20120285_Gaston_Conceptual_Mitigation_Plan_062910_20101222

Gaston East-West Connector

STIP NO. U-3321
GASTON AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES, NC

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609

June 29, 2010

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 i 

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 Jurisdictional Resources ............................................................... 3 
5.0 Mitigation Requirements ........................................................................................................ 5 
6.0 Potential Mitigation Components ........................................................................................ 7 
6.1. Existing EEP Mitigation Assets .................................................................................... 8 
6.2. Potential EEP Mitigation Sites Identified in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02
in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties ....................................................................... 9 
6.3. Traditional On-Site Mitigation ................................................................................... 11 
6.3.1. Site Selection Methodology ................................................................................. 11 
6.3.2. Summary of Traditional On-Site Mitigation ..................................................... 14 
6.4. Other On-Site, Adjacent, and Nearby Mitigation Opportunities .................. 16 
6.4.1. GIS Analysis Methodology ................................................................................... 17 
6.4.2. Summary of On-Site Potential Stream and Wetland Mitigation.................. 18 
6.5. Non-Traditional Mitigation Opportunities ............................................................. 19 
7.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 20 

Tables 
1. Summary of Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Due to Design Refinements and Service
Roads ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Estimated Mitigation Needs for the Preferred Alternative ...................................................................... 7
3. EEP Available Mitigation Resources ...................................................................................................... 9
4. Potential Restoration Projects in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties11
5. Parcel Data and Field Evaluated Traditional On-Site Mitigation Opportunities .................................... 13
6. Summary of Stream Lengths Within On-Site and Adjacent Parcels .................................................... 19
7. Summary of Wetland Acreage Within On-Site and Adjacent Parcels .................................................. 19
8. Summary of Potential Storm Water Control Locations ......................................................................... 20

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 ii 

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
Counties ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Figures  (located after text) 
1. Preferred Alternative DSA 9
2. Mitigation Potential Site 1
3. Mitigation Potential Site 2
4. Mitigation Potential Site 3

Appendices  
A. Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources
B. Meeting Minutes from Agency Meeting on March 16, 2010
C. Project Atlas for Potential On-Site, Adjacent, and Nearby Mitigation Opportunities

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 1 

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 East-
West Connector.
The NCTA and FHWA will work with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies during
the permitting phase to further refine the mitigation plan for the project.

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 2 

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‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 3 

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 by Hydrologic Unit. The impacts listed in Table 1 and Appendix A can also
be grouped by hydrologic unit (HU). Most of the project is located in HU 03050101 (Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties), with a portion in HU 03050102 (South Fork Catawba River drainage in
Gaston County).
In HU 03050102, perennial stream impacts (including service roads) would be reduced from
3,149 linear feet to 2,642 linear feet (a change of -507 linear feet), and intermittent stream impacts
would stay approximately the same (previously 1,399 linear feet compared to currently 1,405 linear
feet) as a result of the Preferred Alternative design refinements.
In HU 03050101, perennial stream impacts (including service roads) would be reduced from
35,745 linear feet to 26,391 linear feet (a change of -9,354 linear feet), and intermittent stream
impacts would be reduced from 8,702 linear feet to 5,978 linear feet (a change of -2,724 linear feet) as
a result of the Preferred Alternative design refinements.

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 4 

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Table 1. Summary of Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Due to Design Refinements
and Service Roads
Design Refinement 
Change in Impact to Resource Compared to Draft EIS DSA 9 Preliminary Design* 
Catawba 
River Buffers 
(square feet) 
Perennial 
Streams 
(linear feet) 
Intermittent 
Streams 
(linear feet) 
Total 
Streams 
(linear feet) 
Wetlands 
(acres) 
Ponds 
(acres) 
Reduce Median Width Zone 1‐     6,758
Zone 2‐     1,356 ‐980 ‐174 ‐1,154 ‐0.32 0 
Modify Matthews Acres Access 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Modify Forbes Rd Grade 
Separation 0 ‐71 0 ‐71 0 0 
Compress Robinson Rd 
Interchange 0 ‐170 0 ‐170 0 ‐0.06 
Eliminate Bud Wilson Rd 
Interchange 0 ‐3,109 ‐646 ‐3,755 0 0 
Compress NC 274 (Union Rd) 
Interchange 0 ‐1,823 +398 ‐1,425 +0.02 +0.18 
Relocate Tucker Road 
Connection 0 +37 0 +37 0 0 
Realign Mainline At Optimist 
Club Fields 0 ‐181 +6 ‐175 0 0 
Reconfigure NC 273 
(Southpoint Rd) interchange to 
Avoid Cemetery 
0 0 0 0 0 0 
Relocation Boat Club Rd North 
Connection 0 ‐135 0 ‐135 0 0 
Reconfigure I‐485 Interchange 0 ‐3,783 ‐2,335 ‐6,118 ‐0.34 0 
TOTAL CHANGE Zone 1‐     6,758
Zone 2‐     1,356 ‐10,215 ‐2,751 ‐12,966 ‐0.64 +0.12 
Impacts Reported in Draft EIS 
for DSA 9 
Zone 1‐   10,400
Zone 2‐   10,215 38,894 10,101 48,995 7.50 4.1 
Impacts for Preferred 
Alternative (no service roads)  
Zone 1‐     3,642
Zone 2‐     8,859 28,679 7,350 36,029 6.90 4.2 
Add Service Roads 0 +354 +33 +387 +0.12 +0.3 
TOTAL IMPACTS FOR 
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 
Zone 1‐     3,642
Zone 2‐     8,859 29,033 7,383 36,416 7.02 4.5 
* Impacts calculated based on slope stake limits plus a 25‐foot buffer. 

