West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Point 4a — Information Packet
February 16 2010
8 Conclusion
lunsdictional Resource Impacts The proposed design refinements to the Preferred
Alternative described in Section 3 would reduce impacts to wetlands and streams and
slightly increase impacts to ponds compared to the Draft EIS DSA 9 preliminary design
The proposed preliminary service roads would add impacts as summarized below
Change in Impacts Due to Change in Impacts From
Resource Design Refinements Preliminary Service Roads
Perennial Streams 10 215 if +3541f
Intermittent Streams 2 751 if +33 If
Total Streams 12 9661f +3871f
Wetlands 0 64 acre +012
Ponds +0 12 acre +0 33 acre
Conceptual Mitigation Plan NCTA intends to work with the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to provide nutigatron whether on site or as
part of the EEP program Three sites were identified for potential on site mltrgahon
opportunities These sites will require additional evaluation as part of the permitting
process
Protected Plant Species Additional surveys for Schweirutz s sunflower conducted for
the previously unsurveyed service road areas identified three populations of
Schweinitz s sunflower Direct impacts to all known populations are avoided with the
Preferred Alternative refined preliminary engineering design
32

E �
v
� �
m
Z
� N

Right-of Way 280 ft Minimum
Limit
r N" C, o it
Turnpike Authority
GASTON EAST WEST CONNECTOR
NOT TO SCALE III
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
TYPICAL SECTION
STIP PROJECT NO U 3321
Ga t d klenb rgCo nti Figure 2

¢
E
m
m
U
F
NORT C RO 144
Turnpike Authority
GASTON EAST WEST CONNECTOR
STIP PROJECT NO U 3321 )
Gaston County and Mecklenburg County
MATTHEWS ACRES
ACCESS & US 29 / 74
INTERCHANGE
Figure 3

Gaston County and Mecklenburg County
Figure

a
E
a
U
N')RT CC O INA
Turnpike Authority
GASTON EAST WEST CONNECTOR
STIP PROJECT NO U 3321
Gaston County and Mecklenburg County
NC 274 (UNION ROAD)
INTERCHANGE
Figure 7
W� Al t
0111 4 11A1207
Y. 2
>
f
74
N')RT CC O INA
Turnpike Authority
GASTON EAST WEST CONNECTOR
STIP PROJECT NO U 3321
Gaston County and Mecklenburg County
NC 274 (UNION ROAD)
INTERCHANGE
Figure 7
S
N')RT CC O INA
Turnpike Authority
GASTON EAST WEST CONNECTOR
STIP PROJECT NO U 3321
Gaston County and Mecklenburg County
NC 274 (UNION ROAD)
INTERCHANGE
Figure 7

E
ro
m
U
h
�J306 i A Al I �4af
{
'.�
t ` ; 360 cryv e F �
1" Berewwlck Regional Par
p k 1 °2y
S330
NOTE PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT To CHANGE
N RT CSFC IN
Turnpike Authority
RK
GASTON EAST WEST CONNECTOR
STIP PROJECT NO U 3321 _ _ A--j
Gaston County and Mecklenburg County
DIXIE RIVER ROAD &
1 485 INTERCHANGES
Figure 9

-.1- 1- Ilya...

Service
mmRoad 2
j
29 774)MEW97"'
Service
r
E
Road 4
PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE
,g
WNOTE
r
i
NOPT c ao INA
Turnpike Authority
0 1875 375
Feet
PRELIMINARY
GASTON EAST WEST CONNECTOR
So rce Gasto County a d
SERVICE ROADS
STIP PROJECT NO U 3321
y
M cklenb rgCc ntyGIS
Gaston County and Mecklenburg County
_
_ — \
Map p ted Ja ary 2010
Figure 10 b

9

Y
Q
E
N
r
7P,CCS
t
NOTE PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE
gervice
Road
11 111T C ?RO INA
Turnpike Authority 0 1875 375
Q Feet PRELIMINARY
GASTON EAST WEST CONNECTOR 10, source SERVICE ROADS
STI P PROJECT NO U 3321 _ 1 Maskl bug C u tty pis
Gaston County and Mecklenburg County — -•-° f Map p nt d Ja ary 2010 o Figure 10 g

! A s
74 N t�
aO . •'
AA
� x

Service
Road
M.
IS
Service
Road
M.

—.1-1 —.11 ly anu rvicunicnuwy vuuniy •�.-• .+ • ..•

A
p
9
6
Data Sources
2008 Aerial Photo (NAIP)
Parcel (Gaston County)
Roads (NC OneMap)
Streams (NHD)
ROW and Corridor (DEIS April 2009)
9
I.
olot turnpike Authority FEET MITIGATION POTENTIAL
700 0 7009` SITE 1 2900 LINWOOD RD
GASTON EAST WEST CONNECTOR SCALE t IN 700 Fr
STIP PROJECT NO U 3321
Gaston and Mecklenb rg Counties Figure 11

Fk

it
R
s
3
P
Legend
Site 3
DSA 9 ROW Boundary
DSA 9 Corridor Boundary
Data Sources
2008 Aerial Photo (NAIP)
Parcel (Gaston County)
Roads (NC OneMap)
Streams (NHD)
ROW and Corridor (DEIS April 2009)
io Turnpike Authority
GASTON EAST WEST CONNECTOR
STIP PROJECT NO U 3321
Gaston and Mecklenburg Count es
FEET MITIGATION POTENTIAL SITE 3
300 0 300 362 CROWDERS CREEK RD
SCALE 1 IN 300 FT In
Figure 13

ATTACHMENT A
Concurrence Point 3 Form

Section 404 /NEPA Mercer 'Team Meeting A;yreement
Concurrence Point No 3 —
Identification of the Least Environmentally Damaging
t Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
Piolect No /TIP No /Name /Descilptton
Federal Pioject Numbei STP 1213(6) State Project Number 8 2812501
TIP Numbei U 3321
Descimption Gaston East West Connectoi in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
Least Environmentally Damaging Pi acticable Alternative
Following review of the Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) presented in the Draft
Fnvironmental Impact Statement the Section 404/NFPA Meiger Pioject Feam has
concluded that USA 9 is the Least 1 nvironmentally Damaging Practicable Alteinative
contingent upon the Metrohna Region successfully demonstrating an quality conformity
in compliance with the Clean Air Act DSA 9 was identified as the LEDPA based on
documentation from the Turnpike Fnvironmental Agency Cooidination (FLAC) meeting
held on October 13, 2009 (see att -ached minutes) Additional discussions mere held at
TEAC meetings on August 12 2009 and Septembtr 8 2009
Che Project Team concurred on this date of i 13 09 that DSA 9 is the Least
Environmentally Damaging and Practicable Alternative foi the Gaston Last West
Connector project
USACE
7�f MfNO IIq"10 A
USEPA
X
NCDWQ
G
N
FHW
MUN

SECTION 404/NEPA MERGER 01 ISSUE BRIEF Special Circumstances for Non
concurrence
Date August 31 2009
Submitted by Christopher A Milrtscher REM CHMM
Merger Team Representative
USEPA Raleigh Office
THRU Heinz J Mueller Chief
NEPA Program Office
USEPA Region 4
Thomas C Welborn Chief
Wetlands Coastal Protection Branch
USEPA Region 4
CC Kathy Matthews EPA Wetlands Section
To Jennifer Harris P E Project Manager
NCDOT/North Carolina Turnpike Authority
Merger 01 Team Representatives
1 Project Name and Brief Description Gaston East West Connector From I 85 to I
485 Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties 22 mile new location toll facility (U 3321)
2 Last Concurrence Point CP 2A Bridging and Alignment Review
Date of Concurrence 10/7/08
3 Proposal and Position NCTA proposes to select DSA 9 as the LEDPA Generally
EPA does not believe that the LEDPA is ripe for concurrence until the Metrolma area
air quality ozone issues are resolved first and avoidance and minimization can be
demonstrated for Section 303(d) listed impaired waters
4 Reasons for Non concurrence The Merger 01 Roles and Responsibilities (Revised
5/2/06 — Page 6) describe the decision making philosophy under the NEPA/Section 404
Merger 01 Process Concurrence is not legally defined but could be understood as being
potentially pre decisional on the part of EPA employees The requirements of the
Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 must also be considered The NEPA/Section 404
Merger 01 Process does not address compliance or requirements under the Clean Air Act
Non concurrence is described as I do not concur as the information is not adequate for
this stage and /or concurrence could violate the laws and regulations of my program and
agency Please refer to EPA s letter dated July 17 2009 on the review of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and our environmental objections concerning the
compliance with the Clean Air Act NAAQS and Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1)

Guidelines It is our understanding that the Federal Highway Administration cannot issue
a Record of Decision (ROD) until such time as the SIP and transportation conformity
issues are resolved
5 Potentially Violated Laws/Regulations Sections 172 and 182 of the Clean Air Act
and Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act
6 Alternative Course of Action EPA Merger team representatives will continue to
work with NCTA FHWA and other Merger team agencies on environmental issues
associated with the proposed project However EPA representatives cannot provide
written concurrence until such time as the Clean Air Act compliance issues are resolved
and Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines on the avoidance and minimization of jurisdictional
wetland and stream impacts can be demonstrated

ATTACHMENT B
Impacts to Jurisdictional
Resources

ATTACHMENTS TABLET
POND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP P 1 ct U 3321 G t E t W t C ct
F bm ry 16 2010 TEAC M t g
P d mp is I I t d d ght fw ylmt p1 b ff f25f tfr m h I p tak I
S ce f P d Att b t d DSA 9 Imp is N t ra/ R ce T h / R p rt f th G t E t W t C t E rth T h I F bru ry 2008
f d 0 g Imp t PBS&J
E rth Tech
P d ID
C and
S gm It
G I L t Al g
C and
T t IA
W th C and
C w d
CI f t
D ft EIS DSA 9
PmI m ry
D g
Pmf rred
Alt m t R f d
D g
Pmf d
Alt m t S ry
R d
4
H2A
S th IS If t D
1 31
PEM1 /PUBHh
5
H2A
S th fB If I
156
PUBHNPEM1Fh
033
10
1 H3
L nw d Sp g G If
C
082
PUB3Hh
11
J4
L w d Sp g G If
C rs
093
PUB3Hh
12
J4
L w d Sp g G If
C rs
123
PUB3Hh
123
123
17
J4
N rth IN wH D
026
PU83H
18
J4
Adl t t C owd C k
Rd
007
PUB3Hh
003
003
24
J2d
E t fR b Rd
143
PUBHh
1 15
1 09
25
J2d
E t fR b Rd
1 93
PUBHh
26
J2d
E t fR b Rd
027
PUBHh
27
J2d
W t fB d WI Rd
072
PUBHh
28
J2d
E t fB d WI Rd
090
PUBHh
29
J2d
E t fB dVVII Rd
017
PUBHh
30
J2d
E t fB dWI Rd
068
PUBHh
068
068
31
JX4
E d f D h t D
008
PUBHh
32
JX4
E t f P t k Rd
030
PUBHh
37
11
E t fWl F mRd
047
PUBHh
034
034
38
J1f
E t fU Rd NC 274
054
PUBHh
052
40
K1A
E t fR fu R t hf dRd
041
PUBHh
041
007
41
K1A
W t fR f R t hf d Rd
065
PUBHh
44
K3A
W t IS th NewH p
Rd ISR 279
242
PUBHh
45
K3B
E t IS thN wH p Rd
SR 279
100
PUBHh
46
K3B
E t IS lhN wH p Rd
SR 279
104
PUBHh
52
K3B
E t fB tCl bRd
020
PUBHh
020
020
56
K3C
W t f 1 485
106
PUBHh
57
K3C
W t f 1 485
006
PUBHh
006
006
58
K3C
E t f1485
1 063
PUBHh
T t I
I
1
41
42
03
Th I Id m I dYl
P d mb t t b ca ly th w th th P f rr d Alt m b St dy C and I t d
G t E tW tC ctr P d t

