20120285_Mitigation Plans_20100629

Gaston East-West Connector
STIP NO. U-3321
GASTON AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES, NC
CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Prepared for:
� N O R T H C A R O L I N A
� Turnpike Authority
Prepared by:
��
�
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
June 29, 2010

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Background ..................................................................................................................................2
3.0 Modifications to the Preferred Alternative Preliminary Design ..............................2
4.0 Updated Impacts to ]urisdictional Resources ...............................................................3
5.0 Mitigation Requirements ........................................................................................................5
6.0 Potential Mitigation Components ........................................................................................7
6.1. Existing EEP Mitigation Assets ....................................................................................8
6.2. Potential EEP Mitigation Sites Identified in Catawba O1 and Catawba 02
in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties .......................................................................9
6.3. Traditional On-Site Mitigation ...................................................................................11
6.3.1. Site Selection Methodology ................................................................................. 11
6.3.2. Summary of Traditional On-Site Mitigation ..................................................... 14
6.4. Other On-Site, Adjacent, and Nearby Mitigation Opportunities ..................16
6.4.1. GIS Analysis Methodology ................................................................................... 17
6.4.2. Summary of On-Site Potential Stream and Wetland Mitigation .................. 18
6.5. Non-Traditional Mitigation Opportunities .............................................................19
7.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................20
Tables
1. Summary of Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Due to Design Refinements and Service
Roads..................................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Estimated Mitigation Needs for the Preferred Alternative ...................................................................... 7
3. EEP Available Mitigation Resources ...................................................................................................... 9
4. Potential Restoration Projects in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties11
5. Parcel Data and Field Evaluated Traditional On-Site Mitigation Opportunities .................................... 13
6. Summary of Stream Lengths Within On-Site and Adjacent Parcels .................................................... 19
7. Summary of Wetland Acreage Within On-Site and Adjacent Parcels .................................................. 19
8. Summary of Potential Storm Water Control Locations ......................................................................... 20
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010 I

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Exhibits
1. EEP Assets in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 ......................................................................................... 8
2. Potential EEP Restoration Sites in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 in Gaston and Mecklenburg
Cou nti es ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Figures (�ocatedaftertext)
1. Preferred Alternative DSA 9
2. Mitigation Potential Site 1
3. Mitigation Potential Site 2
4. Mitigation Potential Site 3
Appendices
A. Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources
B. Meeting Minutes from Agency Meeting on March 16, 2010
C. Project Atlas for Potential On-Site, Adjacent, and Nearby Mitigation Opportunities
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010 I I

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
1.0 Introduction
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) is proposing to construct the Gaston East-West
Connector, also known as the Garden Parkway, as a controlled-access toll road extending from I-85
west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485 near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport in
Mecklenburg County. As part of the mitigation strategy to help compensate for expected impacts
caused by this project, the NCTA is evaluating several mitigation components. These include assets
provided by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) as well as traditional and
non-traditional on-site mitigation opportunities. This Conceptual Mitigation Plan, which is the
conceptual mitigation plan for the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design, provides a
summation of the mitigation requirements and specifically all the potential mitigation components
that may ultimately comprise the mitigation package for the project. These include:
• Off-Site Mitigation. Assets available in the 8-digit hydrologic units (HUCs) crossed by the
Preferred Alternative for off-site mitigation credits to be provided by the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
• Off-Site Mitigation. Potential off-site mitigation sites closer to the Preferred Alternative in
Gaston and Mecklenburg identified by EEP for potential future acquisition for mitigation
credit.
• On-Site Mitigation. Traditional on-site mitigation opportunities identified for the Preferred
Alternative (3 potential sites).
• On-Site Mitigation. Other on-site mitigation opportunities, including preservation and
enhancement opportunities on the following types of parcels: 1) landlocked parcels that may
be purchased by NCTA, 2) landlocked parcels that have a preliminary service road identified
to provide access, 3) adjacent parcels with a portion of their area within the right-of-way but
the remainder has existing access, and 4) nearby parcels that would need to be evaluated by
EEP. In addition, non-traditional mitigation opportunities near the project were identified;
including retrofitting storm water ponds for commercial/industrial areas and runoff
collection ponds for residential curb-and-gutter communities that drain into streams without
collection systems.
With the exception of the EEP mitigation assets already in hand in the 8-digit HUCs, the other
potential mitigation resources listed in this report have not been acquired at this time. These other
potential mitigation resources require additional evaluation, including an assessment of feasibility,
more detailed determination of the amount of wetland or stream credits present on the potential site,
and contact and buy-in with property owners. The total amounts of wetland and stream mitigation
potentially available listed in this report should not be construed as the actual amounts that are
feasible or that will be implemented for this project. This report serves to document that there are
sufficient potential mitigation sites to cover the compensatory mitigation needs of the Gaston E ast-
West Connector.
The NCTA and FHWA will work with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies during
the permitting phase to further refine the mitigation plan for the proj ect.
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010 1

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

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
• Compress the NC 274 (Union Road) Interchange
• Relocate Tucker Road Connection to Canal Road
• Realign Mainline to Avoid Recreation Fields and Provide Access Road to NC 273
(Southpoint Road)
• Reconfigure the NC 273 (Southpoint Road) Interchange to Avoid Historic Boundary of Mt.
Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery
• Relocate Boat Club Road Connection North of Mainline to NC 273 (Southpoint Road)
• Reconfigure the I-485 Interchange and Dixie River Road Interchange
These design changes were made to avoid and minimize impacts to the human and natural
environment, and resulted in shifts to the alignment throughout the corridor.
4.0 Updated Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources
The refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative results in an approximately 25 percent
reduction in stream impacts (2.36 miles), an approximately 6 percent reduction in wetland impacts
(0.4 acre), a slight increase in impacts to ponds (0.4 acre), and a slight decrease in Catawba River
buffer impacts. The changes in jurisdictional resource impacts resulting from the individual
refinements are summarized in Table 1. Appendix A includes tables listing impacts by individual
resource.
Impacts Grouped bv Hvdroloe'ic Unit. The impacts listed in Table 1 and Appendix A can also
be grouped by hydrologic unit (HU). Most of the project is located in HU 03050101 (Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties), with a portion in HU 03050102 (South Fork Catawba River drainage in
Gaston County).
In HU 03050102, perennial stream impacts (including service roads) would be reduced from
3,1491inear feet to 2,642 linear feet (a change of -507 linear feet), and intermittent stream impacts
would stay approximately the same (previously 1,399 linear feet compared to currently 1,405 linear
feet) as a result of the Preferred Alternative design refinements.
In HU 03050101, perennial stream impacts (including service roads) would be reduced from
35,7451inear feet to 26,391 linear feet (a change of -9,354 linear feet), and intermittent stream
impacts would be reduced from 8, 7021inear feet to 5, 9781inear feet (a change of -2, 7241inear feet) as
a result of the Preferred Alternative design refinements.
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010 3

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Table 1. Summary of Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Due to Design Refinements
and Service Roads
Change in Impact to Resource Compared to Draft EIS DSA 9 Preliminary Design*
Design Refinement Catawba Perennial Intermittent Total
RiverBuffers Streams Streams Streams Wetlands Ponds
(squarefeet) (linearfeet) (linearfeet) (linearfeet) (acres) (acres)
Reduce Median Width Zone 1- 6,758 _980 -174 -1,154 -0.32 0
Zone 2- 1,356
ModifyMatthewsAcresAccess 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 -0.06
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 +0.02 +0.18
Interchange
Relocate Tucker Road 0 +37 0 +37 0 0
Connection
Realign Mainline At Optimist
Club Fields 0 -181 +6 -175 0 0
Reconfigure NC 273
(Southpoint Rd)interchange to 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avoid Cemetery
Relocation Boat Club Rd North 0 -135 0 -135 0 0
Connection
Reconfigure I-4851nterchange 0 -3,783 -2,335 -6,118 -0.34 0
TOTALCHANGE Zonel- 6,758 _10,215 -2,751 -12,966 -0.64 +0.12
Zone 2- 1,356
Impacts Reported in Draft EIS Zone 1- 10,400 38,894 10,101 48,995 7.50 4.1
for DSA 9 Zone 2- 10,215
ImpactsforPreferred Zonel- 3,642 Zg679 7,350 36,029 6.90 4.2
Alternative (no service roads) Zone 2- 8,859
Add Service Roads 0 +354 +33 +387 +0.12 +0.3
TOTAL IMPACTS FOR Zone 1- 3,642 Zg�033 7,383 36,416 7.02 4.5
PREFERREDALTERNATIVE Zone2- 8,859
� impac[s caicuiatea nasea on siope staKe iimits pius a ts-root nutter.
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010

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

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Bridge lengths that were extended to maintain roadway and railway access adjacent to the Catawba
River and South Fork Catawba River also avoided or minimized encroachmentinto Catawba River
buffer areas.
To further address avoidance and minimization, the NCTA met with the environmental resource and
regulatory agencies (USACE, NC Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ], USFWS, USEPA,
NC Wildlife Resources Commission [NCWRC]) at Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination
(TEAC) Meetings on February 5, March 4, and April 8, 2008, to discuss bridging and alignment
decisions for the DSAs' preliminary engineering designs. In the NEPA/404 Merger Process, this is
Concurrence Point 2a — Bridging/Alignment Decisions.
As a result of those meetings, there were no changes to the alignments of any of the DSAs, including
the Preferred Alternative. However, the NCTA agreed to include two bridges in the preliminary
engineering design for the Preferred Alternative beyond those required to convey floodwaters, to
avoid or minimize stream and wetland impacts. These bridge locations are described below.
• Corridor Segment H3 —bridge Blackwood Creek (Stream 5135).
• Corridor Segment K3A—lengthen the mainlinebridge over Catawba Creek (Stream 5259) to
span the main body of Wetland W248. This extension also avoids impacts to Catawba River
buffer areas on the east side of the creek.
Compensatorv Miti�'ation and Miti�'ation Ratios. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and
practicable avoidance and minimization has been incorporated. It is the decision of the USACE and
the NCDWQ whether to require mitigation for impacts associated with construction.
Because this project would be permitted under an Individual Section 404 Permit, mitigation for
impacts to surface waters will be required by the USACE and NCDWQ. Furthermore, in accordance
with its regulations (33 CFR Part 332), the USACE requires compensatory mitigation when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Stream impacts
will be greater than USACE and NCDWQ regulatory thresholds and will require compensatory
mitigation.
Based on correspondence with USACE and NCDWQ (field verification meeting held on April 12-13,
2010), the following mitigation ratios will be required:
• Intermittent streams (USACE stream quality rating score 0-49 [unimportant]) — 0.51
(meaning 0.51inear feet of mitigation should be provided for every 1.O linear feet of impact)
• Intermittent streams (USACE stream quality rating 50-100 [important]) — 1:1
• Perennialstreams-2:1
• W etlands — 2:1
Table 2 lists the project's mitigation needs based on the current estimate of impacts to jurisdictional
resources from the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design. It should be noted that the
impact estimates include a 25-foot buffer from the estimated construction limits based on the current
preliminary level of design. It is likely that actual impacts will be less as the project moves into final
design.
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010 6