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 5 

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 practical” measures to
offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those
impacts and practical in terms of costs, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to Waters of the United States and Catawba River riparian buffers. Implementation of
these steps would be 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 median width,
right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
• Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction.
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection of surface
waters and wetlands.
• Minimizing clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
• Re-establishing vegetation on exposed areas with judicious pesticide and herbicide
management.
• Bridge lengthening in environmentally sensitive areas.
• Minimizing in-stream activities.
The Preferred Alternative incorporates measures to avoid and minimize impacts to Waters of the
United States and the Catawba River 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‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 6 

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 encroachment into 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 S135).
• Corridor Segment K3A – lengthen the mainline bridge over Catawba Creek (Stream S259) to
span the main body of Wetland W248. This extension also avoids impacts to Catawba River
buffer areas on the east side of the creek.
Compensatory Mitigation and Mitigation Ratios. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and
practicable avoidance and minimization has been incorporated. It is the decision of the USACE and
the NCDWQ whether to require mitigation for impacts associated with construction.
Because this project would be permitted under an Individual Section 404 Permit, mitigation for
impacts to surface waters will be required by the USACE and NCDWQ. Furthermore, in accordance
with its regulations (33 CFR Part 332), the USACE requires compensatory mitigation when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Stream impacts
will be greater than USACE and NCDWQ regulatory thresholds and will require compensatory
mitigation.
Based on correspondence with USACE and NCDWQ (field verification meeting held on April 12-13,
2010), the following mitigation ratios will be required:
• Intermittent streams (USACE stream quality rating score 0-49 [unimportant]) – 0.5:1
(meaning 0.5 linear feet of mitigation should be provided for every 1.0 linear feet of impact)
• Intermittent streams (USACE stream quality rating 50-100 [important]) – 1:1
• Perennial streams – 2:1
• Wetlands – 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‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 7 

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Table 2. Estimated Mitigation Needs for the Preferred Alternative
Resource 
Impacts – Preferred 
Alternative Refined 
Preliminary Design 
Mitigation Ratio Estimated Mitigation Need 
Wetlands 7.0 acres 2:1 14.0 WMUs 

Perennial Streams 29,033 lf 2:1 58,066 SMUs 
Intermittent – Important Streams 4,039 1:1 4,039 SMUs 
Intermittent – Unimportant 
Streams 3,344 0.5:1 1,672 SMUs 
WMU = Wetland Mitigation Unit                SMU = Stream Mitigation Unit 

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 Environment 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 01 and Catawba 02 is not present in Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties, but rather at a distance from the project. Meeting minutes from the
March 16, 2010 meeting are included in Appendix B.
In order to address agency concerns, the NCTA and EEP have agreed to investigate mitigation
opportunities supplemental to or in addition to the typical EEP programmatic approach. In separate

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 8 

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
efforts, EEP has conducted a search for potential near-site opportunities and the NCTA has
conducted a review of on-site mitigation and non-traditional mitigation opportunities. The following
sections provided a review of the potential components of the mitigation plan including:
1) Mitigation assets EEP currently has in hand in the two 8-digit HUCs crossed by the
Preferred Alternative – 03050101 (Catawba 01) and 03050102 (Catawba 02)
2) Recent mitigation site search conducted by EEP for potential sites in these two HUCs that
are within Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
3) Traditional on-site mitigation
4) Other on-site mitigation sources
5) Non-traditional on-site mitigation
6.1. Existing EEP Mitigation Assets
The EEP has several sites in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 with stream and wetland mitigation
credits still available for commitment to projects. Exhibit 1 shows the locations of these EEP
projects.
 Exhibit 1.  EEP Assets in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 9 

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 Equivalent
(SMU-RE).
Table 3. EEP Available Mitigation Resources
Resource Mitigation Type Watershed* Total Catawba 01 Catawba 02 
Streams Restoration 16,352 SMU 18,767 SMU 35,119 SMU 
 Restoration Equivalent 5,107 0 5,107 SMU 
 High Quality Preservation ‐‐ ‐‐ 32,928 SMU in  
Southern Piedmont Ecoregion 
Wetlands Restoration 8.6 WMU 2.4 WMU 11.0 WMU 
 Restoration Equivalent 3.0 0.7 3.7 WMU 
 High Quality Preservation ‐‐ ‐‐ 263.1 WMU in  
Southern Piedmont Ecoregion 
Source:  EEP 
* SMU = Stream Mitigation Unit,   WMU = Wetland Mitigation Unit 
6.2. Potential EEP Mitigation Sites Identified in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 in
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
EEP conducted a GIS site search for potential stream projects in 14-Digit HUCs in Catawba 01 and
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 01 and
Catawba 02. However, these mitigation projects would not be tied directly to the Gaston East-West
Connector.
Consistent with the programmatic approach the EEP takes, these credits would be applied to future
projects, but the Gaston East-West Connector would be the influence that steers these future credits
to areas the agencies felt they were most needed. This is a normal process in the programmatic,
watershed approach to mitigation.
The GIS site search of local watersheds for the Gaston East-West Connector included parcels in
Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties that had more than 1,000 linear feet of stream with land use
having restoration potential (open space, low density developed, pasture, herbaceous, or cropland).
Project feasibility was evaluated by five criteria:
• Total project stream length greater than 1,500 linear feet, with at least one parcel containing
1,000 linear feet
• 1 to 3 landowners
• Drainage area less than 10 square miles
• Streams with narrow or no buffer on at least one side
• Riparian corridor without severe constraints
Sixteen sites were identified through the GIS evaluation and subsequently visited via windshield
survey by EEP staff in March 2010. Landowners were not contacted in support of this effort. Based
on the site visit, the potential feasibility of each site was ranked in three tiers, as listed below and
shown in the adjacent exhibit. Exhibit 2 shows the locations of these EEP projects.

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 10 

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Tier 1 – Good project possibility
Tier 2 – Project has significant constraints
Tier 3 – Project is not feasible

Table 4 lists the potential restoration projects identified as Tier 1 and Tier 2. Total potential stream
restoration length is 32,400 linear feet in Tier 1 (most promising sites) and 12,100 linear feet in
Tier 2 (site has significant constraints). There were nine Tier 1 projects and five Tier 2 projects
identified.