ATTACHMENTB TABLE2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP P t t U 3321 Gat E t W t Co t r
F b ary 16 2010 TEAC Meet ng
Wetlands br dg d s a res It of C c rrence Po nt 2 are noted
Wetland mpact Ic lated ba d on r ght of w y I m is pl s a b ffer f 25 feet fr m a h slope stake I ne
Sou for Attr b to d Draft EIS DSA 9 Impacts Natural Resources Tech cal Report for the Gaston East West Con ector Earth Te h Inc February 2008
and th T r p ke En i nm tal Agency C d nat on Me ti g h Id Apr 18 2008
Source for Preferred Alt nat a Impacts PBSBJ
W tl d N mb r•
Corr d S gm t
Wetla d
S z
(a )
Cow rd n
Cl s fcat o
DWQ R t g
W tl d Q at ty
R t ng
D aft EIS DSA 9
P l m ry Des gn
P f rr d
Alt r t
R fned D g
P f rred
Alt t e S ry
Road
25
1-12A
003
PEM1B
37
Low
26
1-12A
001
PEM1F
20
Low
27
H2A
0011
PSS3C
31
L w
28
H2A
001
PEM1B
27
Low
29
H2A
014
PSS1C
40
Low
010
010
30
H2A
003
PSS1 /3C
44
Low
003
003
31
1-12A
070
PEM1Fh
39
Low
32
H2A
002
PSS18
31
L w
33
H2A
010
PFO1C
47
Medium
34
H2A
1 891
PFO1C
73
H gh
007
35
H2A
117
PEM1 /SS1C
78
H h
117
117
36
H2A
006
PF01 B
40
Low
006
006
37
1-12A
006
PFO1B
21
Low
37A
1-12A
001
PFO1B
23
Low
38
1-12A
004
PEM1B
21
L w
39
1-12A
038
PF01C
47
Medi m
40
1-12A
005
PFOtA
26
Low
41
1-12A
002
PFO16
31
Low
42
1-12A
0 002
PF01 B
32
L w
43
1-12A
001
NA
NA
NA
001
001
44
1-12A
037
PF01 G
42
Low
005
005
45
H2A
004
PFO1Ah
19
L w
46
H3
057
PSS1Bds
69
H gh
47
H3
011
PFO1C
16
Low
004
48
H3
009
PF01 C
59
Mad m
001
49
H3
016
PFO1C
34
L w
50
H3
014
PFO1C
28
Low
51
H3
207
PFO1C
70
H gh
1 35
125
52
H3
0231
PFO1Cd
55
M d m
53
H3
020
PFO1C
22
L w
54
H3
048
PFO1C
22
L w
58
H3
006
PEM1C
36
L w
001
001
59
H3
038
PSS1Fh
46
M d m
001
001
77
H3
002
PF01 C
39
L w
78
H3
022
PEM1 /SS1F
36
L w
1 004
003
79
H3
0021
PEM1 1SS1Fd
39
L w
001
80
H3
001
PFO1G
36
Low
81
H3
003
PF01 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
Low
001
001
85
H3
0351
PF01 C
63
H gh
86
H3
003
PEM1B
27
Low
003
001
87
H3
014
PFOtB
19
Low
001
001
95 ( solated)
H3
002
PFO1 /4C
23
Low
99
J4
219
PFO1C /PUSH
34
Low
046
0381
100
J4
026
PFO1 /EM1C
24
Low
004
002
103
J4a
670
PFO1C
83
H gh
106
J4a
0471
PF01 C/B
39
Low
001
Gaston E t West Conn t r Wetlands 1

ATTACHMENT E! TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP P I t U 3321 G t E t W t C t
Feb uary 16 2010 TEAC Meet ng
Wetland br dged as a r s It f Con r nc P 12 n ted
W tland mpacts calc I t d b sed on r ght of w y I m t pi a b ffer of 25 fe t f om h I p stake I ne
S f Alt b t nd D ft EIS DSA 9 Impacts Natu a/ Resources Te h / Report for the Gaston East West Co ector E rth T h I F bru ry 2008
and th T r pike En ironmental Ag n y C rd at on Meet ng held April 8 2008
Sour e f P eferr d Alta n ti Imp ct PBS&J
W Ila d N mb r'
C rr d r S gment
W tla d
S z
( )
C ward
Cl f f
DWQ Rat g
W ti d Q I ty
R t g
D aft EIS DSA 9
Pr I m ry D s g
Pr f ed
Alta nat
R f d D g
P fe d
Alt at a Sery
R ad
107
J4a
044
PFO /SS1Fh
48
Med um
001
001
108
J4a
004
PEM1C
16
Low
004
004
109
J4a
0031
PFO1 /EM1C
28
Low
003
003
142
J2d
152
NA
NA
147
J2d
002
PFO1
36
Mad m
148
J2d
020
PEM1
41
Mad m
149
J2d
017
PFO1
33
Low
150
J2d
040
PFO1
39
M d m
151
J2d
0031
PFO1
35
Mad um
152
J2d
032
PFO1
39
Med m
153
JX4
005
PFO1
37
M d m
154
JX4
042
PFO1F
43
Med m
155
JX4
013
PFO1
9
Low
157
JX4
039
PFO1
30
L w
158
JX4
0011
PFO1
8
L w
159
JX4
063
PEM1
25
Low
160
JX4
005
PFOI
13
Low
161
JX4
017
PFO1
33
Low
001
001
162
JX4
010
PFO1
21
Low
163
JX4
003
NA
NA
164
JX4
002
PFO1
4
Low
002
002
165
JX4
035
PFO1
35
Med m
166
JX4
005
PFO1
7
Low
005
00,
167
JX4
006
PFO1
19
L w
168
JX4
017
NA
NA
169
JX4
021
PF01
42
M d m
176
JX4
0 004
PFO1
0
L w
177
JX4
001
PFO1
13
L w
178
JX4
001
PF01
13
L w
179
JX4
022
PFO1
55
Med m
180
JX4
003
PFO1
21
Low
181
JX4
00041
PFO1
13
L w
182
JX4
001
PFO1
2
L w
183
JX4
005
PFO1
23
L w
184
JX4
003
PFO1
8
Low
187
JX4
056
PFO1A
53
M d m
188
JX4
054
PFO1A
43
Med in
017
016
189
it
5511
PSS1
51
M di m
036
033
190
J1
009
PFO1
13
L w
191
it
020
PFO1
13
L w
192
118
099
PFO1
59
M d m
214
J1e
015
PFO1
58
M dum
214
J1e
PFO1
58
Med m
215
it
0021
PFO1
4
L w
216
it
001
PFO1
4
Low
217
it
002
PF01
8
L w
002
002
218
Jte
005
PEM1
17
1 Low
0051
005L
219
J1e
001
PEM1
15
Low
001
001
220
Jte
003
PEM1
17
Low
Gaston Ea t W t Con t Wetlands 2

ATTACHMENT B TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP P I t U 3321 Gasto E t IN t C t
Febr ary 16 2010 TEAC Meet ng
Wetlands b dg d as a res It of Conic rrence P nt 2a a e of d
Wetla d mpacts calculated based on r ght f w y I m t p1 b ff r f 25 f if m ach I p tak I
S u ces for Attr b t d D ft EIS DSA 9 Impacts Natural Reso rces Techn cal Report for the Gaston East West Connector Earth Tech Inc February 2008
d the T rnp ke E m tat Ag ncy Coord net on Meet ng held Apr 18 2008
So rces for Prefe red Alternat ve Impacts PBSBJ
W [la d N mb f
C rr do S gm t
IN tl e d
(a )
Cow d
CI f t
DWQ R t g
W tl d Q I ty
R t g
D ft EIS DSA 9
Pr I m ry D 9
Alt f t d
R f ed Des g
Alt Patf Sdry
Road
221
11
012
PFOt
18
L w
222
Jte
002
PFO1
18
Low
223
Jte
009
PEM1
17
L w
224
J1e
002
PFO1
12
L w
225
11
006
PFO1
18
L w
226
Jif
006
PFO1
23
Low
227
Jif
018
PFO1
23
Low
228
Jif
0 121
PEM1
16
Low
229
Jif
022
PEM1
16
L w
230
Jif
006
PEM1
28
L w
231
J1f
010
PEM1
23
L w
232
Jif
120
PEM1
21
Low
233
Jif
007
PSS1
0
L w
234
Jif
0031
PFO1
11
Low
003
235
Jif
005
PEMt /PFO1
61
Mad m
001
235A
K1A
007
PFO1
17
L w
236
K1A
001
PFO1
0
Low
001
237
K1A
056
PFO1
37
M d m
238
K1A
013
PFO1
35
Mad m
239
K1A
0021
PEM1
18
Low
239A
K1A
005
PEM1
28
Low
240
K1A
009
PFO1
22
Low
241
K1A
1 34
PF01
39
M d m
089
083
242
K1A
015
PSS1
13
L w
243
K3A
010
PFO1
20
Low
244
K3A
006
PFO1
25
L w
245
K3A
059
PFO1Ah
77
H gh
246
K3A
008
PFOtAh
77
H h
003
008
247
K3A
126
PFOtAh
77
H gh
248
K3A
476
PFO1Ah
93
High
066
066
249
K3A
018
PFO1Ah
61
Mad um
252 l t d
K3A
029
PEM1 /PSS1 /PFO1
9
L w
252A
K3A
001
PFO1
7
Low
253 1 t d
K3A
035
PEM1
26
Low
035
035
254
K3A
011
PEM1
15
Low
001
255
K3A
001
PEM1
15
L w
001
001
256
K3A
002
PEM1
15
L w
278
K3B
018
Pal str ne
23
L w
283A
K3A
001
Palu t ne
70
H gh
284
K3A
047
Pal str ne
70
H gh
285
K3A
005
Pal tr n
44
Mad m
004
286
K3A
0331
Palustrine
68
H gh
287
K3A
002
Pal trine
42
Mad m
288
K3A
0 004
Palustr ne
46
Mad m
001
001
289
K38
023
Palustrine
43
Med m
023
023
290
K38
005
Pal str ne
64
M d m
291 (sotat d)
K3B
007
Pal str ne
9
Low
292
K38
001
Pal str ne
32
L w
293
K3B
0021
Pal tr ne
23
L w
Gaston Ea t W st Connector Weil nds 3

ATTACHMENT B TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP P I t U 3321 G ton East We t Con ect r
F b ry 16 2010 TEAC Meet ng
W tl d b dg d It fCo a t2 r n t d
Wetland mpacts calculated based on right of way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
S roes for Att b t d D ft EIS DSA 9 Imp t Natural Resou ces Tech cal Report for the Gasto East West Connector Earth Tech Inc F bru ry 2008
and the T rnp ke En ronment I Ag y C d at M ting held Ap d 8 2008
So roes for Pr f d Alt t Imp ct PBSU
W tl d N mber'
Corr d S gm t
W tl d
S
r
C ward n
Clas £cat o
DWQ Rat g
W tla d Q al ty
Rat ng
D ft EIS DSA 9
P l m ry D g
Prefe d
Alt r at
Refn d D g
P f d
Alt t S ry
R d
293A
K3B
000
Pal str
23
Low
294
K36
018
Palustrne
38
M d m
295
K36
001
Pal str ne
22
L w
296
K3C
001
Pal str
NA
NA
297
K3C
030
Pal str ne
58
Med m
317
K3C
478
P I tr
62
Med m
037
037
317A
K3C
003
Pal str ne
31
L w
318
K3C
009
Pal str ne
24
L w
319
K3C
0301
Pal st n
23
Low
320
K3C
001
P I t
23
L w
001
321
K3C
002
Pal str ne
14
L w
002
002
323
K3C
002
Pal tr
17
Low
002
002
324
K3C
002
Pal t
22
Low
002
002
325
K3C
003
Pal str ne
15
Low
003
002
326
K3C
0081
P I tr
41
Med m
327
K3C
012
Pal t n
60
Med m
328
K3C
003
Pal str ne
53
M d um
329
K3C
056
P I t
43
Med m
042
329A
K3C
000
Pal str ne
27
L w
330
K3C
005
Palustrne
19
L w
331
K3C
005
P I t
17
Low
331A
K3C
001
Palustnne
38
Med m
332
K3C
010
Pal str ne
38
Med m
010
333
K3C
005
Pal str ne
17
L w
002
002
333A
K3C
001
Pal tr n
16
L w
001
334
K3C
014
P I t
42
Med m
002
003
335
K3C
043
Pal t
33
Med m
336
K3C
007
Pal str ne
11
L w
337
K3C
023
P I str n
68
H gh
337A
K3C
003
Pal str ne
27
L w
3378
K3C
00211
Pal str ne
1 35
Med m
TOTAL
I
1
1 75
69
01
W tl d mb t t b ca ly th wth th P f d Alt m t C d I t d
1 Wth t t d g th C t wb C k b dg th mp t t W tl d 248 w Id b 1 50
Gaston East West Connector Wetlands 4

ATTACHMENT B TABLE J
STRE P CTS FOR PRE ER E AL NE REF ED PRELI AR
STIP P f ct UJ72 G st E st W
F bm ry 16 2010 TEAC M t g
St m b dg f by - I y It f C P 2 t d
St m mp I db d gh -w ylmt PI H f25f f m h I p t k
S f St m Alt b t d DEIS DSA 9 1 p is N t 1.1 R rc T I R p fo h G E W C E h T h I F b ry 200E
d h T p k E ro m t g y C M g h Id Ap Is 2008
S f P f d Alt m b mp M PBS &J
S m 1

TTAC ENT
A M ACTS OR PR E AL ERNA NE R ON
ct 3321 G E W C
ru ry 6 20 TEAC 9
S m b dg d f y. f 2
St m p I I d d ght f� yImt p1 ff f25f tf m h i p t k I
S f S m A d DEIS DSA 9 Imp cts N m R rc T h I R p f h G t E W C E T h I F b ry 200E
d th T p k E m t l Ag y C d t M g h Id Ap 18 2008
S f P f d AI m t Imp PBS&J
S m 2