Table 2. Estimated Mitiga
Resource
Wetlands
Perennial Streams
Intermittent— Important Streams
Intermittent— Unimportant
Streams
WMU = Wetland Mitigation Unit
CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Needs for the Preferred Alternative
Impacts — Preferred
Alternative Refined Mitigation Ratio Estimated Mitigation Need
I 7.0 acres
29,033 If
4,039
3,344
SMU = Stream Mitigation Unit
2:1
2:1
1:1
0.5:1
14.0 WMUs
58,066 SMUs
4,039 SMUs
1,672 SMUs
Catawba River Buffers. Based on the refined preliminary design, the Preferred Alternative would
impact 3,642 square feet of Zone 1 buffers and 8,859 square feet of Zone 2 buffers. The total impacts
to buffers would be 12, 501 square feet (0.28 acre). This is less than the threshold of one-third acre
that requires mitigation.
During final design, the amount of buffer area required would be recalculated. Impacts less than
one-third acre would still require, prior to construction, written authorization from the NCDWQ for
disturbances to the buffer (15A NCAC 02B.0244).
6.0 Potential Mitigation Components
The preferred intent of the NCTA and the FHWA is to use the EEP's in-lieu fee payment program as
the primary means of providing compensatory mitigation for the Gaston East-West Connector
project.
The EEP was established by the Memorandum of Agreement Among the North Carolina Department
of Enuironment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (July 22, 2003). According to the three-party
Memorandum of Agreement, the mission of the EEP is to "restore, enhance, preserve and protect the
functions associated with wetlands, streams and riparian areas, including but not limited to those
necessary for the restoration, maintenance and protection of water quality and riparian habitats
throughout North Carolina."
EEP provides mitigation services on a watershed level basis as compensation for unavoidable
environmental impacts associated with transportation infrastructure and economic development.
EEP also focuses on detailed watershed planning and project implementation efforts within North
Carolina's threatened or degraded watersheds.
In accordance with the watershed-based approach, mitigation provided by EEP for a project can be
provided in locations throughout the same 8-digit hydrologic unit.
At meetings and in correspondence about the Gaston East-West Connector project, including a
meeting held March 16, 2010, environmental resource and regulatory agencies expressed concern
that much of EEP's available mitigation in Catawba Ol and Catawba 02 is not present in Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties, but rather at a distance from the project. Meeting minutes from the
March 16, 2010 meeting are included in Appendix B.
In order to address agency concerns, the NCTA and EEP have agreed to investigate mitigation
opportunities supplemental to or in addition to the typical EEP programmatic approach. In separate
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010 �

CorvcEarua� reracanorv awrv
efforts, EEP has conducted a search for potential near-site opportunities and the NCTA has
conducted a review of on-site mitigation and non-traditional mitigation opportunities. The following
sections provided a review of the potential components of the mitigation plan including:
1) Mitigation assets EEP currently has in hand in the two S-digit HUCs crossed by the
Preferred Alternative-03060101 (Catawba Ol) and 03060102 (Catawba 02)
2) Recent mitigation site search conducted by EEP for potential sites in these two HUCs that
are within Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
3) Traditional on-site mitigation
4) Other on-site mitigation sources
6) Non-traditionalon-sitemitigation
6.1. Existing EEP Mitigation Assets
The EEP k�as several sites in Catawba Ol and Catawba 02 with streazn and wetland mitigation
credits still available for commitment to projects. Exhibit 1 shows the lceations of these EEP
projects.
txniuit i. ttM assets m catawua ui ana catawua ue
eosron eon-wem m�necmi
STIPPmjeclNO.U3321-1une2010 8

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Table 3 lists the available assets at these sites. The nearest site to the Preferred Alternative is the
Beaverdam Creek site located just south of the proposed project's interchange with I-485 within
Berewick Regional Park. The Beaverdam Creek site (EEP Project 92217) includes 13,014 Stream
Mitigation Units — Restoration (SMU-R) and 520 Stream Mitigation Units — Restoration E quivalent
(SMU-RE).
Table 3. EEP Available
Resource
Streams
Wetlands
Mitigation Type
Restoration
Resources
Wa1
Catawba Ol
16,352 SMU
Restoration Equivalent
High Quality Preservation
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
High Quality Preservation
5,107
8.6WMU
3.0
Source: EEP
* SMU =5tream Mitigation Unit, WMU = Wetland Mitigation Unit
Catawba 02
18,767 SMU
0
2.4WMU
0.7
Tota I
35,119 SMU
5,107 SM U
32,928 SMU in
Southern Piedmont Ec
11.0 W M U
3.7WMU
263.1 WMU in
Southern Piedmont Ec
6.2. Potential EEP Mitigation Sites Identified in Catawba O1 and Catawba 02 in
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
EEP conducted a GIS site search for potential stream projects in 14-Digit HUCs in Catawba Ol and
Catawba 02 within Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. The EEP is willing to pursue these potential
projects as part of the normal process for identifying mitigation credits in Catawba Ol and
Catawba 02. However, these mitigation projects would not be tied directly to the Gaston East-West
Connector.
Consistent with the programmatic approach the EEP takes, these credits would be applied to future
projects, but the Gaston East-West Connector would be the influence that steers these future credits
to areas the agencies felt they were most needed. This is a normal process in the programmatiq
watershed approach to mitigation.
The GIS site search of local watersheds for the Gaston East-West Connector included parcels in
Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties that had more than 1,000 linear feet of stream with land use
having restoration potential (open space, low density developed, pasture, herbaceous, or cropland).
Project feasibility was evaluated by five criteria:
• Total project stream length greater than 1, 5001inear feet, with at least one parcel containing
1,000 linear feet
• 1 to 3landowners
• Drainage area less than 10 square miles
• Streams with narrow or no buffer on at least one side
• Riparian corridor without severe constraints
Sixteen sites were identified through the GIS evaluation and subsequently visited via windshield
survey by EEP staff in March 2010. Landowners were not contacted in support of this effort. Based
on the site visit, the potential feasibility of each site was ranked in three tiers, as listed below and
shown in the adjacent exhibit. Exhibit 2 shows the locations of these EEP projects.
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 20ID 9

CONCEPrUAL MITIGAIION P({W
1]er 1- Good project possibility
1]er 2- Project has significant cons4aints
1]er 3- Project is not feasible
Field Assessment Results: Polenlial Resroralion Projects in G/drden Parkway Area
�' �\�
7
�� ,,�.,,m,��. , 'yo �� e— _
m� �,m «
�„ ` � ��
�� .i :,
i�
Legentl �-��
vroi<ar.aaaircyn:� ' cnwoaai
po, � ��.sn.
,i.- �s���.oa
.f.' , a,00 „�ao ,.000
Exhibit 2. Potential EEP Restoration Sites in Catawba Ol and Catawba 02 in Garton and Mecklenburg
Counties
Table 4lists the potential restoration projects identified as Tier 1 and Tier 2. Total potential s4eam
restoration length is 3$400 linear feet in Tier 1(most promising sites) and 1$100 linear feet in
Tier 2(site has significant cons4aints). There were nine Tier 1 projects and five Tier 2 projects
identified.
eo:m�eo:e-we:eeo��e�roi
91PProjeotNO. LL3321-JUne2030 10

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

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Stream Restoration and Enhancement
• Stream projects must have a minimum of 50 feet conservation easement on both sides of the
stream for the entire project length. Easements are measured from the top of the stream
bank on both sides of the stream. The easement may be wider if there is room for additional
planting (up to 200 feet from the top on either side of the stream) or if there is a wetland
component to the project (no easement width limit).
o One side of stream must be free of utilities.
o Streams with a utility on one side must have a 50 foot easement in addition to any
existing utility easement. The width of the utility cannot count towards the 50 foot
easement requirement.
• 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. There is no
maximum length for a stream project. Stream restoration opportunities that are less than
2,000 linear feet, but involve relocation of the existing stream as a result of the proposed
roadway, were also considered.
• Less than 10 square mile drainage area (typically lsr and 2°d order streams, 3Td order streams
in some cases), and no greater than a 3Td order stream.
• Proposed stream segments must be perennial as indicated on United States Geological
Survey (USGS) 24K Quadrangle Maps and/or in the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) Soil Surveys. No more than 20 percent of the proposed restoration or enhancement
project can be intermittent.
Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
• Hydric soils must be present (might be relic).
• Original wetland hydrology is altered by ditching, tile drains, filling, or other means caused
by human influences.
• Proposed wetland restoration area lacks appropriate wetland vegetation.
• Minimum of 2 acres (unless associated with a stream project) in size, but no maximum.
• Site is not comprised entirely of invasive vegetation species (i.e. manageable within reason).
After identification of potential mitigation opportunities, sites were further evaluated in the field.
Field evaluations at prospective mitigation sites were performed. Evaluations included an
assessment of soils, hydrology, vegetative cover, and landscape/watershed characteristics. Sites
were evaluated with consideration for an existing buffer and proximity to existing jurisdictional
systems. Notes were collected regarding species composition, soil matrix and chroma, and any site
constraints (e.g. active farming, culverts, utilities). Site photos were also taken.
Based on the GIS analysis, 20 tax parcels totalling approximately 1,050 acres were identified as
potentially containing mitigation opportunities, as listed in Table 6.
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010 12