Exhibit 2.  Potential EEP Restoration Sites in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 in Gaston and Mecklenburg 
Counties 

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 11 

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Table 4. Potential Restoration Projects in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02 in Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties
14‐Digit HUC Major Stream 
Number of 
Potential 
Projects 
Total Project 
Length (ft) 
Tier 1 
Projects (ft) 
Tier 2 
Projects (ft) 
Catawba 01      
03050101‐170040 Catawba River 0 0 0 0 
03050101‐180010 Crowders Creek 8 28,500 23,400 5,100 
03050101‐180020 Catawba Creek 5 14,000 7,000 7,000 
Catawba 02      
03050102‐060020 South Fork Catawba River 1 2,000 2,000 0 
03050102‐070030 South Fork Catawba River 0 0 0 0 
 TOTAL 14 44,500 32,400 12,100 
Source:  EEP 
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, “traditional”
mitigation is defined primarily as those restoration techniques that are applied directly to a site that
restores or enhances stream and wetland functions. For streams, traditional mitigation includes the
Priority 1 through 4 options for restoring incised streams (NCSRI); and for wetlands includes
hydrologic manipulations (e.g., plugging ditches) and intensive native plant community restoration.
On-site mitigation opportunities were generally restricted to parcels adjacent to the Preferred
Alternative.
6.3.1. 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‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 12 

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 1st and 2nd order streams, 3rd order streams
in some cases), and no greater than a 3rd 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 5.

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 13 

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Table 5. Parcel Data and Field Evaluated Traditional On-Site Mitigation Opportunities
PIN Owner Parcel Address Size 
(acres) Mitigation Potential 
Sites with Mitigation Potential 
3535210554 DOCKERY DAVID N Lin wood Rd 42.8 Stream Enhancement (Site 1) 
3535229884 DOCKERY PROPERTIES LLLP Hubert St 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 19.3 Stream Enhancement and Restoration 
(Site 2) 
3562920627 HARRISON, CHARLES  6338 Union Rd 22.3 Stream Enhancement and Restoration 
(Site 2) 
3562922221 HARRISON, CHARLES  Wilson Rd 20.6 Stream Enhancement and Restoration 
(Site 2) 
3533650153 FALLS, ROBERT P 362 Crowders Creek Rd 21.6 Wetland Enhancement (Site 3) 
Sites with No Mitigation Potential 
3535098933 STILES, PARKS 1113 Shannon Bradley Rd 15.8 No Mitigation Potential: impaired stream 
reach too short 
3535091505 ROBINSON, ROBERT F & ANNIE  Dundeen Dr 26.2 No Mitigation Potential: stable stream 
3536009443 STILES, PARKS Shannon Bradley Rd 4.1 No Mitigation Potential: impaired stream 
reach too short 
3552053030 ENTLER, EARNEST L Granny Trail 4.7 No Mitigation Potential: stable stream 
3552039171 THOMPSON, JAMES C JR Sparrow Dairy Rd 179.3 No Mitigation Potential: stable stream 
3562438039 FERGUSON, MARGARET ANN 
QUINN  162 Wilson Farm Rd 137.2 No Mitigation Potential: functioning 
wetland system 
3573819339 LAKHANI ,ZAHID R 1208 Union New Hope Rd 28.5 No Mitigation Potential: functioning 
wetland system 
3573830015 STOWE, JEFFREY W  Union New Hope Rd 83.5 No Mitigation Potential: currently under 
construction 
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 DIXIE RIVER LAND COMPANY 
LLC Dixie River Rd 15.9 Completed stream restoration project 
4502820480 DIXIE RIVER LAND 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://www.saw.usace.army.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‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 14 

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
6.3.2. Summary of Traditional On-Site Mitigation
Site 1: 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
approximately 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 within 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 with the landowner indicated an interest in selling the entire property. NCDOT Natural
Environmental Unit (NEU) is currently moving forward with a site appraisal. Additional analysis
and feasibility studies are necessary to determine if mitigation activities are practical and cost
effective.
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream restoration and enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5
depending on the range of techniques that are applied to a site. Stream restoration and
enhancement of approximately 9,334 linear feet of Crowders Creek and on-site tributaries may
result in upwards of 9,334 stream mitigation units (SMU). The USACE (in conjunction with
NCDWQ and any other relevant regulatory agencies) ultimately determines the mitigation credit
ratio for each project on a case-by-case basis.
Eroding banks and poor riparian buffer along Crowders Creek

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 15 

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Site 2: 6338 Union Road, Gastonia, NC
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Enhancement and Restoration
Site 2, shown on Figure 3, is located
at 6338 Union Road in southeast
Gastonia. The site consists of four
tax parcels that total approximately
77.6 acres. The three southernmost
parcels comprise the Harrison
Family Dairy Farm, a historic site
determined to be eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) (See Draft EIS,
Section 5.2.2). Land use consists of
cattle production with the majority of
the site covered in pasture.
The Site contains approximately
1,700 linear feet of Mill Creek, a
perennial stream that flows south to
a confluence with Lake Wylie. The
reach of Mill Creek contained within
the Site is characterized by steep banks, limited sinuosity, and a limited riparian buffer consisting
primarily of the invasive Chinese privet. The stream banks are eroded in some areas as a result of
unrestricted access by cattle. The Site also contains an intermittent, unnamed tributary (UT) that
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.
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 wildlife habitat. Cattle exclusion will
provide for long term stream bank stability, reduced erosion and sedimentation, and improve water
quality. Stream restoration entails the conversion of an unstable, degraded stream channel and its
associated riparian corridor to a natural, stable condition (USACE 2003). Restoration of the UT
could be achieved by the excavation of a new channel using the existing floodplain grade of the
stream to be restored (Priority 1 Restoration). Performing riparian plantings along the UT and the
installation of cattle exclusion fencing would also be necessary.
The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 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 approximately 680 to 1,700 SMU. The mitigation activity multiplier for
stream restoration is 1.0, resulting in approximately 270 SMU from the restoration of 270 linear feet
of the UT. The USACE (in conjunction with NCDWQ and any other applicable regulatory agencies)
ultimately determines the mitigation credit ratio for each project on a case-by-case basis. Due to its
Narrow riparian buffer along Mill Creek and adjacent pasture