ATTA ENT TAB E
STREA IMPACT R PREFERRE LTERNATNE REF NED PRELIM NARY DESIGN
PP 1 ct U-3 G E W C
F bm ry 16 2010 TEAC M 9
S —b dg d hydre I y It fC re P t2 d
S m mp a 1 I d d "t-w y l m t PI b If 125 fe f m I p to
S f S tt b dDEIS OSA 9 Imp N I ralR 7 T IR po f h G E W C E IthT h I F b ry200E
d h T p k E m Ag y C M g h Id Ap 1 2008
S f P f d Alt m Imp M PBSBJ
m D
gm
S m N me
y I g
mtte
p re
B k
(; yy
A g
d< (ft)
D p
( t
S
CI
W
p ty
O
NCDWQ
9
6
ft EIS 0
m ry
D g R
Pref. d
Aft a<
D g
P f 0
at
S ry w
267
K3
UT C wb C k
3050 01
1 —,tt t
23
34
2
d. d q I
C
235
20
39
268
K3A
UT C wb C
305010
P
2
2 0
2 5
d q bl
C
3525 52
270
K1A
UT C wb C
3050 0
P 1
8
69_
8
d 9 1 bbl k
C
50
610
578
271
K1A
UT C t wb C k
305010
P
8
3b
d q bbl
C
65
133
1 05
2 2 1
K1A
UT C wb C k
305010 1
P 1
12
25
1
d q bbl
C
3575
2 3
K1A
UT C wb C
3050 0
P
2
2
d b
C
355
27
K1A
UT C b C k
305010
P
3
5-35
d re l b1
C
38 5
363
35
275
K A
UT t C wb C k
3050 0
P 1
1 5 3
2 If
l d
C
35
302
302
276
K1A
UT C t wb C
305010
P
23
3 7
4
d bl
C
42
277
K
UT l C wb C k
3050 0
P 1
1 2
2
3
d
C
075
278
K A
UT C C k
3050101
1 t
25
2
tl ra I
C
225
279
K3A
UT C wb C k
305010
1 -M
1
2
3
f d
C
215
260
K3A
UT C wb C
3050 0
1 mat
1
5
re I
C
225
8 3
8 3
K3A
UT t C wb C k
3050
1
1 2
2
3
d k
C
3
K3A
UT S F C wb R
3050 02
1 -C t
1
2
S a d m
WS V
2 275
K3A
T S F C wb R
3050102
P
4
27
.6
Stt bbl
WS V
31
p2A
K3A
UT S F C wb R
3050 02
1 -ft
1
1 2
S d
WS V
N
K3A
UT S F C wb R
3050102
1 mat
1
2 3
4
S It d
WS V
23
U S F C wb R
3050 02
P 1
6
5
4
S d
WS V
A
K3A
UT S F C wb R
3050 02
1 —M
2
1
Stt d
WS V
2275
293A
K3A
UT S F C tawb R
3050102
P I
1
23
3
S I S gm
WS V
NA
295
K3
UT I S F C w R
3050 02
P I
21
35
4
Stt d q I bb
WS
32 3225
296
K3
UT S F C wb R
3050102
P 1
6
2
S I S d. 1
WS
3
578
557
297
K3A
UT t S F C wb R
3050 02
P I
1-4
35
14
S It bb b Id
WS V
315
9 7
652
298
K3A
UT t S F C wb R
3050102
1 -dt t
1 2
3
S t d 2 I
WS V
19
298
K3A
UT S F C t wb R
3050 02
P I
NA
N
A
A
299
K3
UT S F C wb R
3050 02
I -C
1 2
3
2
Stt S d a l
WS
265
299
K3A
UT S F C wb R
3050 02
P 1
23
34
4
Stt S d 2 I
WS-V
NA
K3A
UT t S F C wb R
3050 02
rmat
3
3
1 3
S I tl I b
WS V
235
399
1 OS
K3A
UT S F C wb R
3050 02
P 1
3
35
1 3
Stt 1 1
WS V
33
193
230
K3A
UT S F C tawb R
3050102
1 -ftt l
6
3
1 3
S t S d.
WS V
21
K3A
UT t S F C t wb R
3050 02
1 mat
4
3-6
1 2
Stt S d m I
WS V
23
K3A
UT S F C w R
3050 02
P 1
34
7
1-6
S It d a I
WS V
285
3
UTt S F C tawb R
3050 02
1 —a
5
3
1 3
S d
WS
95
R3B
K3
UT S F C tawb R
3050 02
-dt
5
3
1 3
S It S g. I
WS V
95
U wb
3050 0
1
2-4
3
2
Stt d
WS V B
195
K36
UTt C t wb R
3050101
1 mtt t
1
2
S 1
WS V B
23
K3B
UT t C wb R
3050 01
P 1
2 3
2-0
1 3
S I d I
w B
K3B
UT C R
3050 01
1 mat
3
S
WS
22
260
260
K30
U
3050 0
3
35
4
S q I
WS V
3
484
568
305
K38
UT C wb R
3050 0
P
3�
4G
3 0
Sit d q b1
WS-V B
315
135
3 0
K3
U C wb R
3050 0
mdt
2
3
2
SR d q 1
WS-V 8
A
3 1
K3C
UT t C wb R
3050 0
I t mdt
1
12
S d 1
WS B
1
311
K3C
UT C t b R
3050101
P 1
1 4
3 10
2 2
9
b Id
WS B
35 39
3 A
K3C
UT C R
wb
3050 01
I mt t
1
2
2
S It d
WS V B
235
3 2
K3C
UT C R
305010
1 t mat
1
23
5 d
WS V B
235
52
26
3 2A
K3C
8 d m C k
3050 0
P I
3 5
8 10
2 2
S It bbl b Id
C
50
73
742
3 28
K3C
U t C b R
3050 0
1 mtt
1
2
2
Stt d
C
9
3 3A
K3C
UT B d m C
3050 01
1 -at
1 3
3-5
2
S It S d Q 1
C
19
31 A
K3C
UT t B m C k
3050 01
1 -dt t
1 3
4-5
3
S d d g I bbl
C
2175
225
314A
K3C
UT t 8 d m C k
3050101
P 1
1 2
24
1 2
S I tl 9 1 bbl
C
1 33
969
315A
K3C
UT t B d m C k
3050 01
1 rtnat t
1 2
24
1 2
S It d g I bbl
C
NA
176
3 6A
K3C
UT B d m C k
305010
1 t "tt
1 2
3
12
S I d q I
C
235
317
K3C
UT B d m C k
3050 01
1 m
1
23
2
Stt d I
C
221
318
K3C
UT t B d m C k
3050101
1 mat t
3
25
3
S It cobbI b
C
25
464
66
3 8
K3C
UT B d m C k
305010
P I
NA
NA
NA
NA
C
NA
318A
K3C
UT t B d m C k
3050101
P 1
2-0
35
2L
S It S d. I
C
2575
318A
K3C
UT B d m C k
3050 0
1 t m tt t
1 3
1 2
1
S It S g 1
2
2 5
131
3
3188
K3C
UT t 8 d m C k
3050101
1 -ftt t
1 3
35
1 3
S S tl. I
C
211
90
3 SC
K3C
UT t B d m C k
3050101
1 mat t
2-4
2
3
S It d
C
25
3 80
K3C
UT B d m C k
3050 0
1 2
1 2
2
S tt d q I
C
9
3 9
3C
UT B d m C k
1 3050 01
mat
3
25
S I d
C
9
321
K3C Lq Lk S m
3050101
1 m
24
5-8
1 2
Stt . b b Id
C
33
32 K3C L Lk S m
3050101 P 1
3
3
-4 Stt d re
C
245
610 830
323 K3C UT B d —1 k 3050101 P I
1
1 2
1 S I d
C 195 99 25
St m 3

ATTACHMENT B TAB E 3
S REAM MPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERN E REF NED REL M NARY DES ON
STIP P I ct 3 G E t W C
F b0 ry e 2010 TEAC M g
S m b dg d hyd2 I y b fC P 2 d
S mmp I I d b gh -f - ym p1 bB f25 t m p tak
S f S m tt b d DEIS DSA 9 mp N ral R m T h a/ R po fo h G E W C E T F ry 200F
d h T p E m I Ag y C d M g h Id Ap 18 2008
S f P f d AI m Imp PBS&
O E K O EC
is 48
IS mlmp ct 3
m tte 8 mImp et 10 0 7350
S mb b b ly th t m wt P f I C d t d
sse ch se so a cy 200
g sc ry 20
St m 4
®
UTt L g L k
St
O E K O EC
is 48
IS mlmp ct 3
m tte 8 mImp et 10 0 7350
S mb b b ly th t m wt P f I C d t d
sse ch se so a cy 200
g sc ry 20
St m 4

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 Parkway A GIS based
project search was 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 corridor three of these are in Catawba 01 and two are in Catawba 02
Most of this 177 square mile area is in Gaston County although a portion is also in
Mecklenburg County Much of Gastonia as well as portions of Kings Mountain Bessemer
City Belmont and Charlotte are contained in this area
GIS Methods & Results
The following steps were performed via GIS
I Mecklenburg and Gaston County parcel data from 2009 were intersected with
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 with at least 1 000 ft of stream length were selected
4 Land use /cover (2001 NLCD) was reclassified and converted to a vector dataset in
order to determine buffer type for restoration potential Two land use /cover
classes were determined those with restoration project potential and without
potential Those land use /cover categories used as restoration potential were -
21 Developed Open Space of less than 20% impervious cover
22 Developed Low Density where impervious cover is 20 49%
71 Grassland /Herbaceous not subject to intensive m- inagement but cin be
used for grazing
81 Pasture /Hay
82 Cultivated Crops
5 The parcel dataset determined in step 3 was 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 with parcel ownership
information and 2005 aerial photographs Possibility for upstream and
downstream extension of the project was examined The following criteria were
used to determine whether a project was feasible
a Stream length > 1500 ft

b <4 landowners
c Drainage area <10 square miles
d Streams with little or no buffer on at least one side
e Riparian corridor without severe constraints such as large buildings large
roads and large power 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
within 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
I t t 1 T t t
i It C i i U"tutc tc�tutattutt PtuJcA-w ttt utc vatuctt i ataway erica
Total
Project length
Project length
Number
project
w /in 1 mi of
w/m 2 mi of
of
length
Parkway corridor
Parkway corridor
14 -digit HU
Major stream
projects
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
Catawba 01
03050101170040
Catawba R
0
0
03050101180010
Crowders Cr
9
31500
6900
10900
03050101180020
Catawba Cr
5
14000
7000
9500
Catawba 02
S Fk Catawba R
03050102060020 East
S Fk Catawba R
03050102070030 West
TOTAL
1 2000 2000 2000
1 1800
16 49300 15900 22400
0
w

' d
N
u
C/)
tic
C7
0
a�
u
a�
0
m
0
a
7
by
w
1 `
r t
cv y J
1
0
E
o
O U
E E
5 0 cv
fC i o a 3 3 0
m m
CCU 2 �
M

Table 2 Potential projects that did not meet minimal criteria
Project #
Limiting factors for rejected sites
Forested
buffer
>4
landowners
<1500 ft
Drainage
area >10
sq mi
Physical constraints
19
x
pond
27
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
x
golf course manicured to stream
131
x
golf course manicured to stream
132
x
136
x
137
x
138
x
corridor constrained by buildings
141
x
powerline
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
apartment complex corridor constrained
202
x

Table 2 Potential projects that did not meet minimal criteria (cont)
Project #
Li iting factors for re ected sites
Forested
buffer
>4
landowners
<1500 ft
Drainage
area >10
sq mi
Physical 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
in line pond
300
x
in line pond
312
quarry

v
Results of Field Reconnaissance
Each of the 16 projects identified through the GIS screen were visited in March 2010
Due to limited time available landowners were not contacted to determine interest in a
project Projects on private land were not thoroughly evaluated feasibility was determined
based on what could be seen from public right of ways
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 were 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 Parkway area post field
reconnaissance
14 -digit HU
Mayor stream
Number
of
projects
Total
project
length
(ft)
Tier 1 (ft)
(good project
possibility)
Tier 2 (ft)
(projects have
considerable
constraints)
Catawba 01
03050101170040
Catawba R
0
0
03050101180010
Crowders Cr
8
28500
23400
5100
03050101180020
Catawba Cr
5
14000
7000
7000
Catawba 02
S Fk Catawba R
03050102060020
East
1
2000
2000
S Fk Cat -iwba R
03050102070030
West
0
0
TOTAL
14
44500
32400
12100
0

1 r
U
c
cd
cd
O
U
N
U
E
N
cd
cn
cn
cC
U
N
O
Cd
C
a�
O
a4
N
U
bD
w
J
U 1
JL fff a
� o o
N
CL
C7 �
C t0 m
o !i Uiu
O m t
CL Im
a
CV `� G1
N /
f3
N
�a r
tr't �1
(D N = o
� m
a m °
o`
LL 2 � a
rl-

cC
U
v
O
Gi.
w
O
O
a
C
N
N
LL
U
cz
cG
v ^I
a „
w
v
M
Ilt
C
cz
V
a.
c
�
cz
o
a
U
a
a
3
cn°
ca
CZ
7�
�-
�
O
.�
"O
�
O
�
O
E
C
r
�
w
Qd
c
LL
c
v
c
>✓
p
lu
p
v
v
cz
LO
�
cn
m
a
o
CZ
cn
T=
v
o
c
c
c
c
c
c
cz
c
p
3
L
cz
cz
"O
'G
v
..G
v
O
%.
�1
7
v
w
v
u
N
7
y
v
�.
w
C
A
u
v
F,
F..
v
""--
a.
V
v
s.
p
O
,�
C
ca
p
O
s,
C
O
ca
C
O
O
p
�
C
C
V
�
CA
U
w
,`.°
2
0
H
T
I
v
v
C
w
°
v
a
v
v
v
U
cn
Gp
3
r
3
v
°
v
O
CC
m
-o
on
o
o
-G
v
m
T
C
C
p
O
.�
v
u
r-+
`
v
O
O
O
O
00
O
O
O
O
Lr)
-
N
v-)
p
ct
oD
ct
O
II
4t
-�
U
U
o
o
s
M
V'1
0
�
it
a
}
M
Ilt