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Table 5. Parcel Data and Field Evaluated Traditional On-Site Miti ation O ortunities
PIN Owner ParcelAddress Size MitigationPotential
(acres)
Sites with Mitigation Potential
3535210554 DOCKERY DAVID N Lin wood Rd 42.8 Stream Enhancement (Site 1)
3535229884 DOCKERY PROPERTIES LLLP Hubert5t 29.1 Stream Enhancement (Site 1)
3534287991 DOCKERY, DAVID N 2900 Linwood Rd 101.6 Stream Enhancement (Site 1)
3562837404 HARRISON, CHARLES 6338 Union Rd 15.5 Stream Enhancement and Restoration
(Site 2)
3562839141 HARRISON, CHARLES 6338 Union Rd 193 Stream Enhancement and Restoration
(Site 2)
3562920627 HARRISON, CHARLES 6338 Union Rd zz 3 Stream Enhancement and Restoration
(Site 2)
3562922221 HARRISON,CHARLES WilsonRd 20.6 StreamEnhancementandRestoration
(Site 2)
3533650153 FALLS, ROBERT P 362 Crowders Creek Rd 21.6 Wetland Enhancement (Site 3)
Sites with No Mitigation Potential
3535098933 STILES, PARKS 11135hannon Bradley Rd 15.8 No Mitigation Potential: impaired stream
reach too short
3535091505 ROBINSON,ROBERTF&ANNIE DundeenDr 26.2 NoMitigationPotentiahstablestream
3536009443 STILES, PARKS Shannon Bradley Rd 4 1 No Mitigation Potential: impaired stream
reach too short
3552053030 ENTLER, EARNEST L GrannyTrail 4J No Mitigation Potentiah stable stream
3552039171 THOMPSON,lAMESUR SparrowDairyRd 1793 NoMitigationPotentiaLstablestream
3562438039 FERGUSON, MARGARETANN 162 Wilmn Farm Rd 137.2 No Mitigation Potential: functioning
QUINN wetland rystem
3573819339 LAKHANI,ZAHID R 1208 Union New Hope Rd zg g No Mitigation Potential: functioning
wetland rystem
3573830015 STOWE, IEFFREY W Union New Hope Rd 83.5 No Mitigation PotentiaC currently under
mnstruction
4502847583 MECKLENBURG COUNTY Dixie River Rd 75.0 Completed stream restoration project
4512051925 MECKLENBURG COUNTY Dixie River Rd 105.0 Completed stream restoration project
4502649026 DLCIE RIVER L4ND COMPANY Dixie River Rd 15.9 Completed stream restoration project
4502820480 DI%IE RIVER L4ND CO LLC Dixie River Rd 102.8 No Mitigation PotentiaL stable stream
In most cases, the natural resource feature with mitigation opportunity extended across multiple
parcels, in which case the parcels were combined to facilitate field evaluation. Following field
evaluations, seven (7) parcels were found that contain opportunities for stream and/or wetland
mitigation. These parcels are grouped into three (3) sites (Sites 1-3) and are described below.
Stream and wetland credit calculations are based on ratios provided on the USACE Wilmington
District webpage (http:Nwww.saw.usace.armv.mil/WETLANDS/Mitigation/index.html May 5, 2010).
All of the recommended sites will require additional analysis and feasibility studies to determine the
full mitigation potential.
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010 13

CONCEPTUAL MITZGATZON PLAN
6.3.2. Summary of Traditional On-Site Mitigation
Site I: 2900 Linwood Road, Gastonia, NC (Linwood Springs Golf Course)
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Restoration and Enhancement
Site 1, shown in Figure 2, is located
at 2900 Linwood Road in southwest
Gastonia. The site consists of all or a
portion of four tax parcels that total
appro�mately 204.9 acres. Land use
consists of a golf course with routine
maintenance associated with fairway
upkeep.
The site contains approximately
5,744 linear feet of Crowders Creek.
Crowders Creek is a 303(d)-listed
stream for impaired biological
integrity primarily resulting from
urban runoff and storm sewers
(NCDWQ 2006, 2010). The reach of
Crowders Creek contained cvithin the
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. Eroding stream banks were observed
throughout this reach of Crowder's Creek. The site also contains approximately 3,589 linear feet of
first- and second-order tributaries to Crowders Creek that have been rerouted though on-site ponds
or degraded from past land-use practices.
Mitigation potential within Site 1 may include various Priority 1 through 4 stream restoration and
enhancement opportunities along approximately 9,334 linear feet of Crowders Creek and tributaries.
Stream restoration may involve activities that result in improvements to the impaired stream and
riparian corridor that restore stream geomorphic dimension, pattern, and profile (USACE 2003).
Stream restoration and enhancement approaches that are appropriate for this reach of Crowders
Creek may include stream realignment, stream bank stabilization (relaxing the grade of overly
steep, unstable banks) and excavating a floodplain (or bankfull bench) adjacent to the channel.
Additionally, planting a riparian buffer will enhance bank stability, increase channel shading, and
provide additional wildlife habitat.
Discussions cvith the landowner indicated an interest in selling the entire property. NCDOT Natural
Environmental Unit (NEL� is currently moving forward with a site appraisal. Additional analysis
and feasibility studies are necessary to determine if mitigation activities are practical and cost
effective.
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream restoration and enhancement ranges from lA to 2.5
depending on the range of techniques that are applied to a site. Stream restoration and
enhancement of approximately 9,334 linear feet of Crowders Creek and on-site tributaries may
result in upwards of 9,334 stream mitigation units (SML�. The USACE (in conjunction cvith
NCDWQ and any other relevant regulatory agencies) ultimately determines the mitigation credit
ratio for each project on a case-by-case basis.
Gaston East-West Connector
STIP Project No. U-3321-1une 2010 14

Site 2: 6338 Union Road, Gastonia, NC
Mtittigattion Opportuntity: Stream Enhancement and Restorattion
Site 2, shown on Figure 3, is located
at 6338 Union Road in southeast
Gastonia. The site consists of four
tax parcels that total approximately
77.6 acres. The three southernmost
parcels comprise the Harrison
Family Dairy Farm, a historic site
determined to be eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) (See Draft EIS,
Section 522). Land use consists of
cattle production with the majority of
the site covered in pasture.
The Site contains appro�mately
1,700 linear feet of 1VIi11 Creek, a
perennial stream that flows south to
a confluence with Lake Wylie. The �t K
reach of Mill Creek contained within
the Site is characterized by steep banks, limited sinuosity, and a limited riparian buffer consisting
primarily of the invasive Chinese privet. The stream banks are eroded in some areas as a result of
unrestricted access by cattle. The Site also contains an intermittent, unnamed tributary (U� that
transitions to a linear wetland before reaching a confluence with Mill Creek. The UT loses channel
definition after approximately 200 linear feet, and then transitions to wetland due to the impacts of
cattle on the tributary. The linear wetland extends to Mill Creek for a distance of approximately 650
feet, but lacks the characteristics to be classified as a stream. Both streams were delineated during
the natural resources study performed for the Gaston East-West Connector.
CONCEPTUAL MITZGATZON PLAN
Mitigation potential within Site 2 consists of stream enhancement opportunities along
approximately 1,700 linear feet of Mill Creek, and stream restoration opportunities along
approximately 270 linear feet of the UT (or more with agency approval to exceed 20 percent of the
perennial reach length). Stream enhancement approaches that are appropriate for Mill Creek
include excavating a floodplain (or bankfull bench) adjacent to the channel, cattle exclusion fencing,
and invasive species management. Additionally, planting a riparian buffer will enhance bank
stability, increase channel shading, and provide additional cvildlife habitat. Cattle exclusion will
provide for long term stream bank stability, reduced erosion and sedimentation, and improve water
quality. Stream restoration entails the conversion of an unstable, degxaded stream channel and its
associated riparian corridor to a natural, stable condition (USACE 2003). Restoration of the UT
could be achieved by the excavation of a new channel using the existing floodplain gxade of the
stream to be restored (Priority 1 Restoration). Performing riparian plantings along the UT and the
installation of cattle exclusion fencing would also be necessary.
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5 depending on the
techniques that are applied to the site. Stream enhancement of approximately 1,700 linear feet of
Mill Creek may result in appro�mately 680 to 1,700 SMU. The mitigation activity multiplier for
stream restoration is 1.0, resulting in approximately 270 SML7 from the restoration of 270 linear feet
of the UT. The USACE (in conjunction with NCDWQ and any other applicable regulatory agencies)
ultimately determines the mitigation credit ratio for each project on a case-by-case basis. Due to its
Gaston East-West Connector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010 1$

CONCEPTUAL MITZGATZON PLAN
status as a potential significant historic site eligible for listing on the National Register Historic
Places (NRHP), determining potential for stream restoration on this site cvill require coordination
with the State Historic Preservation Office.
Stite 3: 362 Crowders Creek Road, Gastontia, NC
Mtittigattion Opportuntity: Wetland Enhancement
Site 3, shown on Figure 4, is located
at 362 Crowders Creek Road at the
intersection with Angler Road near the
Berkley Oaks mobile home park. The
Site is approximately 21.6 acres and is
situated adjacent to Crowders Creek, a
303(d)-listed stream.
Approximately 7.78 acres of the site
consists of jurisdictional wetlands
delineated during the natural
resources studies performed for the
Gaston East-West Connector. When
the wetland was delineated in
February 2007, the site was forested
and characterized as a high quality
wetland system. The majority of the
site has subsequently been logged, with Early successional wetland community and timber slash deposits
the exception of a narrow riparian following logging
buffer along Crowders Creek and along
the eastern property boundary. All canopy species have been removed, and an early successional
wetland community has begun to develop. Slash piles remaining from the timber harvest are
scattered throughout the site and have inhibited recruitment of vegetation within those areas.
Ditches were also observed within the limits of the wetland, likely created in support of logging
activities.
Mitigation potential within Site 3 consists of wetland enhancement opportunities for approximately
7.0 acres. Wetland enhancement primarily involves the re-introduction of functions that the existing
wetland area previously performed. Wetland enhancement approaches that are appropriate for this
Site include removal of timber slash, filling/gxading ditches, ripping/discing areas compacted by
logging equipment, and planting characteristic hydrophytic vegetation in wetland areas to restore
the pre-disturbance community.
The mitigation activity multiplier for wetland enhancement is 0.50 (2:1 ratio). Wetland
enhancement of approximately 7.0 acres may result in 3.5 wetland mitigation units (WMZ�. The
USACE (in conjunction with NCDWQ and any other relevant regulatory agencies) ultimately
determines the mitigation credit ratio for each project on a case-by-case basis.
6.4. Other On-Site, Adjacent, and Nearby Mitigation Opportunities
NCTA conducted an evaluation of potential "on-site" mitigation opportunities associated with the
Preferred Alternative. These opportunities included potential stream and wetland sites and also
potential locations for storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Gaston East-West Connector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010 16

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

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

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Table 6. Summary of Stream Lengths within
On-Site and Ad'acent Parcels
Types of Parcels Where Stream Length
Streams Are Located (Linear Feet)
Landlocked 17,647
LandlockedWithAccess 10,041
Landlocked / Adjacent 2,220
Landlocked / Nearby Site 572
LandlockedWithAccess/ 3,140
Adjacent
Adjacent 133,700
Nearby Site 13,577
Nearby Site / Adjacent 6,454
Total Potential Stream Length 187,351
TotalPerennial 137,699
Total lntermittent 19,273
Total NHD (Unclassified/ 30,379
Table 7. Summary of Wetland
Acreage within On-Site
and Ad'acent Parcels
Types of Parcels Where
Wetlands Are Located Acres
Landlocked 3.7
LandlockedWithAccess 4.4
Nearby Site 1.0
Adjacent 32.3
Total Potential Wetlands 41.4
6.5. Non-Traditional Mitigation Opportunities
As recognized by the regulatory agencies, traditional stream mitigation may not be possible in urban
areas due to multiple landowners, physical constraints, or hydrologic concerns (e.g., flooding). The
regulatory agencies also have recognized that the possibility exists for innovative approaches to
mitigation that may also benefit many stream functions, including water quality and aquatic life.
This is known as non-traditional mitigation or "Flexible Stream Mitigation."
For the Gaston East-West Connector project, potential opportunities for creating or improving storm
water ponds were investigated. Potential commercial/industrial and residential sites were identified
using the GIS data and aerial photography. Sites were field checked on May 4 and 5, 2010. Six
potential commercial/industrial sites were identified, as listed in Table 8 and in Appendix C(as
part of Sites Ol, 02, 10, and 25). These sites require further investigation to determine actual benefit
and whether improvements at these sites would result in mitigation credits.
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010 19