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 16 

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION 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 will require coordination
with the State Historic Preservation Office.
Site 3: 362 Crowders Creek Road, Gastonia, NC
Mitigation Opportunity: Wetland Enhancement
Site 3, shown on Figure 4, is located
at 362 Crowders Creek Road at the
intersection with Angler Road near the
Berkley Oaks mobile home park. The
Site is approximately 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
the exception of a narrow riparian
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/grading ditches, ripping/discing areas compacted by
logging equipment, and planting characteristic hydrophytic vegetation in wetland areas to restore
the pre-disturbance community.
The mitigation activity multiplier for wetland enhancement is 0.50 (2:1 ratio). Wetland
enhancement of approximately 7.0 acres may result in 3.5 wetland mitigation units (WMU). 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).
Early successional wetland community and timber slash deposits 
following logging 

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 17 

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://nhdftp.usgs.gov/SubRegions/High/ - High resolution NHD Flowline
• NAIP Photography: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/ - 2009 NAIP
• Wetlands Data: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ - NWI Polygons
• Stream and Wetland Delineations: EarthTech (AECOM)
• Parcel Data: Gaston County GIS Tax Mapping (October 2009), Mecklenburg County (October
2009)
• LiDAR: http://www.ncdot.org/it/gis/DataDistribution/ContourElevationData/default.html -
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties- Generated from April 2007 NC Floodplain Mapping
Program LiDAR and converted to TIN format
• Gaston East-West Connector Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design
The following guidelines were observed throughout the GIS analysis:
• Evaluated sites including primarily preservation and enhancement sites, located on the
following types of parcels:
1) Landlocked parcels that may be purchased by NCTA
2) Landlocked parcels that have a preliminary service 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‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 18 

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/Adjacent.”
• Delineated wetlands were clipped to the landlocked parcel layer and the adjacent parcel
layer. FWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) polygons were clipped to the adjacent and
landlocked parcel layers, and then the areas inside the study area corridor were deleted
because the delineated wetlands inside the study area corridor took precedence. NWI
polygons that overlapped with delineated wetlands were erased.
• Unlike landlocked parcels, in which all stream and wetland opportunities are included with
this analysis, adjacent parcel opportunities were sometimes excluded. Reasons for such
exclusions include opportunities too far from the right of way due to large parcels that make
such opportunities no longer “adjacent.” Also, opportunities in the 100-year floodway could
be excluded, due to the likelihood these resources are already protected and are not viable
mitigation opportunities.
• Also considered in each site are Best Management Practices (BMPs) opportunities for
creating or improving storm water ponds for commercial/industrial areas. These sites were
field checked on May 4 and 5, 2010, but require further investigation to determine actual
benefit. Also, residential curb-and-gutter communities that drain into streams without
collection systems were reviewed throughout the project study corridor, but there was no
potential for practical improvements.
6.4.2. Summary of On-Site Potential Stream and Wetland Mitigation
A total of 43 project sites were identified for potential on-site mitigation. The distribution of project
sites across the Preferred Alternative corridor is shown in Figure 5. Tables 6 and 7 provide a
summary of stream lengths, wetland areas within the potential on-site mitigation sites. These sites
require additional evaluation to determine feasibility and property owner interest. Many sites will
turn out to be infeasible, not cost effective, 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‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 19 

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Table 6. Summary of Stream Lengths within
On-Site and Adjacent Parcels
Types of Parcels Where 
Streams Are Located 
Stream Length 
(Linear Feet) 
Landlocked 17,647 
Landlocked With Access 10,041 
Landlocked / Adjacent 2,220 
Landlocked / Nearby Site 572 
Landlocked With Access / 
Adjacent 3,140 
Adjacent 133,700 
Nearby Site 13,577 
Nearby Site / Adjacent 6,454 
Total Potential Stream Length 187,351 
      Total Perennial 137,699 
      Total Intermittent 19,273 
      Total NHD (Unclassified) 30,379 

Table 7. Summary of Wetland
Acreage within On-Site
and Adjacent Parcels
Types of Parcels Where 
Wetlands Are Located Acres 
Landlocked 3.7 
Landlocked With Access 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 01, 02, 10, and 25). These sites require further investigation to determine actual benefit
and whether improvements at these sites would result in mitigation credits.

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 20 

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 
Number* 
BMP ID 
Number 
Existing Storm 
Water Control 
Present? 
Description 
01 1 No 
Located in the northeast corner of the WIX plant parcel, there is a 
possible opportunity for a storm water pond in this grassy area of 
approximately 1 acre 
 2 Yes 
Located behind the parking lot of Curtiss Wright Controls Inc.  
There is the possibility of improvements to an existing BMP.  The 
existing BMP does not appear to hold water. 
02 3 Yes 
Located at the end of Myrtle Avenue.  Storm water flow off roof 
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.  
 5 Yes 
Located west of the Family Dollar, the existing BMP could be 
improved by ensuring flow is restricted and water is held for a 
longer time period.  Additionally, the outflow could be better 
managed to reduce erosion. 
25 6 No Located north of the Carolina Speedway dirt track, a new BMP 
facility would capture sediment runoff from the clay parking lots. 
*  See Appendix C for Map of Site  

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 Existing Off-Site Mitigation Assets. These are assets available in the 8-digit hydrologic
units (HUCs) crossed by the Preferred Alternative for off-site mitigation credits to be provided by the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
Existing assets include 73,154 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 277.7 Wetland Mitigation Units
(WMUs). Of these, 13,534 SMUs are located in the Beaverdam Creek mitigation site, located
immediately southwest of the Gaston East-West Connector’s interchange at I-485.
EEP Potential Off-Site Mitigation for Future Projects. 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‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010 21 