0
U
O
4+
O
s~
0
c�
C
a
73
ri
y
.0
cC
m
[ -A
t
M
M
Lr
�j
w
v
C5
C5
ao
v
G
cC
d�0
bA
G
.�
G
dq
G
c�6
U
c
o
O
m
O
R.
�
cEa
cz
1i1.
v
N
h
M
v
�n
cC
cc
L
clJ
L
4
v
ccz
E
CJ
7-+
d
v
N
c"I
bA
-0
u
M
Q+
V
(z
fl.
.�
O
c
v
o
o
cz
v
>
3
3
C
U
c°
CL
E
5
c
E
c"
5
U
-°o
cn
-o
tD
ao
_
E
Q.
G
G
3
o
o
sue.
�
°j
�.,
CZ
>
W
O
GO
w
�cG6
C
V
75
0
G
�
v
u
dO
o
3
c
o
u
oa
n
C
`°
o
°'
°
c
'
c
v
U
°°
c
z
c
s
°'
G
3
0
E
-�
�'-
a
v
y
cz
v
C7
>
3
U
°°
>
v
o
r
v
G
C
ct
E
O
°
c
c
v
-a
°
..
ca
E
an
c`c
c�
V
a
a3
o
v
❑
u
L
>
p
°
W
v
v
L
ro
�
v
3
cL
o
3
II
L
a1
CD
U°
E
U[
0>
a
E
m
a
°
o
3
G
cn
w-0
w
cn
F
G
�
cz
'cz'
c
G
o
G
G
ca
G
6
o
v
a
CZ
v
o
o
a
o
a
u
G
Q
O
U
o
G
Q
3
c
o
o
o
y
w
U
U
W
p
a
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
O
O
Ln
O
O
O
o
o
a°
C
O
N
M
N
M
N
M
O
O
II
tj
lam-
d,
M
O
O
F.
O
M
M
^'
^'
N
N
cn
N
II
s.
[ -A

CA&A C6 att4"
� 1
d� o. /Q�vX�
* 1100
A
A r Z*CC d
a,a&jab& uAze.A
lb
tae

0 NORTH CAROLINA
Turnpike Authority
Gaston E -W Connector
STIP No U -3321
AGENDA
March 16 2010 — 1 00 P M
NCDOT Highway Building — Board Room
0/1 (0�1 0
Meeting Purpose Verify that the projected minimized jurisdictional aquatic resource impacts associated
with this project are permit able and determine whether the typical programmatic EEP supplied
mitigation process is appropriate or whether a modified approach with an adjusted mitigation delivery
timeframe is required
Get clarification if there are special CWA requirements (404 guidelines or otherwise) in regards
to impacts to 303d listed streams that would affect permitting (verify whether they are
requirements preferences interpretations etc )
2 Articulate /quantify the updated projected aquatic impacts (303d listed stream impacts non 303d
listed stream impacts, main stem tributaries, perennial intermittent etc )
3 Verify that the minimized projected aquatic impacts are permit able (regardless of compensatory
mitigation strategies)
4 Describe the available / potentially available mitigation in the 8 digit huc all the way down to the
14 digit huc where the impacts are projected to occur including anticipated costs
5 Discuss the appropriateness of programmatic mitigation (with advanced procurement schedule),
versus project- specific mitigation (with a delayed procurement schedule) (This discussion must
include the timeframes and costs associated with either option as well as transportation project
schedule and risks involved )
6 Obtain written consensus /concurrence on a mitigation process (programmatic or project specific)
from all agencies represented (or schedule a follow up meeting with specific goal(s) )
NC EEP Meeting

r"
4
J
,I� ri 5 wz
4.
w
>���,N��,,�;�+,
�y5�4 4 bsgpr�4 rfl+y Al
At
C]
L
O
W
O
:D
D
(1)
Z:)
1
2:
U)
M
110
D
D
O
E
b2:
5'
z
L)
M
l0
I�
-p
U)
O
N
l0
00
(�
a-
�
O
fo
M
O
r-I
r-I
>
�
00
N
,-
N
0-
L
O
co
O
ro
,--i
N
N
O
O
co
O
m
O
O
O
D��
(u
00
N
O
fu
O
U)
00
u
fa
m
J
a--�
O
O
Ca
U��
.4..�
4-J
N—
°_'
U
U
34-J
a
9
U
U
�o
(aMoaN�®
�0MMoa7..
�UU
�=
Moo
(o
�UU
�
=00
�
Q
U)
oC
C]

rr
I
19090 NORTH ,Rs
Turnpike o
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC)
Meeting
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
Date September 8 2009
1 30 pm to 2 45 pm
NCTA Board Room
Project STIP U 3321 Gaston E W Connector — STP 1213(6)
Gaston E W Connector Spotlight
Attendees
George Hoops FHWA
Chris Militscher USEPA
Steve Lund USACE
Scott McLendon USACE
Marella Buncick USFWS (via phone)
Marla Chambers NCWRC
Polly Lespinasse NCDENR DWQ
Hank Graham GUAMPO
Bob Cook MUMPO (via phone)
Dewayne Sykes NCDOT RDU
Bill Barrett NCDOT NEU
BenJetta Johnson NCDOT TESSB (via phone)
Dan Grissom NCDOT Division 12
Steve DeWitt NCTA
Jennifer Harris NCTA
Reid Simons NCTA (via phone)
Jeff Dayton HNTB
Jill Gurak PBS &J
Carl Gibilaro PBS &J
Jens Geratz PBS &J
Scott Lane Louis Berger Group (via phone)
Presentation Materials (Posted on TEAC website)
• Agenda
• August 12 2009 Draft TEAC Meeting Minutes
• Gaston East West Connector Preferred Altemative Report — September 8 2009
Purpose
Discuss responses to comments received on the Draft EIS relative to selection of the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) and Preferred Alternative discuss scope of
work for Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Study
General Discussion
The following information was discussed at the meeting
Prior to the meeting Kathy Matthews with USEPA confirmed via a mail on September 4 2009 that the
output of the GWLF model is appropriate for 303(d) listed stream analysis in the water quality portion of
the Indirect and Cumulative Effects analysis
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09

7
Page 2 of 10
• Preferred Alternative Report — Jill Gurak of PBSU provided a brief overview of the responses
to the generalized comments received on the Gaston East West Connector Draft EIS In
accordance with discussions at the August 12 2009 TEAC meeting the complete responses are
included in the Preferred Alternative Report provided as a handout for the September 8 2009
TEAC meeting
o Purpose and Need
Comment (C) The Purpose and Need did not address traffic flow on surrounding
roads
Response (R) Improving the surrounding roads is not a specific purpose of the
project The Draft EIS adequately demonstrates that that improving 185 or other
area roadways cannot effectively meet the project purpose
C Draft EIS fails to show that an additional bridge over the Catawba River would
respond to any existing mobility need south of the existing badge
R The need to connect southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg
County is documented and supported by the local land use plans and long range
transportation plans and demonstrated by travel demand modeling
C The project purpose is too narrow and includes a specific design
R Several alternative concepts were considered Criteria used in the
alternatives evaluation to determine whether a particular alternative concept
would meet the project purpose are listed in Section 2 2 1 of the Draft EIS
• Reduce travel distance and /or travel times between representative
origin /destination points within southern Gaston County and between
southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County
• Provide a transportation facility that would operate at acceptable levels of
service (generally LOS D or better on the mainline) in the design year
2030 for travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg County
• Reduce congested vehicle miles traveled and /or congested vehicle hours
traveled in Gaston County compared to the No Build Alternative in 2030
This project purpose does not include any statements that the purpose of the
project is to construct a toll facility nor does it include any specifics related to the
project design
o Travel Times and Traffic Forecasts
C Travel times show little to no time savings in Gaston County
R Two types of travel times are reported in the Draft EIS One is the
origin /destination travel time estimate reported in the Draft EIS in Section C 2 of
Appendix C The other type is an average change in travel time and this is
discussed in Section 7 5 1 of the Draft EIS Both are different outputs from the
approved Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model that were used to forecast
traffic for the proposed project The travel time savings in 2030 realized by
constructing the proposed project compared to the No Build Alternative would be
substantial for many specific ongm /destination pairs and the project also would
have an effect on overall average travel times for trips throughout the project
study area These two types of travel time statistics are explained in more detail
in the Preferred Altemative Report
C Traffic Projections are higher than actual counts
R The approved model for the 13 county Metrolina Region were used to
develop traffic projections The version of the model used to perform the project
forecasts was calibrated based on known traffic volumes for the base year 2000
with the model providing forecasts for years 2010 2020 and 2030 Volumes for
the project s base year of 2006 were obtained by interpolating between the
calibrated base year 2000 and the forecast year 2010 Since the travel demand
model was calibrated to 2000 traffic volumes it can be expected that actual
counts for any given subsequent year could vary at some locations A
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09

Page 3 of 10
comparison of the model s 2006 results (Existing Conditions scenario) with actual
2006 traffic counts along 1 85 show that there is reasonably good correlation
between the modeled and measured values for most of the study area The
model assumptions were optimistic regarding growth and showed an increase of
approximately 7 — 11% over the actual 2006 traffic counts This does not
invalidate the traffic forecasts used to prepare the Gaston East West Connector
Draft EIS
Range of Alternatives
C Draft EIS did not address the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and
Mass Transit Alternative
R TSM and Mass Transit were considered in Section 2 2 of the Draft EIS
Environmental resource and regulatory agencies all signed and agreed upon
Concurrence Point 2 identifying the Detailed Study Alternatives to be considered
in the Draft EIS Additional details are included in the Preferred Alternative
Report Discussion of a proposed rail line being studied as part of House Bill
2431 will be included in the Final EIS This line is currently only active in uptown
Charlotte and proposes to activate four miles of line in Gaston County This line
would not address the issue of connectivity in southern Gaston County
C To study only toll alternatives in the EIS is not consistent with the CEQ
regulations
R CEQ states that the agencies shall rigorously explore and objectively
evaluate all reasonable alternatives and for alternatives which were eliminated
from detailed study briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated
Alternatives for this project were rigorously explored and evaluated as
documented in Section 2 of the Draft EIS
Air Quality
C Pnor to issuance of the Final EIS and ROD NCTA should demonstrate that the
new location project will be included in an approved SIP and will be in conformity
R It is acknowledged that if the Metrolina Region fails to demonstrate air quality
conformity and complete the LRTP update by May 3 2010 and the region enters
a Conformity Lapse then the FHWA cannot issue a Record of Decision The
NCTA study team also acknowledges that there is a difference in opinion
amongst federal agencies in the level of analysis needed to address MSATs and
greenhouse gases There is interim FHWA guidance for MSATs but no policy
exists regarding greenhouse gases The Final EIS will address MSATs and
greenhouse gases in accordance with applicable FHWA policies and guidance
current at the time of publication
o Water Quality and Jurisdictional Resources
Water quality concerns for purposes of the required Section 401 Water Quality
Certification will be addressed as part of a Quantitative ICE study A conceptual
mitigation plan will be prepared and described in the Final EIS In addition to any
onsite wetland and stream mitigation opportunities the intent is to use the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for wetland and stream mitigation required
for this project
o Indirect and Cumulative Effects and Wildlife
The Indirect and Cumulative Effects study will include an analysis of potential habitat
fragmentation and will also consider changes in land use and to farmlands
o Cultural Resources, Community Characteristics. and Farmland
C The Draft EIS missed the subject of histonc Stowesville Stowes Factory Gaither
Mill Stowesville Cemetery and the old Methodist church
R These sites were not missed Additional archaeological research is being
conducted by Coastal Carolina Research for these sites and related sites as part
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09

4
Page 4 of 10
of the Phase II archaeological surveys for the Preferred Alternative The results
will be reported in the Final EIS
C EJ populations would receive a higher percent of impact from the new facility in
terms of air quality and noise impacts but would not necessarily receive a
proportionate benefit from the project due to potential toll costs
R EJ is discussed in detail in Section 3 2 5 of the Draft EIS Disproportionate
high and adverse impacts to these populations are not projected
• Scope of the Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Analysis — Ms Harris asked
if anyone had comments about the proposed scope of the ICE study as discussed last month
The study will consider land use water quality habitat fragmentation and farmland (through
overall discussions of conversion of land types) For water quality modeling the GWLF model is
proposed
None of the attendees had comments concerns or issues with the current proposed scope for the
quantitative ICE study As mentioned earlier prior to the meeting Kathy Matthews with USEPA
confirmed via a mail on September 4 2009 that the output of the GWLF model is appropriate for
303(d) listed stream analysis in the water quality portion of the Indirect and Cumulative Effects
analysis
• Discussion Regarding Selecting LEDPA — NCTA asked the group if any additional information
is required prior to discussion and selection of a LEDPA and Preferred Alternative at the October
13 2009 TEAC meeting
Concerns related to the region s ability to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act were
discussed NCTA acknowledged that if the Clean Air Act issues within the region are not
addressed a Record of Decision cannot be issued for the project The air quality issues in the
region are the same for all Detailed Study Alternatives The USEPA stated they can participate in
discussion about the LEDPA but their legal staff has directed that they cannot sign a
concurrence form until the region s Clean Air Act issues have been resolved Mr Militscher
stated that the Merger process is a water based process a merger of NEPA and Section 404(b)
of the Clean Water Act The Merger guidelines do not address Clean Air Act requirements or
provide guidance on situations where a region is not in conformity
The USACE does not believe at this time that selection of the LEDPA is considered a final action
However they need to proceed carefully The NCDENR DWQ and NCWRC also stated they
need to check back with their agencies regarding signing a Concurrence Point 3 form They
noted they are part of the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources along with the
Division of Air Quality The agencies were reminded that issues regarding the Clean Air Act are
not exclusive to any one alternative but rather apply to all alternatives The USACE stated that
might make a difference in their decision The concurrence forms could be signed with conditions
indicating the Clean Air Act outstanding issues
The agencies were asked if any additional information is needed before identifying the LEDPA in
October even if some agencies cannot sign a concurrence form The USEPA stated they did not
necessarily disagree with DSA 9 as the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative but they would like to have
the selection process further documented at the October meeting FHWA pointed out that the
Draft EIS provides the reasons for selecting DSA 9 Mr Militscher suggested alternatives
systematically be eliminated one by one working towards a LEDPA USEPA is comfortable with
eliminating some alternatives (76 22 58 and 4) now but impacts beyond streams must be
considered NCTA agreed to do a presentation at the October 13 2009 TEAC meeting detailing
the reasons why DSA 9 should be identified as the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative
Q&A
1 Were travel times calculated point to po►nt9
Yes Those were the origin /destination times and are included in Appendix C of the Draft EIS
Representative points were selected for this analysis
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09