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Residential curb-and-gutter communities that drain into streams without collection systems were
reviewed throughout the project study area, but there was no potential for practical improvements.
Table 8. Summary of Potential Storm Water Control Locations
Site BMP ID Existing Storm
Number* Number WaterControl Description
Present?
Located in the northeast corner ofthe WIX plant parcel,there is a
Ol 1 No possible opportunity for a storm water pond in this grassy area of
approximately 1 acre
Located behind the parking lot of Curtiss Wright Controls Inc.
2 Yes There is the possibility of improvements to an existing BMP. The
existing BMP does not appear to hold water.
Located at the end of Myrtle Avenue. Storm water flow off roof
02 3 Yes and parking lot directed into an outflow pipe along property line
ending at a headwater stream. Potential for storm water pond
creation.
10 4 Yes Located south of the Bi-Lo Supermarket, proper maintenance of
the existing BMP could increase its effectiveness.
Located west ofthe Family Dollar, the existing BMP could be
5 Yes improved by ensuring flow is restricted and water is held for a
longertime period. Additionally,the outflowcould be better
managed to reduce erosion.
25 6 No Located north ofthe Carolina Speedway dirttrack, a new BMP
facility would capture sediment runofffrom the clay parking lots.
* SeeAppendixCforMapofSite
7.0 Conclusions
The preferred intent of the NCTA and the FHWA is to use the EEP's in-lieu fee payment program as
the primary means of providing compensatory mitigation for the Gaston East-West Connector
project. Other components of the project's ultimate mitigation package could include traditional on-
site mitigation, other on-site mitigation together with adjacent and nearby mitigation, and non-
traditional mitigation. The NCTA and FHWA will work with the environmental resource and
regulatory agencies during the permitting phase to further refine the mitigation plan for the project.
This Conceptual Mitigation Plan provides a description of all the potential mitigation components
that may ultimately comprise the mitigation package for the project. These are summarized below.
EEP Existin�' Off-Site Miti�'ation Assets. These are assets available in the 8-digit hydrologic
units (HUCs) crossed by the Preferred Alternative for off-site mitigation credits to be provided by the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
Existing assets include 73,154 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 277.7 Wetland Mitigation Units
(WMUs). Of these, 13,534 SMUs are located in the Beaverdam Creek mitigation site, located
immediately southwest of the Gaston E ast-West Connector's interchange at I-485.
EEP Potential Off-Site Miti�'ation for Future Proiects. These are potential off-site mitigation
sites closer to the Preferred Alternative in Gaston and Mecklenburg identified by EEP for potential
future acquisition for mitigation credit. Fourteen sites were identified with a total potential stream
restoration length of 32,400 linear feet in Tier 1(most promising sites) and 12,100 linear feet in
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010 2�

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Tier 2(site has significant constraints). There were nine Tier 1 projects and five Tier 2 projects
identified.
Traditional On-Site Miti�'ation. Three potential sites were identified as traditional on-site
mitigation opportunities. Two are potential stream mitigation sites; Site 1— Linwood Springs Golf
Course, and Site 2— 6338 Union Road. The third is a potential wetland mitigation site, Site 3— 362
Crowders Creek Road.
Other On-Site, Adiacent and Nearbv Miti�'ation Opportunities. These sites are other on-site
mitigation opportunities, including preservation and enhancement opportunities on the following
types of parcels: 1) landlocked parcels that may be purchased by NCTA, 2) landlocked parcels that
have a preliminary service road identified to provide access, 3) adjacent parcels with a portion of
their area within the right-of-way but the remainder has existing access, and 4) nearby parcels that
would need to be evaluated by EEP. This evaluation identified 187,351 linear feet of potential
stream mitigation (27,688 lf of this total is on landlocked parcels and landlocked parcels with
proposed service roads). This evaluation also identified 41.4 acres of potential wetland mitigation
(81 acres of this total is on landlocked parcels and landlocked parcels with proposed service roads).
Non-Traditional Miti�'ation Opportunities. These types of opportunities searched for near the
project included new or retrofitted storm water ponds for commercial/industrial areas and runoff
collection ponds for residential curb-and-gutter communities that drain into streams without
collection systems. Six commercial/industrial sites were identified for potential storm water BMPs.
Of these, four are existing storm water control facilities in need of improvement. The other two
would be new storm water control facilities.
With the exception of the EEP mitigation assets already in hand in the 8-digit HUCs, the other
potential mitigation resources listed in this report have not been acquired at this time. These other
potential mitigation resources require additional evaluation, including an assessment of feasibility,
more detailed determination of the amount of wetland or stream credits present on the potential site,
and contact and buy-in with property owners. The total amounts of wetland and stream mitigation
potentially available listed in this report should not be construed as the actual amounts that are
feasible or that will be implemented for this project. This report serves to document that there are
sufficient potential mitigation sites to cover the compensatory mitigation needs of the Gaston E ast-
West Connector.
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010 21

L
NOTE: PRELIMINHRY HLIGNMENTS SU&IECT TO CH4NGE
a
a
a
a
Ranlo
Gastonia
� Gastonia
Municipal
\ Airport
Crowders Creek
s�nooi
I` �
Lowell
--�--__ 1 _0 Gaston Cou�y_NC\ l�
York County, SC -- -- �
McAdenville
Cramerton
c�,
�'6
aC�
�
Mt. Holly
�
r
J;
�
�
�
�
I
�
�
��
��
� U
Belmont (�
\\
� �7� \\l
I
8 �
Legend
Preferred Alternative
- Right of Way
i
� Preferred Alternative
Study Corridor
;� Other Detailed
� Study Corridors
p`ro \ ,
4t
7 �`d b� o a >1 !
d'P� = nne� �'
^ w° s�ima�. ml
UI
N �
Z
f �
o �
Lc °r I
�./
/—_ —�
/
/
�
�
� I-85 a� US 321 �s NC 273 (Southpoint Road)
�z US 29-74 �s Robinson Road �s Dixie River Road
�a Linwood Road �s NC 274 (Union Road) �o I-485
OO NC 279 (S. New Hope Rd)
Cha�tte -
Douglas
International
Parks and Recreation Areas
Municipal Areas
Rivers and Streams
Source: Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County GIS
Map printed March 2010
� o os �
� Miles
�
rNORTH CAROLINA
J iY�rnpike Authority
STIP PROJECT
NO. U-3321
Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County
GASTON EAST-WEST
CONNECTOR
PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
DSA 9
Figure 1

� C�" �(�'ky3 i.xr'�
-" �,�. ,r�.,y�yy,a`t�-. �:
� n� � �
.�w�� . . vi� +.� '
( ��, Ze4Cr�,r � P � ,�?
< � � t
( l�j C{���,�'r. '���.il
C `4 �e C� �. '4b"
�<<<�`{t �t`e=��'-.t ~..� t
k \ �< , �c�. <c
�
£ ��S{��t4 �� �.j �4� (� �
� . �-., �
..��L ¢ a � ��t �� �_ .
t c C c
. c c'. 2 (.,..� �.
C St f
��i �. s � � �_a
Y.
��f �. C�� - � .
t
o� �e's. �e k � c- :i
,
� c
� t� E e �. c`t s� ��°�
,-s,���
� �-:: �
����. � �t�^rr� . �;s�i.�i
5
Legend
"r¢ . 4��� � {� �„�('� }�?,� ��%Ir ;�tf � i
S� � �'�� ,+q "� ` r'�
G..�-. s+9���u�r+ ,�.�� i
��
�, s �t . Y�a'� a '�{ xy kr
��:� i^� �'Ey_YtiP�c
� i�_.4',A �pt �Yj:
� � .� � � £{,� y , .
04
`r� ' � #:.h _R
m :} �,.
�°� �; . � ��h�w,,� 't` � i,� —
°, ��,0 �����,,��� i
1 i� � �{{
� � ���
�. � * � , ;:- �; •;.1
4� � �
eK,�`+d �,k. �'t_ yb
� yyy � �
�� t� � .
M k��' � 3
! �
p/
a"'> ' 6g. a � '
.. -. � e �'3 a yf'�r"
t , �
� ��{ t. .
s. &� ,
' � �"y �"�. � t � ;lt...
?»
,avr �+++Yy` �� , .
� �.
w �
« * �
�����-.
�,���
,.
'�i a. "' 8 } � � r�;vz f
y
��^+` � ' y.,� � �# ,'R. �. � .� a7r '�. �
��,. �� . 1,�. � �� $ _ � �r
��k 3 'R� �{�y ' P �.
'°���R�� �3 ` ' tG: .� ,�j �`.. � � .
,', �;. �.� i w�,R . i �
� f� j � �. � '"' ^� . -_ r�` = � .
�� t d ~ �d
. v i ... . � � � �i � h Yf..�
� Site 1
Delineated/Estimated Streams
Delineated Wetlands
� Landlocked Parcel
DSA 9 Corridor Boundary
DSA9 ROW Boundary
900 0 900
FEET
SCALE: 1 IN = 900 FT
Data Sources:
2008 Aerial Photo (NAIP)
Parcel (Gaston County)
Roads (NC OneMap)
Sir�ms (NHD and U3321 Delineation)
Wetlands (U3321 Delineation)
ROW and Corridor Feb 2010
PreparN BY:
��B
�!
xt l 'g 4.
te`N.''` _�e� . ���lvwyF•�
'. { ! . � ��� rt.Yii�
�'
' I m� .. '�" �����.0� �•«�
� l ., >�.e.v�a��., ' i
h. ,�� . . ih;v��. �
�� _ - . ._.�f'...i.
S�
: $ i �,_ �� ,
_ 4 � ? � ` t""."`: a
r
��� �,:
� wc �. . �: ..
_r✓ } 3 n �N,
• I.. t +�}�'i �
M {�-
�
l {� p R •��
L C � �
� �.. o
MITIGATION POTENTIAL
SITE I: 2900 LINWOOD ROAD
GASTON COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
�
�
�" FIGURE
MCG
er:
JWG �
MAY 2010
�� 100010933