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Tier 2 (site has significant constraints). There were nine Tier 1 projects and five Tier 2 projects
identified.
Traditional On-Site Mitigation. Three potential sites were identified as traditional on-site
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, Adjacent and Nearby Mitigation Opportunities. These sites are other on-site
mitigation opportunities, including preservation and enhancement opportunities on the following
types of parcels: 1) landlocked parcels that may be purchased by NCTA, 2) landlocked parcels that
have a preliminary service road identified to provide access, 3) adjacent parcels with a portion of
their area within the right-of-way but the remainder has existing access, and 4) nearby parcels that
would need to be evaluated by EEP. This evaluation identified 187,351 linear feet of potential
stream mitigation (27,688 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
(8.1 acres of this total is on landlocked parcels and landlocked parcels with proposed service roads).
Non-Traditional Mitigation Opportunities. These types of opportunities searched for near the
project included new or retrofitted storm water ponds for commercial/industrial areas and runoff
collection ponds for 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 East-
West Connector.

§¨¦ 85
§¨¦485¯¯279
¯¯273
McAdenville
Belmont
Cramerton
RanloBessemer
City
Gastonia
Mt. Holly
Charlotte
Lowell
Gaston County,NCYorkCounty,SC
Gaston
County
Mecklenburg
County
Charlotte -
Douglas
International
AirportGastonia
Municipal
Airport
2974
321
Crowders Mountain
State Park
Daniel Stowe
Botanical Garden
Linwood
Springs
Golf Course
Berewick
Regional
Park
Crowders Mountain
State Park
§¨¦ 85
§¨¦485
Lin
w
o
o
d

R
d
Cha
p
e
l

G
r
o
v
e

R
d
Le
w
i
s

R
d
Ro
b
i
n
s
o
n

R
d
Bud

W
i
l
s
o
n

R
d
Uni
o
n

R
d
Union N
e
w

H
o
p
e

R
d
S

N
e
w

H
o
p
e

R
d
So
u
t
h
p
o
i
n
t

R
d
Dixie River Rd
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
S
o
u
t
h

F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
a
t
a
w
b
a

C
r
e
e
k
Crowders Creek
¯¯279
W
a
l
l
a
c
e

N
e
e
l

R
d
West Blvd
R
u
f
u
s

R
a
t
c
h
f
o
r
d

R
d
U
n
i
o
n

R
d
For
b
e
s

R
d
F
r
e
e
d
o
m

M
i
l
l

R
d
¯¯273
2974¯¯274¯¯274
¯¯274¯¯275
B
l
a
c
k
w
o
o
d

C
r
e
e
k
Daniel Stowe
Botanical Garden
Relocated W
e
s
t

B
l
v
d
Allen
Steam
Station
¯¯279¯¯274
Forestview
High School
Linwood
Springs
Golf Course
Berewick
Regional
Park
Crow
d
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k

R
d
¯¯273¯¯160
E Hudson Blvd
¯273¯¯27
§¨¦ 85 §¨¦ 85
Park at
Chapel Grove
Park at
Chapel Grove
Parks at
Forestview & WA Bess
Parks at
Forestview & WA Bess
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 0 10.5 Miles
Preferred Alternative
Right of Way
Preferred Alternative
Study Corridor
Other Detailed
Study Corridors
Rivers and Streams
Municipal Areas
Parks and Recreation Areas
POTENTIAL INTERCHANGE LOCATIONS
I-85
US 29-74
Linwood Road
US 321
Robinson Road
NC 274 (Union Road)
NC 279 (S. New Hope Rd)
NC 273 (Southpoint Road)
Dixie River Road
I-48510
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
No
i
s
e
A
d
d
_
F
i
g
1
_
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
D
S
A
9
.
a
i

A
K
H

0
3
.
3
1
.
1
0
Legend
W
Source: Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County GIS
Map printed March 2010
Figure 1
STIP PROJECT
NO. U-3321
GASTON EAST-WEST
CONNECTOR
Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County
PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
DSA 9
NOTE: PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE
.„..---'''" ,.. - • • , ''
,
e,;A -,..-.,•-•.;..1:i4i.',..5•.,;:,

Legend
I Site 2
Delineated/Estimated Streams
Delineated Wetlands
-1 DSA 9 ROW Boundary
DSA 9 Corridor Boundary
500
0
SCALE: 1 IN = 500 FT
Data Sources:
2008 Aerial Photo (NAIP)
Parcel (Gaston County)
Roads (NC OneMap)
Streams and Wetlands
(NHD and U-3321 delineation
ROW and Corridor (Feb 2010)
500
FEET
Prepared By:
�A.
MITIGATION POTENTIAL
SITE 2: 6338 UNION ROAD
Dwn By:
MCG
Ckd By:
JWG
Date:
MAY 2010
FIGURE
3
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Project:
100010933

W103
W104
W106
W107
W105
Angler
Crowders Creek
F o x
N o r t h w e s t e r n
A c c e n t
M c G a r r y
R
it
a
J
a
s
p
e
r
s
C lift o n F o x
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Dwn By:
MCG
Ckd By:
JWG
Date:
MAY 2010
FIGURE
4
Prepared By:Mitigation PotentialMitigation PotentialMitigation PotentialMitigation Potential
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE 3: 362 Crowders Creek RoadSITE 3: 362 Crowders Creek RoadSITE 3: 362 Crowders Creek RoadSITE 3: 362 Crowders Creek Road
Data Sources:
2008 Aerial Photo (NAIP)
Parcel (Gaston County)
Roads (NC OneMap)
Wetlands (U3321 delineation)
ROW and Corridor (Feb 2010)
NA
D

8
3
Legend
Site 3
Delineated Wetlands
DSA 9 Corridor Boundary
DSA 9 ROW Boundary
Project:
100010933
SCALE: 1 IN = 300 FT
300 3000
FEET