Page 5 of 10
2 How much detail regarding Mass Transit will you provide 9 Gaston County is trying to bring
commuter rail into the county It is not yet funded but would provide an alternative travel route It
is in an out year but the STIP is being updated to include it
New information regarding mass transit will be included in the Final EIS The Final EIS can
provide updates regarding the GUAMPO s multimodal study and the status of the Piedmont and
Northern Rail Corridor
3 Is the project likely to be constructed in segments
Like other large highway projects this project will likely be implemented in phases The segment
from 1-485 to US 321 is in the 2015 horizon year and the segment from US 321 to 1 85 is in the
2025 horizon year Options are being investigated to find ways to build a facility from 1-485 to 1
85 initially At this time NCTA has requested that GUAMPO use this phasing in the LRTP
4 Can a Record of Decision (ROD) be issued if the region is not in conformity for air quabty9
No A ROD cannot be issued for the project if the region is not in conformity Mr Graham of
GUAMPO noted they are currently conducting their air quality conformity analyses A revised
State Implementation Plan (SIP) will be submitted by NCDENR DAQ to USEPA in November
Based on existing budgets the Metrolina Region is expected to pass conformity in all horizon
years The ROD for the project is scheduled for October 2010 May 3 2010 is the deadline for
the conformity determination and updated LRTP
5 Do you have to analyze revenue of a partially completed project versus a full project?
Yes That is the reason that the segment from 1 -485 to US 321 has been identified as the likely
initial phase However from a NEPA standpoint the ultimate project must be addressed in the
EIS Revenue considerations will be a factor in deciding project phasing
6 Have you gotten into the exercise of doing this will save this much money '2 How will the results
of the recent design workshop impact alternatives?
NCTA is currently doing this work Suggestions and ideas from the August 26 2009 practical
design workshop are being evaluated Design modifications resulting in changes to the ultimate
project will be included in the Final EIS
7 What do the Environmental Mitigation costs include?
Costs associated with stream and wetland mitigation are based on fees used by the NC EEP in
lieu fee program
8 Is there a way to suggest a potential wetland mitigation bank*2 Is it an ongoing process,2
The NCTA anticipates using the NC EEP for mitigation requirements If someone has knowledge
of a good local mitigation site it is important to notify NC EEP
9 What will be the budge typical section over the Catawba River9
Current estimates indicate it will consist of one bridge structure with a concrete median barrier
10 What will the distance be between the median barner and the travel lane on the bndges2
Lane and shoulder widths will be consistent with FHWA requirements
11 How will drainage on the bndge be addressed9
A closed system will likely be used on the bridge with drainage likely routed to a landside
drainage system
Previous Action Items
• Agencies to review information provided for future discussion on Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative and Preferred Alternative at September 8 2009 TEAC meeting
New Action Items
• Agencies to review information provided to conclude discussion on Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative and Preferred Alternative at October 13 2009 TEAC meeting
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09

1-4
Page 6 of 10
• NCTA to prepare a PowerPoint presentation comparing alternatives for consideration as the
LEDPA/Preferred Alternative and documenting the reasons DSA 9 should be identified as the
LEDPA/Preferred Alternative
Resolutions
• Agreement was reached that the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative selection will take place at the
October 13 2009 TEAC meeting
• Agreement was reached on the ICE scope and GWLF model usage for the Quantitative ICE
Next Steps
• Continue discussions leading to selection of the LEDPA and Preferred Alternative
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09

Page 7 of 10
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
Date September 8 2009
300 pm to 430 pm
NC Turnpike Authority Board Room
Project STIP R 3329/R 2559 Monroe Connector /Bypass — STP NHF 74(90)
Monroe Connector /Bvoass SDotliaht
Attendees
George Hoops FHWA
Chris Militscher USEPA
Steve Lund USACE
Scott McLendon USACE
Polly Lespinasse NCDENR DWQ
Marella Buncick USFWS (via phone)
Marla Chambers NCWRC
Amy Simes NCDENR
Bob Cook MUMPO (via phone)
Dana Stoogenke Rocky River RPO (via phone)
Dewayne Sykes NCDOT RDU
John Conforti NCDOT PDEA
Ryan White NCDOT PDEA
BenJetta Johnson NCDOT Traffic (via phone)
Jennifer Harris NCTA
Christy Shumate HNTB
Jill Gurak PBS &J
Carl Gibdaro PBS &J
Elizabeth Scherrer PBS &J
Tim Savage Catena Group
Jennifer Cunningham Catena Group
Presentation Materials (Posted on TEAC website)
• Meeting Agenda
• Corridor Overview Map from the Public Hearing (not posted on TEAC website)
Purpose
Conclude discussion on Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative /Preferred Alternative
General Discussion
The following information was discussed at the meeting
Ms Harris opened the meeting with introductions and a review of the agenda She reiterated that DSA D was
identified in the Draft EIS as the Recommended Alternative based on the anticipated impacts and public comments
Overview of Corridor Design Public Hearing Map and Selection of DSA D as the Recommended
Alternative — At the request of the agencies Ms Shumate reviewed the Detailed Study Alternatives on the
Corridor Design Public Hearing Overview Map and explained reasons for NCTA s recommendation of DSA
D as the Recommended Alternative At any one location there are up to two alternative alignments and
DSA D utilizes the southern option for each segment Also noted were areas where design changes are
proposed as a result of public and agency comments received on the Draft EIS Attendees were referred
to Section S 7 of the Draft EIS where the complete list of reasons for recommending DSA D as the
Recommended Alternative is presented
0 1-485 to Indian Trail Fairview Road Interchange — In this area DSA D uses Segment 2
Segment 2 was recommended over Segment 18A in this area because Segment 2 has fewer
impacts to natural resources including a large forested wetland area and it is farther from
residential subdivisions and Stallings Elementary School Segment 2 would have more
business and residential relocations than Segment 18A but it was believed that avoidance of
other impacts made Segment 2 the preferred option In addition this area received a
substantial amount of public comment and the vast majority of those comments favored
Segment 2
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09

14
Page 8of10
The local jurisdictions in this area have both formally supported Segment 18A however they
seem willing to work with NCTA to minimize impacts of Segment 2 and make it a viable
alternative for their communities
o Indian Trail Fairview Road Interchange to Unionville Indian Trail Road Interchange — The
functional design in this section is common to all DSAs Based on public comment NCTA
plans to remove a proposed grade separation at Beverly Drive and sever Beverly Drive NCTA
also plans to remove a grade separation at the Bonterra Village neighborhood entrance from
Secrest Shortcut Road Bonterra residents requested this change to minimize noise and visual
impacts of the proposed design Instead a service road will be provided between Faith Church
Road and Poplin Road with access into Bonterra Village The service road would also provide
access to other large parcels landlocked by the project Impacts associated with these changes
will be documented in the Final EIS
o Unionville Indian Trail Road Interchange to Just East of Poplin Road Grade Separation —
There are two corridors in this area The Recommended Alternative DSA D uses the
southern corridor (Segment 30) The northern corridor is Segment 22A The southern corridor
was selected because Segment 30 would result in fewer wetland and stream impacts and the
interchange at Rocky River Road along the southern corridor would have fewer floodplam
impacts Segment 30 would also not require the realignment of Rocky River Road
Based on comments received on the project NCTA is proposing to modify the design of the
Unionville Indian Trail Road interchange to a tight diamond configuration This would reduce
the interchange footprint and eliminate the need to relocate a segment of Secrest Shortcut
Road further reducing impacts This change was requested by municipalities the public and
agencies
o Just East of Poplin Road to East of the US 601 Interchange — The functional design in this
section is common to all DSAs At US 601 NCTA proposed a different interchange
configuration than NCDOT had used in the original Monroe Bypass project The proposed
design would eliminate the ramp in the southeast quadrant replacing it with a loop in the
southwest quadrant This was required because of traffic operation considerations but will also
avoid wetlands present in the southeast quadrant
o US 601 Interchange to Ansonville Road Grade Separation — There are two corridors in this
area (Segment 34 to the north and Segment 36 to the south) The Recommended Alternative
DSA D uses Segment 36 It has one more stream crossing than the northern corridor but this
crossing would be bridged
In this area NCTA has also proposed a different interchange configuration for the NC 200
(Morgan Mill Road) than NCDOT had originally proposed NCTA s interchange configuration
was proposed to eliminate the ramp in the northwest quadrant and make it a loop This was
proposed for traffic operations
Based on public and local government comments on the importance of McIntyre Road for local
travel patterns a grade separation of McIntyre Road will be added to the designs The grade
separation will be achieved by extending the nearby mainline bridge already proposed over
Meadow Branch and adjacent wetlands (Wetlands W167 and W170)
o Ansonville Road Grade Separation to Eastern Terminus There are two closely spaced
corridors in this area (Segment 40 to the south and Segment 41 to the north) The
Recommended Alternative DSA D uses Segment 40 which would have less residential
relocations and fewer stream impacts
• Potential Elimination of the US 601 Interchange or the Rocky River Road Interchange — At the
request of USFWS NCTA agree to evaluate indirect and cumulative effects with and without the US 601
interchange in the quantitative ICE study US 601 is the closest major interchange to the Goose Creek
watershed (federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter habitat) However NCTA noted that this
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09

Page 9 of 10
interchange is an important element of the project US 601 is the only other US route in Union County
other than US 74 and traffic forecasts warrant an interchange This interchange is also supported by local
and regional plans The scenario without the US 601 interchange is being evaluated for disclosure and
informational purposes for the Section 7 consultation process NCTA does not expect the analysis to show
a substantial change in overall land use change but if the results of the evaluation do show that there is
substantial change the issue may need to be revisited with the agencies
A related question was raised about the Rocky River Road interchange The Rocky River Road
interchange also is important since Rocky River Road provides access to the Monroe Municipal Airport
The airport is planning an expansion and the City of Monroe desires to have this access point This
interchange is also supported by local and regional plans
• Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Study — The interviews with local planners are completed as well
as mapping of existing conditions The consultant (Michael Baker) is starting work on the future scenarios
The water quality modeling will start when the land use analysis is completed since the land use data is an
input to the water quality model
Ms Kathy Matthews of the USEPA sent an email (dated September 4 2009) prior to the TEAC meeting
stating the outputs of the proposed water quality model (GWLF) would be sufficient for evaluating water
quality in the 303(d) listed streams
USFWS requested that more information be provided about the input parameters of the GWLF model how
they have been adapted for suburbanizing landscapes and how the results of the land use analysis will be
incorporated into the model USFWS asked how groundwater is treated in the model and if the model
considered stormwater storage /release It was suggested that sources of impairment be included as a
parameter of the model It was also suggested that Six Mile Creek watershed area may need to be
included in the modeling efforts
NCTA agreed that a presentation on this topic could be made at a future TEAC meeting
Discussion of LEDPA /Preferred Alternative — Ms Harris asked if the agencies were satisfied with the
choice of DSA D as the potential Preferred Alternative /Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative ( LEDPA) The USACE and USFWS stated they could agree that DSA D was the Preferred
Alternative but will need data from the ICE study to determine that it is the LEDPA USEPA stated they
liked DSA D better than the other DSAs studied in detail NCWRC and NCDENR DWQ did not raise any
objections It was agreed that the project would move forward with DSA D as the Preferred Alternative
When more information is available from the ICE study the group will reconvene and discuss consideration
of DSA D as the LEDPA
(, &A
1 Which neighborhood was the subject of comments complaining about trucks passing through the
neighborhood?
The neighborhood is Forest Park subdivision located on the north side of existing US 74 Internet mapping
services often route trucks through the neighborhood to get to the adjacent business park For this
neighborhood a service road is proposed parallel to existing US 74 that would provide access to both
Forest Park and the business park NCTA also proposes to construct an additional access road to Forest
Park along an easement originally reserved for this purpose by the subdivision developer but never
constructed This easement is at the north end of the neighborhood and would provide a new connection
to Stallings Road
2 On the western end wetland impacts seem higher with DSA D Where are the wetlands located? They
are existing swales along existing US 74 or wetlands that are already impacted by US 74 Utilizing
Segment 1 BA would result in three new stream crossings as well as be closer to more neighborhoods and
schools
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09

14
Page 10 of 10
3 What is the difference in business impacts between Segments 18A and 29
There are 14 business impacts for 18A and 48 for Segment 2 Most of the businesses associated with
Segment 2 are located in the business park near where Segment 2 branches off of the existing US 74
alignment
4 Is NCTA cons►denng reducing the posted speed limit to 55 mph?
No This has been suggested for portions of the Garden Parkway but the posted speed limit for the
Monroe Connector /Bypass will be 65 mph
New Action Items
• NCTA will make a presentation on water quality modeling and the GWLF model at an upcoming TEAC
meeting
(This presentation will be made at the October 13 2009 TEA meeting J
Resolutions
• Agreement was reached that DSA D is the Preferred Alternative A decision on the LEDPA will be made
pending review of the results of the quantitative ICE study
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09

Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No 3 —
Identification of the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
Project No /TIP No /Name /Description
Federal Project Number STP 1213(6) State Project Number 8 2812501
TIP Number U 3321
Description Gaston East West Connector in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
Following review of the Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) presented in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement the Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team has
concluded that DSA 9 is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
contingent upon the Metrolma Region successfully demonstrating air quality conformity
in compliance with the Clean Air Act DSA 9 was identified as the LEDPA based on
documentation from the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL) meeting
held on October 13 2009 (see attached minutes) Additional discussions were held at
TEAC meetings on August 12 2009 and September 8 2009
The Project Team concurred on this date of 10 1 13 09 that DSA 9 is the Least
Environmentally Damaging and Practicable Alternative for the Gaston East -West
Connector project
USACE 157:a. -ti0)
USEPA
l
NCDWQ f /.
NCDC_n
GUAM
NCTA
NCDOT
USFWS
FHWA
►il lul' •
FAK

Gaston East -West Connector
Agenda
October 13, 2009
30OPM to430PM
Purpose Conclude discussion on Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative and
Preferred Alternative
Previous Action Items Agencies review information provided to conclude discussion on Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative and Preferred Alternative at October 13
2009 TEAC meeting
New Action Items Identify LEDPA and Preferred Alternative
Draft Preferred Alternative Report Comments
LEDPA Discussion & Presentation
Wrap Up / Next Steps 1472
TEAC Meeting — November 10, 2009 (if needed)
NORTH CAROLINA
Turnpike Authorixy

Introduction
Although Egyptians first constructed dams for the purpose of river regulation thousands of years
ago (Smith 1971) Man has only recently begun to understand and appreciate the dramatic and
widespread effects of dams on river systems The recent volume of work on impoundments
primarily published by environmental scientists in the United States and abroad in the last 50
years, suggests that the benefits associated with some impoundments (e g water supply,
hydroelectric power, flood control etc ) are accompanied by a great number of costs to nature and
ultimately society While far from comprehensive, the following summary document provides a
good foundation on the many consequences of river impoundment It is important to note that the
literature uses the term `impoundment to describe everything from large water supply reservoirs
to farm ponds created by small, earthen dams It is also important to recognize that the
summarized environmental social and economic effects will vary in magnitude depending on the
impoundment's size and location That said, the literature supports the following conclusions
regarding the effects of river impoundment
Conclusions
1 Impoundments negatively impact the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
water (i a water quality)
2 Impoundments negatively impact ecological systems and native faunal /floral communities
3 Impoundments /dams create numerous maintenance and safety issues
4 Impoundments cause numerous hydrological, biological, and geomorphological impacts
downstream due to changes in the flow regime and water quality
Supporting Information
1 Impoundments negatively impact the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of
water (i a water quality)
a Water temperature and dissolved oxygen
When an impoundment is created temperature and oxygen stratification may occur
as water depth increases and flow velocity decreases This process involves the in
flow of cooler, denser stream water to the bottom layer (hypolimmon) which pushes
the water above it into the impoundment's top layer (epilimnion) Here according
to Maxted McCready, and Scarsbrook (2005), the water warms and decreases in
density as it is subject to "incoming solar radiation unhindered by any of the
topographic or vegetation shading characteristic of a stream channel As the

suspended particles and substances in the epilimmon absorb solar radiation, the
temperature in this shallow surface layer typically rises above the high daily
maximum temperature of the mflowing stream Maxted, McCready, and
Scarsbrook observed temperature stratification in each of the six small ponds
(ranging from 69 390 acres) they studied Temperature (24° C) and dissolved
oxygen (4 mg/L) were exceeded 46% and 86 %, respectively, during a 40 day
summer period Maxted, McCready and Scarsbrook also observed that
thermoclmes (1 a zones of rapid temperature change) occurred above 5 meters in
the small ponds
According to Higgs (2002) the hypolimmon and epilimmon seldom mix well
enough to promote gas transfer from the highly oxygenated surface water to the
poorly- oxygenated bottom layer As a result, the bottom water layer in an
impoundment may become hypoxic and fail to support aquatic life Depending on
how water is released from the impoundment, these oxygen and temperature
stratifications can lead to numerous problems downstream as well In an attempt to
preserve habitat for cold water species such as trout, some dams release water from
the cooler hypolimmon layer However, while the temperature may be desirable for
cold water species, the lack of dissolved oxygen may still render the downstream
habitat unsuitable If the highly oxygenated but warmer surface water is released
downstream, cold water fish may have adequate oxygen, but a "thermal block" is
established which still prevents populations from reaching upstream spawning
habitats (Higgs, 2002)
Petts (1984) cites two field observations of seasonal dissolved- oxygen sags related
to temperature stratification in upstream impoundments The first by Ingols
(1959), occurred along the Holston River, below Cherokee Dam in east Tennessee
Ingols compared the dissolved oxygen deficit in this location to be equivalent to
that caused by the effluent from a town of 3,500,000 people Petts second example
was from a study conducted by Walker et al (1979) on the Murray River, below the
Hume Dam in Australia In this case a dissolved oxygen sag attributed to lake
stratification was observed for 100 km below the dam
b Metal thresholds
Metals can accumulate in impoundment sediments due to upstream pollution
discharges, or from natural sources such as local soils Problems associated with
metals can be exacerbated by the aforementioned temperature and dissolved oxygen
stratifications For example, in Lake Toxaway in the Savannah River Basin of
western North Carolina, researchers concluded that odor problems were emanating
from manganese and iron concentrations that "increased significantly in response to
increased hypoxic conditions near the bottom of the lake as summer progressed"
(NC DENR, 2005) Metal concentrations exceeding state water quality standards
have also been documented in impoundments in the Catawba, Yadkin, and Neuse
river basins of North Carolina
2

c Sedimentation
Sedimentation occurs when geologic or organic material falls out of suspension
and accumulates in a given area This phenomenon is common in impoundments
for the following reasons 1) mflowmg streams /rivers slow down upon entering
impoundments, and suspended soil particles settle out of the water column 2)
compared to natural streams and lakes the water level in impoundments is
regulated to be virtually constant According to Nakashima Yamada and Tada
(2007), nearly constant water levels may cause physical destabilization of
impoundment shorelines and 3) land disturbing activities such as construction
around the impoundment itself may lead to direct sedimentation The sediment
load of a stream is produced by sheet erosion of the surrounding landscape or by
erosion of the stream bank itself (Baxter, 1977) Sedimentation is exacerbated
when erosion increases upstream during storm events or as a result of
construction agriculture or other land disturbing activities If flow rates decrease
rapidly upon entering the impoundment sediment may accumulate near this entry
point in the impoundment s upstream section More often, however
sedimentation is a bigger concern further downstream in the impoundment next to
the dam Sedimentation is a potential problem for water quality and aquatic life
(e g sediment may carry potentially toxic materials such as phosphorous
nitrogen, arsenic chromium and copper) and it reduces the impoundment s water
depth and water storage capacity
d Turbidity
Sediment or silt that remains suspended in the water column also causes physical
and chemical changes in impoundments In addition to detracting from a pond or
lake's aesthetic value, high turbidity limits penetration of visible light, affects the
heating and cooling rates of water, affects conditions on the bottom, and leads to the
retention of organic matter (Ellis, 1936) By limiting the penetration of visible
light, or by scattering light, turbidity can decrease the photosynthetic activity of
plants and reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen Additionally, suspended
particles absorb heat from solar radiation causing the water to warm Since oxygen
cannot dissolve as easily in warm water turbidity can further lower dissolved
oxygen concentrations High turbidity also leads directly to bottom effects as the
silt or sediment begins to drop from suspension Fish eggs and insect larvae are
often blanketed and suffocated by silt and gill structures can become clogged
e Nutrient pollution
The release of sewage effluent from point sources such as wastewater treatment
facilities and storm water runoff from non point sources, such as lawns and
agricultural fields to streams and tributaries may cause nutrient pollution
problems As these waters flow into receiving water impoundments the water may
become eutrophic as elevated levels of phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) cause
biological productivity to increase dramatically This can lead to excessive algal
3

growth and decay, dissolved oxygen depletion, increased pH variation, and food
chain alterations
f Algal blooms and Dissolved oxygen
Nutrients are often the limiting factor for algae and other aquatic plant growth If
excess nutrients are present, such as the case in many impoundments, algae will
grow until some other factor becomes limiting (HALMS 2007) Algae have other
significant growth advantages in impoundments as well, such as light intensity and
elevated temperatures Due to the lack of topological or vegetation shading and the
aforementioned temperature stratification, algal photosynthesis can occur rapidly in
impoundments Although algal photosynthesis actually increases dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the epilimmon, the algal bloom cycle can have far reaching and
potentially disastrous consequences in the hypolimmon of the impoundment, and
downstream Other aquatic plants may die during the bloom, and the algae itself
will eventually crash as available nutrients are consumed This dead organic matter
eventually settles to the bottom and becomes a chief food source for heterotrophic
bacteria Heterotrophic bacteria will increase in number based on the available food
source and, according to Petts (1984), oxygen will be consumed in the
hypolimmon, often to exhaustion" This cycle often results in massive fish and
insect kills due to anoxic conditions, and the impoundment temporarily becomes a
dead area (HALMS 2007) Aside from these immediate ecological effects, algal
blooms can also cause taste and odor problems in water supply impoundments, and
release toxic metals from lake sediments as organic matter decay becomes
anaerobic (Fang et al , 2005)
g pH
The pH of water can be altered by impoundment, and these changes often affect
how chemicals dissolve in the impoundment and whether they affect resident flora
and fauna Impoundment eutrophication due to excess nutrients causes increased
biological activity such as algal photosynthesis, which tends to increase pH
Elevated pH may contribute to phosphorus release from the sediment and allow for
additional biological productivity (Ceballos and Rasmussen, 2007) When nutrients
are consumed, and dissolved oxygen drops the water may become more acidic and
contribute to the death of fish and other aquatic organisms This pH variation is
primarily a lake or impoundment phenomenon and not often observed in rivers or
streams
2 Impoundments negatively impact ecological functioning and native faunal /floral
communities
Ecological systems and native faunal /floral communities within the impounded stream
reach are negatively impacted due to water quality deterioration, habitat destruction, and
effects on migration For instance, sedimentation may cover existing rock and gravel
4

substrate including riffles and breaks This is especially detrimental to gravel -riffle
spawners, such as channel catfish and smallmouth bass that only deposit eggs where the
water depth current, temperature, clarity dissolved oxygen content, and bottom types are
suitable Also, according to Higgs (2007), dams disrupt river connectivity and create
physical and thermal barriers that prevent migrating fish and other wildlife from moving
up or downstream in a river system He emphasizes that this is problematic for sea run
(anadromous and catadromous) fish as well as for residential fish that migrate up and down
a river system These physical and thermal barriers affect fish spawning, rearing and
foraging migrations and also prevent re colonization of other species following floods,
droughts or human disturbances For instance during the larval stage, mussels can attach
to fish temporarily and move up- or downstream to re- colonize stream segments
Neves and Angermeier (1990) found that dams on the upper Tennessee River system
(including parts of NC) have also altered habitat and adversely affected native fishes
Obligatory riverine fish species typically do not survive in these impoundments, and
neither the reservoirs nor downstream areas receiving tailwaters provide suitable conditions
for native fish reproduction Neves and Angermeier concluded that the cumulative effects
of dam related stresses have significantly reduced the biological integrity of the rivers
including tailwaters areas where faunal diversity has not recovered
According to Mammoliti (2002) `a substantial body of literature indicates that
construction of dams has a negative impact on native stream fishes In general an
impoundment can reduce the quantity and quality of stream habitat alter reproductive and
feeding behavior or fishes and increase the number and sizes of predatory fish within a
stream system These impacts suggest a negative relationship between impoundments and
obligate stream species
Santucci, Gephard, and Pescitelli (2005) conducted an extensive study on the effects of
low -head damson a 171 -km reach of a warmwater river in Illinois The river system is
fragmented by 15 dams that create an alternating series of deep -water and free - flowing
river habitats For each of the three indexes considered (i a the index for biotic integrity
(IBI) the macromvertebrate condition index (MCI) and the qualitative habitat evaluation
index (QHEI)) scores for free - flowing sections were significantly higher than for
impounded sections In fact the scores indicated alternating good quality habitat (free
flowing sections) and severely degraded habitats (impoundments) The researchers
concluded "From this large body of work, we know that dams can have dramatic effects on
rivers and aquatic biota by altering water quality and habitat disrupting nutrient cycling
and sediment transport and blocking fish and invertebrate movements" Furthermore
Santucci, Gephard and Pescitelli (2005) cited dam removal as the best option to restore a
river s ecological health
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) sampled 75 streams
below small impoundments and published a report in September 2006 (Arnwme Sparks
and James 2006) Benthic macromvertebrate communities were adversely affected in most
of the streams sampled as only four passed biological criteria guidelines or were
comparable to first order stream references In fact, 96% of the streams sampled failed to

meet reference guidelines for the number of distinct Ephemeroptera Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPT) taxa, and 86% had low EPT density They also found that 39% of the
dams with year -round (low flow) discharge provided insufficient flow to supply adequate
habitat for aquatic life during at least one season Only about half of streams studied
appeared to have relatively stable channel structures, and approximately 80% failed to meet
regional expectations for sediment deposition
3 Impoundments /dams create numerous maintenance and safety issues
Aside from deleterious effects on water quality and ecological systems impoundments also
create numerous maintenance and safety issues Even small, earthen dams installed to
create amenity ponds eventually deteriorate as they are easily damaged by floods, wind
and ice If maintenance activities are deferred or neglected, this deterioration can
accelerate and eventually cause dam failure Therefore, it is important to note that capital
investment does not end when dam construction is complete As with other critical
infrastructure, such as roads, sewer lines, and bridges, a significant investment is essential
to maintain dam structures and assure public health and safety (American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), 2008)
In the past two years alone, 67 dam incidents, including 29 dam failures, were reported to
the National Performance of Dams program by state and federal regulatory agencies and
private dam owners (ASCE, 2008) According to ASCE, events such as large floods,
earthquakes, and inspections that reveal dam deficiencies and/or safety concerns are
recorded as incidents However, ASCE estimates that the actual number of dam incidents
and failures is likely to be higher due to non reporting and understaffed state agencies
ASCE also reports that the number of high hazard potential dams (dams whose failure
would cause loss of human life) in the United States has increased from 9,281 in 1998, to at
least 10,213 today Regrettably, greater than 10% (1046) of all high hazard potential dams
are located in North Carolina In their 2006 Infrastructure Report Card, the ASCE gave
the state s dam infrastructure a grade of D" and estimated that it will cost North Carolina
approximately $400 million to `rehabilitate the most critical deficient structures" (ASCE
2006)
Regardless of dam size, it is critical to perform regular maintenance activities in order to
reduce threats to downstream life and property One of the many important dam
maintenance activities is dredging Many dams silt in with eroded soil and lose water
depth and storage capacity overtime Mahmood (1987) estimated that worldwide reservoir
storage capacity decreases 1% per year due to sedimentation Evans et al (1999) arrived at
a similar conclusion in a study prompted by the failure of the IVEX dam on the Chagrin
River in Ohio They estimated that storage capacity loss due to sedimentation ranged from
37% to 172% per year Even in carefully managed watersheds where sediment - loading is
minimized due to strict sediment and erosion control measures (e g riparian buffers silt
fencing, stormwater retention ponds, etc ), continual maintenance dredging may be
required (Newman, Perault, and Shahady, 2006)
n