�
x;,� ,
n
, y `�'yhf l�n_
�\�J
�±, �I.
�
� . ';�
�
. �
,>� ,�
; �4
�,'!{;•.
tTi�i� �����yL �r� k-� , ?��:�„` '"� . ..
�f � 5> - ' ,� . :i: ,. .
. a . � ) . - ���r: ,i��_.
.. -y . � t' �, -'�'�"' . '•
� � . � ���' - ' . �.�.'.
r '� � h
t S . �t. �
, , • �
, � ,�°: �r "�
;r _ , : � � �}�
S .
�.,. _ ��'•� :•
. . � � ��
Legend
� Site 2
Delineated/Estimated Streams
Delineated Wetlands
DSA 9 ROW Boundary
DSA 9 Corridor Boundary
500 0 500
FEET
SCALE: 1 IN = 500 FT
Data Sources:
2008 Aerial Photo (NAIP)
Parcel (Gaston Counry)
Roads (NC OneMap)
Sireams and Wetlands
(NHD and U3321 delineation)
ROW and Corridor (Feb 2010)
PreparN BY:
��B
�
!
x �
rr - � r:
�"
� �
F;-_, ���-:'���
����:
-� .
�..
MITIGATION POTENTIAL
SITE 2: 6338 UNION RoAD
GASTON COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
r�=:
� .,
� h
.
„�'��r •
� 'A �I, r,��p
�4 f�
t r 4rd �
1- .°y![ �,� i:� 6.
�.i�' 1� v h. �.C.• 0
SAf.:� � . `. ,
�e .. St }" �'�. .
. , �
.:L�..;�y 0.��, �.
4. �
� �� . S `
. � �� ( j�'.'
.
. • ° , -
�f �N ; ti
�� b�;. .
S> � . '
�" FIGURE
MCG
er:
�W� 3
MAY 2010
�� 100010933

1�i���•[«��Ji��3 Z i� F..• ��''•S' l
. f j'. .
❑ ,. i'' . �.
:'! . a • .c, �""t' �"�.' �.�j
� \`.'�� -�{"� . � .y���1f'.' i
fJ-.. L� �r� /' r l� ( S .��1
� 4 1
� �f �r t�.i��h�� ' ,..�rl�-�1 .''c�
l� t,.. { �� � ��/ ��� { r :Y:
':,,� i�ti ��i . � '1,R r �� �" . i
~�~�' ��`���'y•�ff�i�• ����% �`
,'�{ � � � y'ti t ��v�`. ji 'ra 'x,��
� �` 4 � �• S� tS . �1 % ��
�r�,'�{! �R������ ����4�'r.� .�4,r� '
' J �.
e � T• `'r" ;
•:�,_i;=,;{� r1 1�i����' j}��''r` ��
. `�� � � " ^'}, � `��� �1' h���A { �,• y .
�cs a ��•�� �
, ����i� �_��`kti �' � .
i f��` �'1' y.,���' ��_
- , ��� . ,' ���.��'
' ' � r r r y � � .
��'.a ` ?�' t �� .�,�' ;�,. �
� s +� '�.�
�`!�(;`.i+% ]�,$;'�'a,:.��U1f��r.� r
i '�� �� `,�
;�''i; �'�r ' ` '' '�•;;��-�
�'�'T _`ti �'ir r' f� � ,
'�rt�s'� �a ti . ; < .2 :, f rt + "�
: _ .f'. �3, s : � � r t � , �. :
E'I ��. ��
� c��
Trs
l���� .� 1
i�' `.
�
��:, �.,.; ::;�
�! !~ l t4 +
i� �� \� r Y
' �� f`;�.,
, •�r f �=��(
�a-��� r .,},�
r, ..._ ,
! _ . 7�' �
�,T j ;.
�-s � r .
fr, �� `*;.:'4.�.#y;
. �:'Z�f"'a . "r•'�
�r�� � 'J,�`tk
_ . �r s �
Legend
� '�� .'
� Site 3
Delineated Wetlands
DSA 9 Corridor Boundary
DSA 9 ROW Boundary �
300 0 300
FEET
SCALE: 1 IN =300 FT
Data Sources:
2008 Aerial Photo (NAIP)
Parcel (Gaston Counry)
Roads (NC OneMap)
Wetlands (U3321 delin�tion)
ROW and Corridor (Feb 2010)
PreparN BY:
��B
�
!
f'
-:..
. •,�-
,t , *
;x
�a� �
f�f , � ,i1 y�,r
b
1��'/p�J � -�'.�,�*�'!%'a
q l 1 ��� ' . ;
�r��
� �
f
a
�il,
:rC i� �! �
�1�F�
��
��� ��� . q
��R;. , .
f �
1��4�� ,
a..��;
�,`�+' �
}�{ .!',! �. s Y'�
Y'� .T�
^�+ ~
1 � � 1 ��� �
1`�
v
��k
��
� � ��
���
����
•f t� y
�, , , ' ��
•(� �.
�,��r ;� �..
' �'�e .�. � i
1
l
' ,�' 3
�� �.�
����.
. � ,
� F�
\ L 115
� l�
1 L ! �
t r
� ' _ ���"��� � � �
1��� t��`,q
,t• .x.
,� � � .� : . '
.. � �; ,� `-, • v 1r
e a
< ��
� ,�. .T :� jAc�' - - � , .
. � ?+
: � F.4��� �'{ ;
t `�: `
���� y}
" r r� ,�. •'ri \. .
`��' �����.�'4�. �\vrl � `
� ����e`L ' `�, �
�. :��4 . y ' �
f ♦ _e� �
� 'Y .�
• ��..c o . . .
... , _, :
� �4 � ti ��
r � . � + �'�
{ • �
i � ' ,',�' y} �:i``t'
,� _ � • '„ .
r � 3� _
���_.
,+��PGS�� / � � �ti
�t �_ .' s
,.' 7`i �,r
�� ��.
,'�.,'�`
_i
.��:" , -' .
, '�
r� ' � ; '
'� . r• �
::'t�: ..�r.
''�.' •`.
�%} ���:�-r.. ,. ; p,
��{�� /� �' 1
,' �•.,���•. , �
♦' $t.�.. .r.
.r ��F'•�.
.�' . �,�� . /
N �
� o f.
�
� -
;..
� ;:�i.. ' �.�.-*f�'
, , . j„��, ,.
�x . ,� ' ' �;`i"�' ,�::
, _�
,�-?� 'y' � {•.*•'Y� �t��.�
,�. i +
• rti •� , �-� .'�� :�.�JL !�,�_�.
•x 4'.iy. J'��J l'J ,� '''• �
j', i � �r" �hi � � �"�-�' ,;��
� �.�:;.�: �"�r . ; �.�� :
�1'� r':i
MITIGATION POTENTIAL
SITE 3: 362 CROWDERS CREEK ROAD
GASTON COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
�" FIGURE
MCG
er:
�W� 4
MAY 2010
�� 100010933

APPENDIX A
Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010
CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN

NPPEN01%N -TNBLE 1
STNENM IMPNCTS FON PNEFENNEO NLTENNNTNE NEFINEO PNELIMNNNT OESIGN
STIP ProjeR U.2�21 -GasW n Eaz[-Wez[ ConneRO� Flnal EIS
Streams btltlgetl to�M1ytlaullc mnveydnce o�as a rvsWt oiCOnmrtence PoIrR 2a are no[etl
Streamlmpac6cdlmla@tlbasetlontlgM-ot ayIlml6plusabuffPSOi25tedfiomeacM1Slopesbkellne
Soumesto�StreamAtMblResantl�EIS�SA9lmpac6�. NeNielReaoumesTeoMloelReport(ortheGeaYOnEeaYY✓es:Wnneoto�EartM1TecM1,Inc.,Febmary2008
antl tl�e Tumplke Envlmnmwbl /�qenry CooNlna[lon Meetlng M1eltl Aptll 8, 2008
Soumeto�PretertetlAl@mativelmpac6�. PB58J

NPPEN01%N -TNBLE 1
STNENM IMPNCTS FON PNEFENNEO NLTENNNTNE NEFINEO PNELIMNNNT OESIGN
STIP ProjeR U.2�21 -GasW n Eaz[-Wez[ ConneRO� Flnal EIS
Streams btltlgetl to�M1ytlaullc mnveydnce o�as a rvsWt oiCOnmrtence PoIrR 2a are no[etl
Streamlmpac6cdlmla@tlbasetlontlgM-ot ayIlml6plusabuffPSOi25tedfiomeacM1Slopesbkellne
Soumesto�StreamAtMblResantl�EIS�SA9lmpac6�. NeNielReaoumesTeoMloelReport(ortheGeaYOnEeaYY✓es:Wnneoto�EartM1TecM1,Inc.,Febmary2008
antl tl�e Tumplke Envlmnmwbl /�qenry CooNlna[lon Meetlng M1eltl Aptll 8, 2008
Soumeto�PretertetlAl@mativelmpac6�. PB58J

NPPEN01%N -TNBLE 1
STNENM IMPNCTS FON PNEFENNEO NLTENNNTNE NEFINEO PNELIMNNNT OESIGN
STIP ProjeR U.2�21 -GasW n Eaz[-Wez[ ConneRO� Flnal EIS
Streams btltlgetl to�M1ytlaullc mnveydnce o�as a rvsWt oiCOnmrtence PoIrR 2a are no[etl
Streamlmpac6cdlmla@tlbasetlontlgM-ot ayIlml6plusabuffPSOi25tedfiomeacM1Slopesbkellne
Soumesto�StreamAtMblResantl�EIS�SA9lmpac6�. NeNielReaoumesTeoMloelReport(ortheGeaYOnEeaYY✓es:Wnneoto�EartM1TecM1,Inc.,Febmary2008
antl tl�e Tumplke Envlmnmwbl /�qenry CooNlna[lon Meetlng M1eltl Aptll 8, 2008
Soumeto�PretertetlAl@mativelmpac6�. PB58J