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010  

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN

APPENDIX A
Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources

APPENDIX A - TABLE 1
STREAM IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP Project U-3321 - Gaston East-West Connector Final EIS

Streams bridged for hydraulic conveyance or as a result of Concurrence Point 2a are noted
Stream impacts calculated based on right-of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
Sources for Stream Attributes and DEIS DSA 9 Impacts: Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector, Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008
and the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting held April 8, 2008
Source for Preferred Alternative Impacts: PBS&J
Stream ID*Corridor
Segment Stream Name Hydrologic
Unit
Intermittent /
Perennial
Bank
Height
(ft)
Average
Width (ft)
Depth
(in)Substrate
Water
Quality
Classificati
on
USACE
Score
NCDWQ
Score
Draft EIS DSA
9 Preliminary
Design
Preferred
Alternative
Refined Design*
Preferred
Alternative
Service
Roads
14West of US 321Crowders Creek3050101Perennial 10 - 1540 - 5512 Sand, cobble, bedrock C7034.5 - 52.5 Bridged1 Bridged1
22H2a UT to Oates Branch3050101Perennial104-82-3 Sand, gravel, cobble C5938
22AH2a UT to Oates Branch3050101Perennial342 Gravel CNANA
24H2aOates Branch3050101Perennial486 Cobble C6244 116116
25H2a Bessemer Branch2 3050101Perennial2 - 45 - 142 - 6 Silt, sand, cobble, bedrock C4847 141141
26H2aUT to Bessemer Branch3050101Intermittent5 - 1541 - 3 Sand, gravel, cobble C3727.5
27H2aUT to Bessemer Branch3050101Perennial582 Gravel, cobble C6843.5 506506
28H2aUT to Bessemer Branch3050101Intermittent<13NA Sand, gravel C6221.25 33
28H2aUT to Bessemer Branch3050101Perennial<1 - 24 - 84 Silt C6248 22312231
29H2aUT to Bessemer Branch3050101Intermittent<12 - 46 Silt C6425.5
30H2aUT to Bessemer Branch3050101Intermittent1 - 432 Silt C5624.5
31H2aUT to Bessemer Branch3050101Intermittent531 Sand, silt C3422 183183
32H2aUT to Bessemer Branch3050101Perennial242 Gravel, sand C6532 813813
33H2aUT to Bessemer Branch3050101Intermittent158<1 Sand C4819.5 9797
34H2aUT to Bessemer Branch3050101Perennial34 - 66 Silt, sand C6637.5
35H2aUT to Bessemer Branch3050101Intermittent231 Sand C66NA
35H2aUT to Bessemer Branch3050101Perennial2 3 1 Sand C6638.5
36H2aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial282 Sand, gravel C5537 10921092
37H2aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial46<1 Sand, gravel C3530
38H2aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial14<1 Sand C4434.5
39H2aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial244 Sand C5941
40H2aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial1041 Gravel, cobble C4829.54
41H2aUT to Long Creek3050102Intermittent15 4 2 Silt C53NA
41H2aUT to Long Creek3050102Perennial1542 Silt C5331.5
42H2aUT to Long Creek3050102Perennial5 - 208 - 122 Sand, cobble C5036.5
43H2aUT to Kaglor Branch3050102Perennial4 - 15124 Sand, boulders C4933.5
44H2aUT to Kaglor Branch3050102Perennial5 - 158 - 126 Sand, gravel, cobble C5136 14611203
45H2aUT to Kaglor Branch3050102Perennial333 Cobble, gravel C42264
46H2aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial1 4 - 83 Silt, sand C6132.5 923698125
46AH2aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent231 Silt C2820.5 2828
47H2aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent54<1 Gravel C4328 116116
48H2aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent<141 Silt C5423.5
49H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial163 Silt C42164
50H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent164
51H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial251 Sand C51244
52H2a/H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial8163 Gravel C5548.5 72666383
53H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial462 Gravel C5230
54H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial364 Sand, gravel C7037 188177
55H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial1 - 231 Silt CNA264
56Just outside H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent2 5 4 Sand C66NA
56Just outside H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial254 Sand C6637
57H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial1 - 64 - 81 Gravel, sand C6438.3 453430
58H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial331 Sand C3426.54
69H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial2 - 74 - 82 - 4 Bedrock, gravel C5941 244197
85H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial44 - 83 Gravel, cobble C5143.5 742715
86H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent21 - 66 Silt C4025
87H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial323 Sand C36234
88H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent84 - 51 Silt C4625.5
89H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial1 - 151 - 54 Sand, gravel, bedrock C5631.5 1010934
89H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent<131 Sand, gravel C5623.25
90H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial31 - 41 gravel C5927.54
91H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial43 - 41 Silt C3619.54
92H3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial383 Gravel, silt C4644.5 827736
92AH3UT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent58 - 143 Silt C4322.5 133133
129J4aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial<164 Sand C47234
130J4aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial8 - 104 - 61 Sand C4229.54 207197
131J4aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial3 - 521 Gravel C4626 20541960
132J4aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent2 - 44 - 126 Bedrock, boulder, sand C6344 254
133J4aUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial<1 - 22 - 42 Sand, gravel C6439
134H3UT to Blackwood Creek3050101Perennial44 - 86 Silt C44264 296282
135H3Blackwood Creek3050101Perennial824 - 326 Sand, gravel C4740 Bridged3 Bridged3
142J4bUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent<124-5 fine/course sand C5125, 26
142J4bUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial2-555 sand, gravel, cobble, rock C7446
143J4bUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent22-32 fine/course sand C5025
Impacted by junkyard and no longer considered jurisdictional based on 4/13/10 verification site visit
APPENDIX A - TABLE 1
STREAM IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP Project U-3321 - Gaston East-West Connector Final EIS