Impoundments are also commonly afflicted with invasive aquatic plants like Hydrilla
(Hydrilla verticillata) Creeping Primrose (Ludwigia peploides), and Parrot Feather
(Myriophyllum aquaticum) At the least these invasive plants are an intractable nuisance
that may out - compete native aquatic flora, and inhibit recreational activities At the worst
the presence of these aquatic plants may threaten public water supplies and create
conditions conducive to anopheles mosquitos, which carry malaria According to NC
DENR s Lake and Reservoir Assessments, Hydrilla covers approximately 625 acres of
Mountain Island Lake (Catawba River Basin) and is also problematic on Lake Norman (NC
DENR, 2005) In Lake Hickory, Parrot Feather has spread from the original 10 acre
infestation to approximately 84 acres Duke Energy and NC DENR are now working on a
Parrot Feather management plan as it threatens to clog two drinking water intakes in the
area To address invasive species and algae problems impoundment managers have drawn
down water levels introduced biological controls (e g grass carp), and treated water with
chemicals such as copper sulfate which may create a host of new water quality problems
Many small impoundments, such as farm ponds and amenity ponds associated with
residential subdivisions, create complex and expensive management issues as well
However these impoundments are seldom managed or maintained by experienced resource
managers or civil engineers In fact, many homeowners associations become dam
"owners' upon completion of subdivision and dam construction activities As such they
must assume the daunting maintenance and inspection responsibilities, as well as manage
the aquatic resource In fact private companies have been created to capitalize on the
demand for pond management services such as aeration algae control water quality
improvement, odor reduction and nuisance aquatic vegetation control
4 Impoundments cause numerous geomorphological, hydrological, and biological impacts
downstream due to changes in the flow regime and water quality
The act of impounding streams affects more than just the impounded reach itself In fact
some of the most harmful effects may occur well downstream from the impoundment For
instance dams often decrease flow rates and prevent flow variations downstream both of
which can cause geomorphic changes These changes might include bank instability loss
of sinuosity, disruption of bank vegetation, destruction of pool and riffle complexes, and
tributary headcutting As Mammoliti (2002) and Leopold (1997) note in separate studies,
stream channel morphology is formed and maintained by natural flow variations, not by the
steady flows associated with impounded streams
Higgs (2002) linked flow variation, and the movement of sediment and larger cobbles and
boulders, to the creation of "new and more diverse habitat for aquatic species downstream
Such transport cannot occur along impounded stream reaches however, because much of
the sediment carried by the stream is deposited behind the dam The resulting water
releases from impoundments are characterized as "sediment starved" or "clear water
releases" The downstream, sediment - deprived stream reaches "often regain sediments lost
behind the dam by eroding deeper into the river channel and away at the stream banks'
7

(Higgs, 2007) Evans et al (1999) describe this bed and bank erosion as a `natural
consequence of the stream adjusting to steepened gradients and low initial sediment load
after exiting the reservoir"
Low flow rate and low flow variability can negatively impact downstream habitats in other
ways as well The stream may be unable to transfer large particles, such as food sources
and water levels downstream may be too low to allow habitats to support aquatic life In
the event that some sediment has accumulated in the downstream reach, perhaps due to
overland flow or sedimentation from an entering tributary, periodic scouring flows are
important to maintaining the type and quality of downstream habitat According to
Mammoliti (2002), without scouring flow, sediments may cover coarse substrates and
prevent seepage or subsurface flow that maintains pool refugia during drought periods"
Additionally, dams may reduce the ability of aquatic populations to recover following a
drought if they cause low or no flow events to increase in frequency and magnitude
According to Magilligan, Nislow, and Graber (2003), dams can cause other hydrological
and biological changes by reducing out of bank flows and prolonging bank full flows
Over time this can "disconnect riparian zones from riverine influence" because floods
greater than bankfull flow are essentially eliminated They concluded that the 2 -year
interval discharge ( bankfull discharge) decreased by approximately 60% as a result of
impoundment The lack of overbank inundation completely limits the transport of
sediment, nutrients, and water to higher floodplain surfaces that work to sustain riparian
habitat and species, and in- channel structure
Lake induced water quality problems, as well as problem management strategies (e g
herbicides used to control invasive aquatic plants) often cause as many problems
downstream as they do within the impoundment For example, water released from
impoundments often exhibits elevated temperatures compared to up- and downstream
reaches According to Maxted, McCready, and Scarsbrook (2005) elevated temperatures
were observed for hundreds of meters downstream owing to the slow rate of cooling (1'
C /100 m), expanding the extent of adverse effects well beyond the footprint of the pond
They also concluded that water quality criteria exceedences (i a temperature and dissolved
oxygen) significantly decreased invertebrate community richness and diversity for
hundreds of meters downstream Saila, Poyer, and Aube (2005) reached similar conclusion
after studying 5 impoundments ranging from 8 10 feet in height and 112 358 feet in length
They found that the small dams increased temperatures 4 5 C° at the source, and the water
did not recover from the warming effects (i a recover to 17° C) until 5 miles downstream
of the dam
Here are some examples of how water quality problems in impoundments affect
downstream segments
• Heavy metal accumulations in the hypolimnion may be released during anaerobic
organic -matter decay, and cause toxicity in downstream aquatic life
• Nutrient rich water may create algal colonies that render substrates unusable for
colonization by aquatic fauna
8

pH fluctuations may cause regulatory failure and /or an inability to molt among
aquatic insects
Herbicides and pesticides (commonly introduced as a management strategy in
impoundments) may be highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates (e g copper
sulfate)
From the works cited above and other materials collected during this literature review it is
evident that the scientific community is progressing towards a consensus on the subject of
river impoundment River impoundments negatively impact water quality and ecological
systems, cause undesirable hydrological and geomorphological changes and create costly
maintenance and safety issues for society While river impoundment can provide benefits
such as public water supply hydroelectric power and flood control the practice should be
avoided if possible based on the likely environmental economic and social consequences
E

Works Cited
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 2006 Dams 2006 North Carolina Infrastructure
Report Card Available online at http //sections asce org/n carolina/ReportCard /dams pdf
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 2008 Report Card for America's Infrastructure
Available online at http //www asce org/rel3ortcard/2005/page cfm ?id =23
Arnwme, D H , Sparks K J , and R R James 2006 Probabilistic Monitoring of Streams Below
Small Impoundments in Tennessee Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(TDEC), Division of Water Pollution
Baxter, R M 1977 Environmental Effects of Dams and Impoundments Annual Reviews
Ecological Systems, 1977 8 255 -283 Available from arjournals annualreviews org Accessed
2008 May 30
Ceballos, E, and Rasmussen T 2007 Internal Loading in Southeastern Piedmont Impoundments
Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, The University of Georgia
Ellis, M M 1936 Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments Ecology 17(1) 29 -42
Accessed 2008 February 6
Evans, J E Mackey, S D , Gottgens J F , and W M Gill 1999 Lessons from a Dam Failure Ohio
Journal of Science 100(5) 121 131, 2000
Fang, T Liu, J T, Xiao, B D Chen, X G and X Q Xu 2005 Mobilization potential of heavy
metals A comparison between river and lake sediments Water, Air and Soil Pollution 161 (1
4) 209 225
Higgs, Stephen 2002 The Ecology of Dam Removal A Summary of Benefits and Impacts
American Rivers, 2002 February
Ingols, R S 1959 Effect of impoundment on downstream water quality Catawba River, S C
Journal of the American Water Works Association, 51, 42 6
Leopold, L B 1997 Waters, rivers, and creeks University Science Books, Sausalito, California,
185 pp
Magilligan, F , Nislow, K , and B Graber 2003 Scale independent assessment of discharge
reduction and riparian disconnectivity following flow regulation by dams Geology 31(7) 569
572
Mahmood, K 1987 Reservoir Sedimentation Impact, Extent, and Mitigation World Bank
Technical Paper Number 71 The World Bank, Washington, D C
10

Mammoliti C S 2002 The Effects of Small Watershed Impoundments on Native Stream Fishes
A Focus on the Topeka Shiner and Hornyhead Chub The Kansas Academy of Science 105(3 4)
2002 219 231
Maxted, J R McCready, C H, and M R Scarsbrook 2005 Effects of small ponds on stream
water quality and macromvertebrate communities New Zealand Journal of Marine and
Freshwater Research 39 1069 -1084
Nakashima, S , Yamada, Y , and K Tada 2007 Characterization of the water quality of dam lakes
on Skikoku Island, Japan Limnology (2007) 8 1 22
Neves R J and Angermeier, P L 1990 Habitat alteration and its effects on native fishes in the
upper Tennessee River system, east central U S A Journal of Fish Biology 37(Supplement A),
45 -52
Newman, D J , Perault, D R , and T D Shahady 2006 Watershed development and sediment
accumulation in a small urban lake Lake and Reservoir Management 22(4) 303 307
North American Lake Management Society (HALMS) 2007 Bluegreen Initiative — Overview
Basic Information on cyanobacteria Last modified 2007 March 21
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) 2005 Lake &
Reservoir Assessments — Savannah River Basin Available from Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), Environmental Sciences Section, Intensive Survey Unit
Petts G E 1984 Impounded Rivers Perspectives for Ecological Management Department of
Geography, University of Technology Loughborough Leicestershire UK John Wiley & Sons,
1984
Saila S B Poyer D , and D Aube 2005 Small dams and Habitat Quality in Low Order Streams
Wood - Pawcatuck Watershed Association Hope Valley, RI
Santucci V J Gephard S R and S M Pescitelli 2005 Effects of Multiple Low Head Dams on
Fish Macroinvertebrates Habitat and Water Quality in the Fox River Illinois North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 25 975 992 2005
Smith N 1971 A History of Dams Peter Davies London xiv + 279 pp illustr
Walker, K F , Hillman T J , and W D Williams 1979 The effects of impoundment on rivers an
Australian case study Verhandlungen Internationale Veremigung fur Theoretische and
Angewandte Limnologie 20, 1695 701
11

371P P-1--t hm U4321
Fwlww wa Fr W No, SM- 121N61
TEAC Meeting Goal
Identify and concur on the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) /Preferred Alternative
for the Gaston East -West Connector.
Previous Related TEAC Meetings
• August 12, 2009
— Review Public Hearings. discuss comments
received on Draft EIS, and introduce
information for LEDPA selection.
September 8, 2009
— Discuss responses to substantive comments
received on Draft EIS relative to selection of
LEDPA1Preferred Alternative

i�
Presentation Summary
• Method for identifying LEDPA
• Evaluation results and the case for DSA
9 as LEDPA
• Discussion
Method for Identifying LEDPA
• The region's air quality conformity issues apply to all
the DSAs.
It is acknowledged that if the Metrolina Region does
not demonstrate air quality conformity. does not
complete the LRTP update, and the region enters a
Conformity Lapse. then the FHWA cannot issue a
Record of Decision and the US Army Corps of
Engineers cannot issue a permit.
Method for Identifying LEDPA
STEP I - Identify group of DSAs to consider for LEDPA
• Identify three tiers of DSAs with respect to
jurisdictional resource impacts - best, second -best,
and worst.
• Review worst -tier and second -best tier to see if any
of these DSAs have substantially less impacts to
other resources compared to the best tier.
• If necessary, include DSAs from the worst -tier and
second -best tier in the list to consider for LEDPA.

Method for Identifying LEDPA
STEP 2 - Evaluate Remaining DSAs and Identify LEDPA
Compare remaining DSAs based on impact table and
on other impact considerations.
Select the DSA with the best overall balance of
impacts as the LEDPA.
1
Evaluation - Step 1
• Identify set of DSAs with least overall impact to jurisdictional
resources and set with
Evaluation - Step 1
Worst -Tier Set -
DSAs 4, 5, 22, 23, 58, and 76
Best -Tier Set -
DSAs 9, 68, and 81.