NPPEN01%N -TNBLE 1
STNENM IMPNCTS FON PNEFENNEO NLTENNNTNE NEFINEO PNELIMNNNT OESIGN
STIP ProjeR U.2�21 -GasW n Eaz[-Wez[ ConneRO� Flnal EIS
Streams btltlgetl to�M1ytlaullc mnveydnce o�as a rvsWt oiCOnmrtence PoIrR 2a are no[etl
Streamlmpac6cdlmla@tlbasetlontlgM-ot ayIlml6plusabuffPSOi25tedfiomeacM1Slopesbkellne
Soumesto�StreamAtMblResantl�EIS�SA9lmpac6�. NeNielReaoumesTeoMloelReport(ortheGeaYOnEeaYY✓es:Wnneoto�EartM1TecM1,Inc.,Febmary2008
antl tl�e Tumplke Envlmnmwbl /�qenry CooNlna[lon Meetlng M1eltl Aptll 8, 2008
Soumeto�PretertetlAl@mativelmpac6�. PB58J
' SOVam numbers notmnsemtive becduse only tl�ose streams wltl�ln tl�e P�tertetl AI@ma[IVe Corntlo�are IIS@tl.
1. BritlgerequiretllorM1ytlaulicmnveyanm.
2 Be4emer BancM1-TM1e servim matl pmposetl untler �SASA,5,9,Y2,]3, antl2] was britlgetl by requeA o! resourm agenoesa� �M1e Tumpike Envlmnmen�al /�qenry Coortlina�ion Mee�ing M1eltl Ppri18,]f108. Prelerretl N�ema�ive Relinetl �esign cM1angetl acros:
3. Britlgetlbyreque9olresourmagenoesa��M1eTUmpikeEnvimnmenhlPgenryCOOrtlina�ionMee�ingM1eltlPprilB,]f108.
a. s�aam dasm�no� aia�a�aa m pa�a�reai (a�a �o e�oioey) Pa� mcovva

APPENDIX A - TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIME REFINED PRELIMINARV DESIGN
STIP Project U-3321 - Gaston Eas4West Connector Final EIS
Wetlantls britlgetl as a result of Concurrence PoiM 2a are notetl
Wetlantl impatls calculatetl basetl on right-of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
Sources for Atlributes antl Drefi EIS DSA 9lmpatls: Nafurel ResourcesTechnical Report (orfhe Gasfon Easf-West Conirecfor, Earih Tech, Inc., February 2008
antl ihe Turnpike Environmental Agency Coortlination Meeting heltl April 8, 2008
Sources for Preferretl Alternative Impacis: PBS&J
W���a Cowartlin Wetlantl Quality DraR EIS DSA 9 PrMerretl PrMerretl
Wetlantl NumbeP Corritlor Segment Size Class�cation DWQ Rating Rating Preliminary Dezign A�ternative Alternative Service
(acres) Refinetl Dezign* Roatls
25 H2a 0.03 PEM1B 37 Low
26 H2a 0.01 PEM1F 20 Low
27 H2a 0.01 PSS3C 31 Low
28 H2a 0.01 PEM1B 27 Low
29 H2a 0.14 PSS1C 40 Low 0.10 0.10
30 H2a 0.03 PSS1/3C 44 Low 0.03 0.03
31 H2a 0.70 PEM1Fh 39 Low
32 H2a 0.02 PSS1B 31 Low
33 H2a 0.10 PF01C 47 Metlium
34 H2a 2.91 PF01C 73 Hi h 0.07
35 H2a 1.17 PEM15S1C 78 High 1.17 1.17
36 H2a 0.06 PF01B 40 Low 0.06 0.06
37 H2a 0.06 PF01B 21 Low
37A H2a 0.01 PF01B 23 Low
38 H2a 0.04 PEM1B 21 Low
39 H2a 0.38 PF01C 47 Metlium
40 H2a 0.05 PF01A 26 Low
41 H2a 0.02 PF01B 31 Low
42 H2a 0.002 PF01B 32 Low
43 H2a 0.01 NA NA NA 0.01 0.01
44 H2a 0.37 PF01G 42 Low 0.05 0.05
45 H2a 0.04 PF01Ah 19 Low
46 H3 0.57 PSS1Btls 69 Hi h
47 H3 0.11 PF01CS 16 Low 0.04
48 H3 0.09 PF01C 59 Metlium 0.01
49 H3 0.16 PF01C 34 Low
50 H3 0.14 PF01C 28 Low
51 H3 2.07 PF01C 70 Hi h 1.35 125
52 H3 023 PF01Ctl 55 Metlium
53 H3 020 PF01C 22 Low
54 H3 0.48 PF01C 22 Low
58 H3 0.06 PEM1C 36 Low 0.01 0.01
59 H3 0.38 PSS1Fh 46 Metlium 0.01 0.01
77 H3 0.02 PF01C 39 Low
78 H3 022 PEM15S1F 36 Low 0.04 0.03
79 H3 0.02 PEM15S1Ftl 39 Low <0.01
80 H3 0.01 PF01G 36 Low
81 H3 0.03 PF01B 20 Low 0.03 0.03
82 H3 0.38 PF01Ctl 20 Low 021 021
83 H3 0.10 PF01Ctl 20 Low 0.01 0.01
84 H3 0.06 PSS1B 32 Low 0.01 0.01
85 H3 0.35 PF01C 63 Hi h
86 H3 0.03 PEM1B 27 Low 0.03 0.01
87 H3 0.14 PF01B 19 Low <0.01 <0.01
95 H3 0.02 PF01/4C 23 Low
99 J4a 2.19 PF01GPUBH 34 Low 0.46 0.38
100 J4a 026 PF01iEM1C 24 Low 0.04 0.02
103 J4a 6.70 PF01C 83 Hi h
106 J4a 0.47 PF01GB 39 Low <0.01

APPENDIX A - TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIME REFINED PRELIMINARV DESIGN
STIP Project U-3321 - Gaston Eas4West Connector Final EIS
Wetlantls britlgetl as a result of Concurrence PoiM 2a are notetl
Wetlantl impatls calculatetl basetl on right-of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
Sources for Atlributes antl Drefi EIS DSA 9lmpatls: Nafurel ResourcesTechnical Report (orfhe Gasfon Easf-West Conirecfor, Earih Tech, Inc., February 2008
antl ihe Turnpike Environmental Agency Coortlination Meeting heltl April 8, 2008
Sources for Preferretl Alternative Impacis: PBS&J
W���a Cowartlin Wetlantl Quality DraR EIS DSA 9 PrMerretl PrMerretl
Wetlantl NumbeP Corritlor Segment Size Class�cation DWQ Rating Rating Preliminary Dezign A�ternative Alternative Service
(acres) Refinetl Dezign* Roatls
107 J4a 0.44 PFO/SS1Fh 48 Metlium 0.01 0.01
108 J4a 0.04 PEM1C 16 Low 0.04 0.04
109 J4a 0.03 PF01iEM1C 28 Low 0.03 0.03
142 J2tl 1.52 NA NA NA
147 J2tl 0.02 PF01 36 Metlium
148 J2tl 020 PEM1 41 Metlium
149 J2tl 0.17 PF01 33 Low
150 J2tl 0.40 PF01 39 Metlium
151 J2tl 0.03 PF01 35 Metlium
152 J2tl 0.32 PF01 39 Metlium
153 JX4 0.05 PF01 37 Metlium
154 JX4 0.42 PF01F 43 Metlium
155 JX4 0.13 PF01 9 Low
157 JX4 0.39 PF01 30 Low
158 JX4 0.01 PF01 8 Low
159 JX4 0.63 PEM1 25 Low
160 JX4 0.05 PF01 13 Low
161 JX4 0.17 PF01 33 Low <0.01 <0.01
162 JX4 0.10 PF01 21 Low
163 JX4 0.03 NA NA NA
164 JX4 0.02 PF01 4 Low 0.02 0.02
165 JX4 0.35 PF01 35 Metlium
166 JX4 0.05 PF01 7 Low 0.05 0.05
167 JX4 0.06 PF01 19 Low
168 JX4 0.17 NA NA NA
169 JX4 021 PF01 42 Metlium
176 JX4 0.004 PF01 0 Low
177 JX4 0.01 PF01 13 Low
178 JX4 0.01 PF01 13 Low
179 JX4 022 PF01 55 Metlium
180 JX4 0.03 PF01 21 Low
181 JX4 0.004 PF01 13 Low
182 JX4 0.01 PF01 2 Low
183 JX4 0.05 PF01 23 Low
184 JX4 0.03 PF01 8 Low
187 JX4 0.56 PF01A 53 Metlium
188 JX4 0.54 PF01A 43 Metlium 0.17 0.16
189 J1e 5.51 PSS1 51 Metlium 0.36 0.33
190 J1e 0.09 PF01 13 Low
191 J1e 020 PF01 13 Low
192 J1e 0.99 PF01 59 Metlium
214 J1e 0.15 PF01 58 Metlium
214 J1e PF01 58 Metlium
215 J1e 0.02 PF01 4 Low
216 J1e 0.01 PF01 4 Low
217 J1e 0.02 PF01 8 Low 0.02 0.02
218 J1e 0.05 PEM1 17 Low 0.05 0.05
219 J1e 0.01 PEM1 15 Low 0.01 0.01
220 J1e 0.03 PEM1 17 Low

APPENDIX A - TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIME REFINED PRELIMINARV DESIGN
STIP Project U-3321 - Gaston Eas4West Connector Final EIS
Wetlantls britlgetl as a result of Concurrence PoiM 2a are notetl
Wetlantl impatls calculatetl basetl on right-of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
Sources for Atlributes antl Drefi EIS DSA 9lmpatls: Nafurel ResourcesTechnical Report (orfhe Gasfon Easf-West Conirecfor, Earih Tech, Inc., February 2008
antl ihe Turnpike Environmental Agency Coortlination Meeting heltl April 8, 2008
Sources for Preferretl Alternative Impacis: PBS&J
W���a Cowartlin Wetlantl Quality DraR EIS DSA 9 PrMerretl PrMerretl
Wetlantl NumbeP Corritlor Segment Size Class�cation DWQ Rating Rating Preliminary Dezign A�ternative Alternative Service
(acres) Refinetl Dezign* Roatls
221 J1e 0.12 PF01 18 Low
222 J1e 0.02 PF01 18 Low
223 J1e 0.09 PEM1 17 Low
224 J1e 0.02 PF01 12 Low
225 J1e 0.06 PF01 18 Low
226 J1f 0.06 PF01 23 Low
227 J1f 0.18 PF01 23 Low
228 J1f 0.12 PEM1 16 Low
229 J1f 022 PEM1 16 Low
230 J1f 0.06 PEM1 28 Low
231 J1f 0.10 PEM1 23 Low
232 J1f 120 PEM1 21 Low
233 J1f 0.07 PSS1 0 Low
234 J1f 0.03 PF01 11 Low 0.03
235 J1f 0.05 PEM1iPF01 61 Metlium <0.01
235A K1a 0.07 PF01 17 Low
236 K1a 0.01 PF01 0 Low 0.01
237 K1a 0.56 PF01 37 Metlium
238 K1a 0.13 PF01 35 Metlium
239 K1a 0.02 PEM1 18 Low
239A K1a 0.05 PEM1 28 Low
240 K1a 0.09 PF01 22 Low
241 K1a 1.34 PF01 39 Metlium 0.89 0.83
242 K1a 0.15 PSS1 13 Low
243 K3a 0.10 PF01 20 Low
244 K3a 0.06 PF01 25 Low
245 K3a 0.59 PF01Ah 77 Hi h
246 K3a 0.08 PF01Ah 77 Hi h 0.03 0.08
247 K3a 126 PF01Ah 77 Hi h
248 K3a 4.76 PF01Ah 93 High 0.66� 0.66�
249 K3a 0.18 PF01Ah 61 Metlium
252 K3a 0.42 PEM1iPSS1iPF01 9 Low 0.01
252A K3a 0.01 PF01 7 Low
253 K3a 0.35 PEM1 26 Low 0.35 0.35
254 K3a 0.11 PEM1 15 Low 0.01
255 K3a 0.01 PEM1 15 Low 0.01 0.01
256 K3a 0.02 PEM1 15 Low
278 K3b 0.18 Palusirine 23 Low
283A K3a 0.01 Palusirine 70 Hi h
284 K3a 0.47 Palusirine 70 Hi h
285 K3a 0.05 Palusirine 44 Metlium 0.04
286 K3a 0.33 Palusirine 68 Hi h
287 K3a 0.02 Palusirine 42 Metlium
288 K3a 0.004 Palusirine 46 Metlium <0.01 <0.01
289 K3b 023 Palusirine 43 Metlium 023 023
290 K3b 0.05 Palusirine 64 Metlium
291 K3b 0.07 Palusirine 9 Low
292 K3b 0.01 Palusirine 32 Low
293 K3b 0.02 Palusirine 23 Low