Streams bridged for hydraulic conveyance or as a result of Concurrence Point 2a are noted
Stream impacts calculated based on right-of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
Sources for Stream Attributes and DEIS DSA 9 Impacts: Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector, Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008
and the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting held April 8, 2008
Source for Preferred Alternative Impacts: PBS&J
Stream ID*Corridor
Segment Stream Name Hydrologic
Unit
Intermittent /
Perennial
Bank
Height
(ft)
Average
Width (ft)
Depth
(in)Substrate
Water
Quality
Classificati
on
USACE
Score
NCDWQ
Score
Draft EIS DSA
9 Preliminary
Design
Preferred
Alternative
Refined Design*
Preferred
Alternative
Service
Roads
144J4bUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial2-62-31 sand, gravel C4631.25
145J4bUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent3- 74 - 50 - 1 sand, gravel C2921, 28 820805
146J4bUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial7128-10 sand, gravel, cobble, rock C7553Bridged1 Bridged1
147J2cUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial4-6108 Sand, gravel, bedrock C7346 382358
148J2cUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial<12-34 fine/course sand C7239.25 71
156J2cUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial3 - 810 - 1212
sand, gravel, cobble,
boulder C7750.25 603571
157J2cUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial2-43-44 sand, gravel, cobble, rock C7945 1033938
158J2cUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent5-830 fine/course sand C3411.5 178168
159J2cUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent1-2.540 fine/course sand CNA20.75
161J2c/J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent1-221 sand, gravel C4019
161J2cUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial3-74-84 sand, gravel, cobble, rock C4048.75 70
174J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial1-222 sand, gravel C5534.5 908908
175J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial533 sand, gravel, rock C5135.5
176J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent521 sand, gravel C5122.5
177J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial2-64-87 sand, gravel, rock, boulder C7451 956786
178J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial4-76 - 156 - 12 sand, gravel, rock, boulder C66, 7444.5, 50 391365
179J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent3-431 fine/course sand C4424.5
180J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent2-321 fine sand/clay C4724.5
181J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial4-71210 sand, gravel, rock, boulder C7255 567340
182J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent1.520 fine sand/clay C4517.5 183
182J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial1.53.51 sand, gravel, cobble C5530.5 1866891
183J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial3-745 sand, gravel, cobble, rock C7448.5 1474707
184J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101PerennialNANANA NA CNANA 12135
196J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial4-61212 sand, gravel, rock, boulder C7251 1175515
197J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial0.5-234 sand, gravel C6540.5
198J2d/JX4UT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial0.5-32-34 sand, gravel C6245 159
199J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent0.5-222 sand, gravel C5828.5 311
200J2d/JX4UT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent<1-221 fine/course sand C4924.5 562562
201J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent120 fine sand, rock C4015 152
202J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial3-42.5-35 sand, gravel C4533 487251
203J2dUT to Crowders Creek3050101Perennial3-433 sand, gravel, cobble C5138
210JX4UT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial0.5-3.52 - 75 - 6
sand, gravel, cobble,
boulder C63, 6638.5, 44.5 288265
211JX4UT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial3.5-533 fine/course sand, gravel C42, 6630, 37, 39.5
212JX4UT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial1.5-22-33 fine/course sand, gravel C4735
213JX4Mill Creek3050101Perennial1 - 42 - 102 - 8 sand, gravel, rock, boulder C63, 6934.5, 39.5 530509
215JX4UT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial1-22-33 fine/course sand C6942.5
216JX4UT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial133 sand, gravel C7239.5
217JX4UT to Mill Creek3050101Intermittent1-222 fine/course sand C5027
218JX4UT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial134 sand, gravel C6531.5 138128
219JX4UT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial< 12-2.54 sand, gravel C5334.25 4333
220JX4UT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial1-44-64 - 5
sand, gravel, cobble,
bedrock C64, 7042, 43.5 474439
221JX4UT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial< 13.53 sand, gravel C7035
222JX4UT to Mill Creek3050101Intermittent< 122 fine sand/clay C7628.5 413392
222JX4UT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial< 13.54 sand, gravel, cobble C6641.25
223J1eUT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial1-1.53.5-4.57 fine/course sand C6134.25
224J1eUT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial222 fine/course sand C5133
225J1eUT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial< 1-21-32 fine/course sand C6334.25
235J1fUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial2-53-64 fine/course sand C5036 146
237J1fUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial2 - 62 - 203 - 8
sand, gravel, cobble,
bedrock C67-7545.5 - 55 12571114
238J1eUT to Mill Creek3050101Intermittent112 fine sand/clay C4419.5 3838
238J1eUT to Mill Creek3050101Perennial1-32-34 - 6 sand, gravel, cobble C55, 6334.5, 35.75 7570
239J1eUT to Mill Creek3050101Intermittent< 112 sand, gravel C4920.5 249249
240J1eUT to Mill Creek3050101Intermittent12-32 fine sand/clay C3629.5
241J1fUT to Mill Creek3050101Intermittent< 12.53 sand, gravel C3922.5
242J1fUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial1-43-53 - 4 silt, sand, gravel, rock C51, 6234, 47 2178
243J1fUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial< 11 - 22 - 3 sand, gravel, rock C6434.5
243J1fUT to Catawba Creek3050101Intermittent< 11-33 sand, gravel, cobble C53, 6225.5, 26 512
244J1fUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial< 12-33 sand, gravel C5933 339
245J1fUT to Catawba Creek3050101Intermittent<1-53-41 sand, gravel, cobble C5119.5
246J1fUT to Catawba Creek3050101Intermittent1-22-31 sand, gravel C5829.5 114
APPENDIX A - TABLE 1
STREAM IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP Project U-3321 - Gaston East-West Connector Final EIS