Evaluation - Step 1
• Compare the best -tier set with the worst -tier set of DSAs.
Results
Eliminate Worst -Tier Set - DSAs 4. 5, 22, 23. 58. and
76 - from consideration as LEDPA. These DSAs do
not offer notable advantages over DSAs 9, 68, and 81
when considering non - jurisdictional resource
impacts.
Evaluation - Step 1
• Review second -best tier of DSAs.
Second Best -Tier Set -
DSAs 27, 64, and 77.
Best -Tier Set -
DSAs 9, 68, and 81.
1
Evaluation - Step 1
• If needed, include any DSAs from second -best tier into the
group to consider for LEDPA.
Results - Do not include DSAs 27, 64, or 77 in group to
consider for LEDPA
Costs - higher costs than best tier.
• Neighborhoods — some higher. some in range with best tier.
• Upland Forest— generally slightly more impact than best tier.
• Community facilities, relocations, farmland. hazardous
materials, floodplains, cultural resources, Section 4(f) — in same
range as best tier.

Evaluation - Step 2
STEP 2 - Evaluate Remaining DSAs and Identify LEDPA
• DSAs remaining after Step 1 - DSAs 9, 68, and 81
Evaluation - Step 2
Condense the
impact table to
show remaining
DSAs and only
those impacts
where there am
differences
between
remaining
DSAs.
Evaluation - Step 2
STEP 2 - Other Impact Considerations
DSA 9 most similar to the route developed by the GUAMPO and
shown in their LRTP; fits community expectations best.
DSAs 68 and 81 would encroach on the Wolfe Family Dairy
Farm historic site.
DSAs 68 and 81 would have a substantial adverse impact on
the Karyae Park YMCA Outdoor Family Center.
DSAs 68 and 81 are closer to Crowders Mountain State Park
and the Camp Rotary Girl Scout Camp.

0 Turnpike Authority
GARDEN PARKWAY (U -3321)
Division: 10 & 12
County: Gaston & Mecklenburg
Eco- Region: sP
River Basin: Catawba
Mitigation Request Date: 9/1/10
Anticipated Date of Permitting: 12/31/10
Design -Build Award Date: 2/1/11
CU: 03050101 (majority) & 03050102
Warm Stream (If): 36,416
Total Stream (If): 36,416
HU 01 Stream (If): 32,369
HU 02 Stream (If): 4,047
Mecklenburg County Stream (If): 3,199
Gaston County Stream (If): 33,217
Perennial Stream (If): 29,033
Intermittent Stream (If): 7,383
303(d) Total Stream * (If): 21,817
303(d) Perennial Stream (If): 18,607
303(d) Intermittent Stream (If): 3,210
' Includes unnamed tributaries. Main stem of Crowders Creek & Catawba Creek are bridged.
Abernethy Creek is not crossed.
Riparian Wetlands (ac): 7.02
Non - Riparian Wetlands (ac): o.o
Total Wetlands (ac): 7.02
HU 01 Wetlands (ac): 7.02
HU 02 Wetlands (ac): 0.0
Mecklenburg County Wetlands (If): 0.60
Gaston County Wetlands (If): 6.42
Zone 1 Buffer (sf): 3,642.0
Zone 2 Buffer (sf): 8,859.0
Unspecified Buffer (sf): o.o
Total Buffer (sf): 12,501.0
Source: Refined preliminary engineering design for DSA 9 and field- delineated streams & wetlands.
Timeline:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement April 2009
Final Environmental Impact Statement June 2010
Issue Record of Decision October 2010
Award construction contract February 2011
Project opening 2015
03/16/10

,7
Monroe Connector /Bypass
Quantitative ICE Analysis
Water Quality Analysis
Presentation Outline
• Project study area
— Definition
—Aquatic habitat
• Analysis approach
— Analysis goal
— Watershed model selection
— Model input and output
10/13/2009

IA1 - " (, & % , kr� . FL A S j 10/13/2009
Monroe Connector /Bypass
Project Location
2 8 digit HUs Intersect
can the FLUSA
14 municipalities Intersect
the FLUSA
Created by buffering the
5 alternatives
ed� 0n ae PSA delineated to capture
the extent of the FLUSA
W dlnOtW PSA boundary defined
W WyChope l� along hydrologic breaks
MONOB Wf00f1 tifrnil
( %rUVRA
MR Bas [MICE FLUSAB dary
Recomme ded Alt m tw C rndor M apaldy
14 -digit HUs
18 14 digit HUs Intersect
the FLUSA
5 In Catawba basin
° o3oz o o 04 ° oz YADKIIV 13 In Yadkin basin
ao
i t 06 M ooso
50 3040
3060 050600
30x0 O50
3°50 00 030< 0 t20050 fi60 0 30 0509
1Z
40 050 00 050
03050 0303°020
60 050 4
( A fAW IiA 060 509 30
03060 0 0 00 0
0306 50S 20
r --- 114 -0gtHU
MR er Ba [MICE FLUSA Bou dary
JRecomm d dAltem I C d M apa4ty

10/13/2009
Project Study Area
Clipped the 14 digit HUs to
the FLUSA at subwatershed
YADKIN boundaries
® y Entirety of the Goose Creek
watershed Is included
Can be used with any
watershed model
(Alt 11% `
Q Amb 1 Mond g Sde _ Recommended ARem Iry C dow
�R Bas ®ICEFLUSABo d y
Q Propos dPSA M Opaldy

Aquatic Habitat
• Significant Natural Heritage Areas (NCNHP Biennial
Protection Plan, 2009)
— Goose Creek /Duck Creek
Nationally significant natural area
Supports six rare mussels including the federally endangered
Carolina heelsplitter
NC DWQ developed the Site Specific Water Quahty Management
Plan for the Goose Creek Watershed (February 2009) to sustain
and restore the biological integrity of the watershed
— Crooked Creek
Statewide significant natural area
— Lanes Creek
Statewide significant natural area
Rk sor C -rY'Ut p— A& A Monroe, OwTt c�oic� -y
5 �, StA Cl- 0 C sre eS J
Analysis Approach
• Identify resources of Interest
— Goose Creek /Duck Creek watershed
— Impaired waters - �
— General water quality
• Define the goal of the water quality analysis
• Define parameters to be examined
• Select an appropriate water quality model
10/13/2009
4
a

v
Analysis Goal
• Determine If Induced land use change
resulting from the Monroe Bypass /Connector
<a-fife"ct water quality within the project study
i N(,'A Kos fti) r►Z -5hA4 UV ( 0� -&f, ORc�
Comparative Analysis
• Comparative water
quality modeling analysis
— Develop water quality
models for with and
without project future land
use scenarios
— Quantify the difference
between the water quality
parameters projected for
each scenario
— Focus on non point source
loads
Water Quality Affects
Ambient
Land Use
Change
Induced
Land Use
Change
10/13/2009
5

Analysis Parameters
• Should address water quality stressors effecting
the resources of Interest
— Stressors
Fecal coliform — Goop Cx
Impaired biological integrity
Turbidity
• Consider best management practices mandated
by local ordinances
• Past analyses have examined nutrient and
sediment loadings
— General measures of water quality stress
Watershed Model Selection
• Should address parameters of concern at an
appropriate level of accuracy and detail
• Reasonable data and labor overhead
— Are required datasets available
— How difficult Is the model to use
• Consider the analysis to be performed
— Model requirements for comparative analyses are
different than those for TMDL development
L�7 tDOV,, ,� 0t ck-*efA -, loaa,,-) fAc
10/13/2009
1.1
a
r

10/13/2009
Watershed Model Considerations
Application
Considerations
Generalized
Mid level
Detailed
Model detail
Simplified
screening level
Mid level
Advanced
Experience required
Little
Little
Moderate to
substantial
Time needed for
Loading rate
Loading rate
Physically based
application
Less than 1 month
About 1 month
Several months
Land use
Land use
Extensive
Calibration
Pollutant loading
Sod
Management
Output time step
rates
Surface elevation
practices
Minimum data
Weather
Nutrient transport
needs
Flow discharge
relationships
Stream
characteristics
Weather
Watershed Model Considerations
Application
Considerations
Generalized
Ed evel
Detailed
Hydrology
Physically based
calculation
Percent runoff
Curve Number
hydrologic
processes
Loading rate
Loading rate
Physically based
Loading calculation
coefficients
coefficients
fate and transport
processes
Calibration
Minimal
Limited
Extensive
Output time step
Annual
Monthly annual
Sub daily daily

GWLF
Generalized Watershed Loading Functions model
— Core function of the model simulates runoff sediment
and nutrient loads
— Optional functions allow for
Consideration of septic and point discharges
Calculation of stream erosion and fecal coliform loads
Consideration of BMPs
— Endorsed by EPA as a good mid level model
Reasonable data requirements
Limited calibration
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect
Our Waters (EPA 2008)
— Widespread use in variety of watershed conditions
GWLF Accuracy
• Watershed studies performed in Maryland
and Pennsylvania document R2 ranging from
0 82 to 0 98 for N and P loadings
— R2 values greater than 0 9 are excellent
• Used in the management New York City's
water supply
• Use In North Carolina
—Jordan Lake TMDL watershed model
— Multiple NCDOT ICI projects
10/13/2009
91

GWLF Optional Inputs of Interest
Input
Relevance
Point sources
Nitrogen and phosphorus point source
I oads
Water extraction
Water withdrawal points
Septic systems
Nutrient and bacterial loads
Soil phosphorus
Phosphorus concentration in sediment
transported to water bodies
Best Management Practices
Vegetated buffers
10/13/2009
9

a�S � U10 4d'
GWLF Processes
Erosion
and
Nutrient Sediment
Loading
Water
Balance
Model Output
Water Balance
Water balance is simulated by partitioning dally precipitation into 1
of 3 compartments
— Atmosphere
— Stream
— Groundwater
Precipitation can
— Evaporate to enter the atmosphere
Evapotranspiration coefficient based on land cover
DRunoff the land surface and enter the stream network
SCS CN approach
Enter groundwater storage
Temporarily stored in shallow groundwater storage for eventual release to the
stream network
— Determined by recession coefficient
Sequestered in deep saturated storage (e g aquifer)
— Determined by seepage coefficient
10/13/2009
10

GA%
� 0 '
Sen`
O �Q,
`,�. \W
\� CV
Erosion and Sediment Loading
• Erosion
— Computed on a monthly
basis using USLE (rural
areas) or
accumulation /washoff
functions (urban areas)
• Sediment delivery ratio
— Based on watershed size
and transport capacity
• Stream erosion
— Based on watershed
specific lateral erosion rate
and stream length
Sir eva5
law PC)`��Grd� I �
Erosion
SDR
Stream
Erosion
Sediment
Loading
a,sc� s acct fo,- l, 5V
Nutrient Loading
Agricultural areas
— Dissolved N and P coefficients
applied to surface runoff
— Sediment yield coefficient for
sediment bound P
Urban areas
— Accumulation and washoff
functions
Subsurface
— Dissolved N and P coefficients
applied to released groundwater
Other contributions
— Manured areas
— Septic
— Point source
Ag
Urban
�> Nutrient
Loading
Sub
Surf
Other
10/13/2009
11

Hydrology Output
• Precipitation
• Evapotranspiration
• Extraction
• Runoff
• Subsurface flow
• Point source flow
• Stream flow
• Reported in cm /month and cm /year
Loading Output
• Erosion (kg x 1000)
• Sediment (kg x 1000)
• Dissolved N (kg)
• Total N (kg)
• Dissolve P (kg)
• Total P (kg)
• Fecal coliform (cfu /100m1)
• Reported on an average monthly and annual
basis
10/13/2009
12

Analysis Scale
Perform analysis at watershed scale
Average result for entire watershed
Masks localized problems
Go se Creek
Perform analysis at subwatershed scale
Results reported for each subwatershed
Reveals localized problems
Goose Cm k
Outlets
GWLF Calibration
Calibrate the model to achieve better agreement between model
results and observed stream flow and nutrient data at several
ambient water quality monitoring sites within the PSA
— 9 ambient water quality monitoring sites located in the PSA
Calibrate certain input parameters
— CN
— Groundwater seepage and recession coefficients
— ET cover coefficient
— Nutrient coefficients
— LISLE C and P factors
— Lateral erosion rate
— Average soil phosphorus
— Background N and P groundwater concentrations
10/13/2009
13

GWLF - Addressing PSA Stressors
Fecal
Fecal coliform
Conform
Biological
Nutrient (N and P) loads
• Sediment load
integrity
Fecal coliform
Turbidity I • Sediment load (overland and stream)
The Case for GWLF
• Addresses water quality stressors documented in
the PSA
• Proven accuracy in eastern United States
• EPA - endorsed mid -level model
• Reasonable data requirements
• Reasonable development time
• Comparative analysis, not a TMDL analysis
• Quantitative land use analysis indicates land use
change between with and without project
scenarios is not substantial
10/13/2009
14

Conclusions
• A project study area has been defined
• Water resources of interest have been identified
• GWLF watershed model will be used to perform a
comparative analysis between with and without project
future land use scenarios
Variables to be examined include
— Sediment
— Nutrients (N and P)
— Fecal coliform
• Best management practices mandated by local ordinances
will be considered
Results will incorporated into the biological assessment
W� 11"
wQ7 l
qc'�o Of t--�tt3 L law d ,
1 C'/ GUi2 "' I J (p W / kilo
10/13/2009
15