APPENDIX A - TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIME REFINED PRELIMINARV DESIGN
STIP Project U-3321 - Gaston Eas4West Connector Final EIS
Wetlantls britlgetl as a result of Concurrence PoiM 2a are notetl
Wetlantl impatls calculatetl basetl on right-of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
Sources for Atlributes antl Drefi EIS DSA 9lmpatls: Nafurel ResourcesTechnical Report (orfhe Gasfon Easf-West Conirecfor, Earih Tech, Inc., February 2008
antl ihe Turnpike Environmental Agency Coortlination Meeting heltl April 8, 2008
Sources for Preferretl Alternative Impacis: PBS&J
W���a Cowartlin Wetlantl Quality DraR EIS DSA 9 PrMerretl PrMerretl
Wetlantl NumbeP Corritlor Segment Size Class�cation DWQ Rating Rating Preliminary Dezign A�ternative Alternative Service
(acres) Refinetl Dezign* Roatls
293A K3b 0.00 Palusirine 23 Low
294 K3b 0.18 Palusirine 38 Metlium
295 K3b 0.01 Palusirine 22 Low
296 K3c 0.01 Palusirine NA NA
297 K3c 0.30 Palusirine 58 Metlium
317 K3c 4.78 Palusirine 62 Metlium 0.37 0.37
317A K3c 0.03 Palusirine 31 Low
318 K3c 0.09 Palusirine 24 Low
319 K3c 0.30 Palusirine 23 Low
320 K3c 0.01 Palusirine 23 Low 0.01
321 K3c 0.02 Palusirine 14 Low 0.02 0.02
323 K3c 0.02 Palusirine 17 Low 0.02 0.02
324 K3c 0.02 Palusirine 22 Low 0.02 0.02
325 K3c 0.03 Palusirine 15 Low 0.03 0.02
326 K3c 0.08 Palusirine 41 Metlium
327 K3c 0.12 Palusirine 60 Metlium
328 K3c 0.03 Palusirine 53 Metlium
329 K3c 0.56 Palusirine 43 Metlium 0.42
329A K3c 0.00 Palusirine 27 Low
330 K3c 0.05 Palusirine 19 Low
331 K3c 0.05 Palusirine 17 Low
331A K3c 0.01 Palusirine 38 Metlium
332 K3c 0.10 Palusirine 38 Metlium 0.10
333 K3c 0.05 Palusirine 17 Low 0.02 0.02
333A K3c 0.01 Palusirine 16 Low 0.01
334 K3c 0.14 Palusirine 42 Metlium 0.02 0.03
335 K3c 0.43 Palusirine 33 Metlium
336 K3c 0.07 Palusirine 11 Low
337 K3c 023 Palusirine 68 Hi h
337A K3c 0.03 Palusirine 27 Low
337B K3c 0.02 Palusirine 35 Metlium
338 H3 0.35 PEM1 16 Low
340 H3 0.02 PF01B 36 High
TOTAL 7.5 6.9 0.1
' Wetlantl numbers not consecutive because onlv ihose within ihe Preferretl Alternatrve Corntlor are listetl.
1. Without extentling ihe Catawba Creek britlge, ihe impact to Wetlantl 248 woultl be 1.50 acres

APPENDIX A - TABLE 3
POND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARV DESIGN
STIP Project U3321 -Gaston Eaz4West ConneROr Final EIS
Pond impdcGS calcula[ed based on ngh[ of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 fee[ hom each slope s[ake line
SourceforPOndAttnbu[esandDSA9lmpacGS�. NeturelResourcesTechnicelReport(ortheGestonEest-WestCOnnector, EarthTech,Inc.,Febmary2008
SourceforRefined Designlmpac6�. PBS&J
EarthTech Corritlor GeneralLOCationAlong TotalACres Cowartlin DraREISDSA9 Preferretl Preferretl
PontllD Segment Corritlor WithinCOrritlor Clazsifcation Preliminary AlternativeRefinetl AlternativeService
Design Design' Roatls
4 H2A Sou[hofBelfas[Dr 131 PEM1/PUBHh
5 H2A Sou[hofBelfas[Dr 1S6 PUBHh/PEM1Fh 033
Linwood Spnngs Golf
10 H3 Course 082 PUB3Hhx
Linwood Spnngs Golf
11 J4a Course 093 PUB3Hhx
Linwood Spnngs Golf
12 J4a Course 123 PUB3Hh 123 123
1] J4a NoMOfNewHavenDr 026 PUB3H
Adjacen[ [o Cmwders Creek
18 J4a Rd 00] PUB3Hh 0.03 003
24 J2d Eas[ofRObinsonRd 143 PUBHh 1.15 109
25 J2d Eas[ofRObinsonRd 193 PUBHh
26 J2d Eas[ofRObinsonRd 02] PUBHh
2] J2d Wes[ofBUdWilsonRd 0]2 PUBHh
28 J2d Eas[ofBUdWilsonRd 090 PUBHh
29 J2d Eas[ofBUdWilsonRd 01] PUBHh
30 J2d Eas[ofBUdWilsonRd 068 PUBHh OB8 068
31 JX4 EndofDOrches[erDr 008 PUBHh
32 JX4 Eas[ofPatrickRd 030 PUBHh
3] J1e Eas[ofWilsonFarmRd 04] PUBHh 034 034
38 J1f Eas[ofUnionRd(NC2]4) OS4 PUBHh OS2
40 K1A Eas[ofRUfusRa[chfordRd 041 PUBHh 041 00]
41 K1A Wes[ofRUfusRa[chfordRd 065 PUBHh
Wes[ of SouN New Hope
44 K3A Rd(SR2]9) 242 PUBHh
Eas[ of Sou[h New Hope Rd
45 K3B (SR2]9) 100 PUBHh
Eas[ of Sou[h New Hope Rd
46 K3B (SR2]9) 104 PUBHh
52 K3B Eas[ofBOa[GUbRd 020 PUBHh 020 020
56 K3C Wes[of1-485 106 PUBHh
5] K3C Wes[of1-485 006 PUBHh OD6 006
58 K3C Eas[of1-485 1.063 PUBHh
Total 4.1 42 0.3
i nis mwmn mamas mamune ana r-unes
Pond numbers no[ mnsecu0ve because only Nose wiNin Ne Preferred AI[emffiive SYUdy Cortidorare lis[ed.

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
�!�„� � � �� �:�:j
Meeting Minutes — March 16, 2010 Agency Meeting
Gaston East-WestConnector
STIP Project No. U-3321 —lune 2010

� NORTH CAROLINA
;� � Turnpike Authority
Meeting — Gaston East-West Connector
Da[e:
Projec[:
MEETING MINUTES
March 16, 2010
1:00 pm to 4:00 pm
NCDOT Board Room —Transportation Building, Raleigh, NC
STI P U-3321 Gaston E-W Connedor — STP-1213(6)
Gas[on E-W Connec[or—Mee[inq Reqardinq Mi[iqa[ion:
A[[endees:
GeorgeHoops, FHWA
Donnie Brew, FHWA
Steve DeWitt, NCDOT-NCTA
Jennifer Harris, NCDOT-NCTA
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Mickey Sugg, USACE
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Polly Lespinasse, NCDENR-DWQ
Brian Wrenn, NCDENR-DWQ
Bill Gilmore, NCDENR-EEP
Jim Stanfll, NCDENR-EEP
Marc Recktenwald, NCDENR-EEP
Beth Harmon, NCDENR-EEP
Via Telephone:
Liz Hair, USACE
Andrea Leslie, NCDENR-EEP
Amy Simes, NCDENR
Leilani Paugh, NCDOT-NEU
Bill Barrett, NCDOT-NEU
Linda Fitzgerald, NCDOT-NEU
Greg Thorpe, NCDOT-PDEA
Missy Pair, NCDOT-PDEA
Jeff Dayton, HNTB
Jill Gurak, PBS&J
Michael Gloden, PBS&J
Jens Geratz, PBS&J
Presen[a[ion Ma[erials:
• Agenda
• Handout—NCTA-GardenParkway-ImpactstoJurisdidionalResources
• Handout — EEP- Garden Parkway Projed Search: GIS Search and Field Reconnaissance Results
• Handout — EEP -Available Assets in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02
• Presentation on Site Search Conduded by EEP - Powerpoint Slideshow Printout
Purpose:
Diswss and agree upon the mitigation approach for the Gaston East-West Connedorfor impads tojurisdictional
resources.
Mitigation Meeting - 03/16/10

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

Page 3 of 6
o Reducing the footprint of the Robinson Road, NC 274 (Union Road), and NC 273 (Southpoint
Road)interchanges
o Redesigning the I-485 interchange and reducing the footprint (substantial savings at this location)
• Impacts were calculated based on the preliminary engineering design construction limits with a 25-foot
buffer, which is standard NCDOT practice for calculating impacts based on preliminary level design.
• There will be incentives for the Design-Build team to further reduce impacts.
• The impacts to 303d-listed streams noted in the handout are impacts to unnamed tributaries that feed
named streams included in the Final 303d list (2008), and are not listed streams themselves. The listed
named streams are bridged, including an extended bridge over Catawba Creek to span an adjacent
wetland.
• The Draft 2010 list also included South Fork Catawba River, which would be bridged, and McGill Branch
and South Crowders Creek, neither of which are impacted by the Preferred Alternative.
Donnie Brew asked if any of the attendees thought the proposed project would not be able to obtain a permit.
None of the attendees replied in the affirmative.
Michael Gloden provided an overview of the on-site mitigation survey conducted for the Preferred Alternative
(Technical Memorandum — On-Site Mitigation Field Review, PBS&J, January 2010). He noted:
• 20 tax parcels containing 1,050 acres were initially identified using GIS.
• The field survey narrowed the sites to seven parcels grouped into three locations. Additional evaluations
are still needed, as well as discussions with the property owners.
1. Stream enhancement of approximately 5,600 linear feet (Linwood Springs Golf Course)
2. Stream enhancement and restoration of approximately 1,700 linear feet (Harrison Family Dairy
Farm)
3. Wetland enhancement of approximately 6 acres (logged site)
• Enhancement means measures such as revegetation and bank repair.
Leilani Paugh stated the report provides a good survey of sites based on a traditional approach, but there may be
opportunities for more creative or non-traditional mitigation. For example: stormwater issues, in-stream work, and
watershed preservation. If a potential site is immediately adjacent to the project, then condemnation for this
mitigation would not be prohibited. NCDOT is in the process of scheduling a site visit with permitting agencies in
Mecklenburg County for a couple projects that include some non-traditional mitigation.
USEPA is interested in non-traditional mitigation opportunities. Chris Militscher stated he thought there
were some good opportunities near the Carolina Speedway, and he believes a number of the systems in
the project area have degraded over the last several years, even without the proposed project having been
implemented.
NCDWQ is interested in considering non-traditional mitigation. However, Brian Wrenn stated the measures
would need to be above and beyond what would be required by regulation in order to receive mitigation
credit.
USACE stated that it is difficult to determine mitigation ratios for non-traditional mitigation, and when
enough is proposed. Mr. Tugwell asked if there has been any monitoring of non-traditional sites.
Leilani Paugh stated NCDOT has not conducted any monitoring in the project area. NCDOT
currently is establishing a monitoring program for a project on the coast.
Jim Stanfill suggested that the Charlotte mitigation bank may be the closest example site. They
are conducting some monitoring.
EEP has enough mitigation credits now to permit the project fully. EEP provided a list of available assets in a
meeting handout. However, no other project would be able to be permitted until additional mitigation credits were
obtained in the watershed. Most of the credits that would be used for the proposed project are located in the lower
Catawba. Less than half of the credits available from the Bobs Pocket site might have been applied to the Garden
Parkway. The available credits are in the monitoring stage, with just a couple sites in the design stage. Required
ratios for a project are not normally known until the permit is issued. Historically, ratios have been between 1:1 —
2:1, with the ratio average usually about 1.5:1. The EEP plans for a ratio of 2:1 to be conservative.
Mitigation Meeting — 03/16/10

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

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

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

Garden Parkwa� 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. A11
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 Ol and two are in Catawba 02.
Most of tliis 177 square mile area is in Gaston County, altliough a portion is also in
Mecklenburg County. Much of Gastonia, as we11 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:
L Mecklenburg and Gaston County parcel data from 2009 were intersected with
1:24,000 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 lengtli 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: tliose witli restoration project potential and witliout
potential. Those land use/cover categories used as restoration potential were-
21- Developed, Open Space of less than 20% imperoious cover
22- Developed, Low Density where impervious cover is 20-49%
71- Grassland/Herbaceous not subject to intensive management but can be
used for grazing
81- Pasture�Hay
82- Cultivated Crops
5. The parcel dataset determined in step 3 was clipped by tlie 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 eYamined. The following criteria were
used to determine whether a project was feasible:
a. Stream length>1500 ft
1

b. <4landowners
a Drainage area <10 square miles
d. Streams with 1ittle or no buffer on at least one side
e. Riparian corridor witliout severe constraints such as large buildings, large
roads, and large power line right-ofways.
Sixteen projects that met the criteria in step 7 above were found in the search area (see
Tab1e 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 O1. On1y 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
tlie small size of most parcels in tliis developed area and constraints witliin tlie riparian
corridors. Those 76 projects that were rejected due to criteria in step 7 are listed in Tab1e
2.
Tab1e 1. Possible restoration
14-di�it HU
Catawba O 1
03050101170040
03050101180010
03050101180020
Catawba 02
03050102060020
03050102070030
TOTAL
Ma7or etream
Catawba R
Crowders Cr
Catawba Cr
S Fk Catawba R
East
S Fk Catawba R
West
in the Garden Parkw;
Total
Number project
of length
pxajecYs �4i.'�
area.
Project lengtli
w/in 1 mi of
Parkway corridor
C��
0 0
9 31500 6900
5 14000 7000
1 2000 2000
1 1800
16 49300 15900
2
Project lengtli
w/in 2 mi of
Parkway corridor
(ft)
10900
9500
2000
22400

Fiaize. 1. Poxe.nrial pzoje.�xs ide.nxifie.d xhzou�h OIS s�ze.e.n.
Potentlal Restoratlon ProJects In Garden Parkway Area
�
�j � \
i _i��
�..e� . l�z _ ��
�-�%
l��
�
�=ae�a
p��� . a�avi u
oP
.4�i�o o�w„ �ie�or�o��d
?> u u
'v'� � . �� . ��
�T
r.
�
�
> �� �
� .-�`�._� �
3
�
f -
�

Tab1e 2. Potential projects that did not meet minimal criteria.
Limitin factors for re'ected sites
Drainage
Forested >4 area >10
Pro'ect # buffer landowners <1500 ft sq mi Ph sical constraints
19 x pond
27 x along major 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
4

Tab1e 2. Potential projects that did not meet minimal criteria (cont).
Limitin factors for re'ected sites
Drainage
Forested >4 area >10
Pro'ect # buffer landowners <1500 ft sq mi Ph sical 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 uar

Results of Fie1d 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 tlioroughly evaluated; feasibility was determined
based on what could be seen from public right-ofways.
Projects were placed in one of three feasibility tiers (Tab1e 3), which are:
L Tier 1: good project possibility
2. Tier 2: project has signi$cant 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, a11 in Catawba O1) are in Feasibility Tier 2. Two projects were dropped and are
in Feasibility Tier 3. See Figure 2 for project locations and Tab1e 4 for descriptions of each
of the sixteen projects evaluated in the fie1d.
Tab1e 3. Possible restoration projects in the Garden Parkway area post-field
reconnaissance.
14digit HU
Catawba O 1
03050101170040
03050101180010
03050101180020
Catawba 02
03050102060020
03050102070030
TOTAL
Number
of
Major etream projecte
Catawba R 0
Crowders Cr 8
Catawba Cr 5
S Fk Catawba R
East
S Fk Catawba R
West
Total
pxojecY Tiex 1 (ft)
lengtli (good project
��) poesibi�it�
0
28500 23400
14000 7000
1 2000
0 0
14 44500
6
2000
32400
Tier 2 (ft)
(projecte have
coneiderable
coneYrainYe)
5100
7000
12100

Fiaize. 2. Poxe.nrial pzoje.�� and fe.asibilicy xie.zs afe� fie.ld ze.�onnaissan�e..
Field Assessment ResWts: Potential Restoration Pruoje�cts i�en Parkway Area
_/ �i -... v .. �
i.
K . �J�. .--. .
� �� ��f m
_- _w�S
Lefl�ntl
eavlolliN T�e�
Qn uanvaiww.-ytiu
1> LJ LJ
`P' u , uu , uu
�__i� �iq . ��
�
!�
�zsz
.� %' _�-.r`C
YI
�,
� ��

Tab1e 4. Fie1d determinations of project feasibility.
Eet.
lengt�
Project# (ft) Keylandowner Deecription Conetrainte
Crop &/or pasture; could view only small
Kenneth & Eoelyn porrion of property. There, streams eroding
16 5000 Oates & buffered on 1 side Unknown
Could view only small portion of property.
Pinnacle Resource There, streams with cattle access & limited
34
50
97
178
179
206
252
1600 Group, LLC buffer Unknown
Some streams in narrow
Cattle access, no buffer, streams eroding. pasture; project would cause
4000 Alfred Lee Stowe Possible wetland restoration potenrial pasture loss
Could view only small portion of property.
George & Barbara There, streams with horse access & limited Horse pasture area; project
4000 Jackson buffer would cause pasture loss
Could view only small portion of property.
Hayfield & inacrive pasture. Stream not
4000 Joy Sparrow fenced out Buffer on 1 side.
Horse farm, couldn't see streams up close.
Horses with stream access, high density use.
4800 James Thompson Some limited woody buffer.
Cattle pasture, with limited stream access.
David & Katherine Buffered on 1 side. Stream reasonably
2000 Deas stable.
Jeffrey Stowe & Nursery & cattle use. Pond. No buffer,
5000 Laura Henkel overgrazed pasture, livestock access. Irrigarion pond
Project Project
Type' Feasibliry"
R&E? 1
R&E? 1
R&E 1
R&E 1
E 1
R&E 1
E 1
R
�R = restoration; E = enl�ancement
��Tier 1= good project possibility, Tier 2= project has signi$cant constraints, Tier 3= project is not feasible
0
1

Tab1e 4. Fie1d determinations of project feasibility (cont).
Eet.
lengt�
Project # (ft)
313 2000
37 3000
109 2100
174 3000
203 1500
214 2500
30 3000
240 1800
Project
Keylandowner Deecription Conetrainte Type'
Good buffer on left bank, selecrively logged
on right bank. Stream is incised. Stream Possibly current restorarion
Pearl Hand has been flagged/suroeyed. project R& E
Crowders Mm Golf Course; green & rough
Lewis & Juanita to stream edge; large stream, acrive erosion; Play areas at stream edge,
Young much privet mulriple stream crossings E
Could view only small portion of property.
Earl Dwayne There, streams with horse access. Stream Intensive horse use, various
Goodson with no buffer, eroding. small structures on bank. R& E
Green at stream edge. No woody
City of Gastonia vegetation, massive bank failure. Enrire Play areas at stream edge,
Golf Course property is highly maintained mulriple stream crossings E
Lineberger Park. High intensity
maintenance. Channel restoration in place
(cross vanes, floodplain bench). Buffer Paved paths & play equipment
CityofGastonia needed. in50'buffer E
Stream with several indine ponds & then
City of Gastonia against property line with multi landowners. In-line ponds, play areas at
Country Club Play areas at stream edge stream edge, mulriple crossings R& E
FMC Lithium plant, manufactures
buyllithium. Would likely necessitate a Chemical plant, pond at
FMC Corporarion Phase 1 enviro assessment downstream end
Sewerline easement on right bank, left bank
City of Gastonia forested with much privet Sewerline easement
�R = restoration; E = enl�ancement
��Tier 1= good project possibility, Tier 2= project has signi$cant constraints, Tier 3= project is not feasible
9
Project
Feasibliry"
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3