Streams bridged for hydraulic conveyance or as a result of Concurrence Point 2a are noted
Stream impacts calculated based on right-of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
Sources for Stream Attributes and DEIS DSA 9 Impacts: Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector, Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008
and the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting held April 8, 2008
Source for Preferred Alternative Impacts: PBS&J
Stream ID*Corridor
Segment Stream Name Hydrologic
Unit
Intermittent /
Perennial
Bank
Height
(ft)
Average
Width (ft)
Depth
(in)Substrate
Water
Quality
Classificati
on
USACE
Score
NCDWQ
Score
Draft EIS DSA
9 Preliminary
Design
Preferred
Alternative
Refined Design*
Preferred
Alternative
Service
Roads
247J1fUT to Catawba Creek3050101Intermittent< 1< 1.52 fine sand/clay C5427.25
247J1fUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial1-44-124
sand, gravel, cobble,
bedrock C6344 437
259K3aCatawba Creek3050101Perennial3-625 - 5014 - 15 sand, gravel, cobble C71, 8651, 57.5 Bridged1 Bridged1
265K3aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial1-2.53-42 sand, gravel, rock C5934.5
266K3aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial1-23-45 sand, gravel, rock C6947
267K3aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Intermittent2-33-42 sediment, sand, gravel C2723.5 12039
268K3aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial2 - 42 - 102 - 5 sand, gravel, cobble, rock C46, 8035.25, 52
270K1aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial4-86-98 sand, gravel, cobble, rock C6250 610578
271K1aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial4-83-64 sand, gravel, cobble, rock C6446.5 1331105
272K1aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial<1-22-51 sand, gravel, cobble C6535.75
273K1aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial122 sand, gravel, cobble C6635.5
274K1aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial<1-31.5-3.54 sand, gravel, cobble C7438.5 363351
275K1aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial< 11.5-32 fine/course sand C7135 302302
276K1aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial2-33-74 sand, gravel, cobble C6242
277K1aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial1-223 sand, gravel C4940.75
278K1aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Intermittent12.52 sand, gravel C5822.5
279K3aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Intermittent11-23 fine/course sand C5728.5
280K3aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Intermittent11.51 sand, gravel C59.522.5 843843
281K3aUT to Catawba Creek3050101Perennial1-223 sand, gravel, rock C5930
286K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Intermittent<11-21 Silt, sand, gravel WS-V5421, 27.5
286K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Perennial1-42-74-6 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble WS-V6231
286AK3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Intermittent11-21 Silt, sand WS-VNANA
287K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Intermittent12-34 Silt, sand WS-V3623
287K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Perennial>64-64 Sand, gravel WS-V36NA
293AK3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Intermittent11-21 Silt, sand WS-V5422.75
293AK3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Perennial<12-33-4 Silt, Sand, gravel WS-V54NA
295K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Perennial2-43-51-4 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble WS-V6832, 32.25
296K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Perennial462-4 Silt, Sand, gravel WS-V65.534 578557
297K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Perennial1-43-61-4 Silt to cobble, boulder WS-V8331.5 917652
298K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Intermittent1-231 Silt, sand gravel WS-V4519
298K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Perennial1-231 Silt, sand gravel WS-V45 194
299K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Intermittent1-231-2 Silt, Sand, gravel WS-V6726.5
299K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Perennial2-33-41-4 Silt, Sand, gravel WS-V67 26.54
300K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Intermittent331-3 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble WS-V7923.5 13991405
300K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Perennial33-51-3 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble WS-V7933 193230
300AK3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Intermittent631-3 Silt, Sand, gravel WS-V4221
301K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Intermittent43-61-2 Silt, Sand, gravel WS-V7923
301K3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Perennial3-44-71-6 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble WS-V79 28.54
301AK3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Intermittent531-3 Sand, gravel WS-V5119.5
301BK3aUT to S. F. Catawba River3050102Intermittent531-3 Silt, Sand, gravel WS-V5119.5
302K3bUT to Catawba River3050101Intermittent2-431-2 Silt, sand WS-V, B6519.5
303K3bUT to Catawba River3050101Intermittent121 Sand, gravel WS-V, B4223
303K3bUT to Catawba River3050101Perennial2-32-41-3 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble WS-V, B4231
304K3bUT to Catawba River3050101Intermittent131-2 Silt, sand WS-V, B8522 260260
304K3bUT to Catawba River3050101Perennial33-51-4 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble WS-V, B8531 484568
305K3bUT to Catawba River3050101Perennial3-44-63-10 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble WS-V, B8231.5 135
310K3cUT to Catawba River3050101Intermittent1-21-31-2 Silt, sand, gravel WS-V, BNANA
311K3cUT to Catawba River3050101Intermittent11-21 Silt, sand, gravel WS-V, B4619
311K3cUT to Catawba River3050101Perennial1 - 43 - 102 - 12
Sand, gravel, cobble,
boulder WS-V, B57, 7735, 39
311AK3cUT to Catawba River3050101Intermittent<11-21-2 Silt, sand WS-V, B4923.5
312K3cUT to Catawba River3050101Intermittent12-31 Silt, sand WS-V, B5323.5 5226
312AK3cBeaverdam Creek3050101Perennial3-58-102-12 Silt to cobble, boulder C6650 973742
312BK3cUT to Catawba River3050101Intermittent122 Silt, sand WS-V, B4719
S313K3cUT to Catawba River3050101Intermittent42-82 Silt, Sand, gravel WS-V, B6322
313AK3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent1-33-52 Silt, Sand, gravel C4219
314AK3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent1-34-51-3 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble C5021.75 226
314AK3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Perennial1-22-41-2 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble C6333 969
S315K3cUT to Catawba River3050101Intermittent11-21-3 Silt, sand, gravel WS-V, B5027
315AK3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent1-22-41-2 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble CNANA 176
316AK3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent1-231-2 Silt, sand, gravel C5323.5
317K3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent12-31-2 Silt, sand, gravel C5022.5
318K3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent1-32-51-3 Silt to cobble, boulder C4725 464466
318K3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101PerennialNANANA NA C47254
APPENDIX A - TABLE 1
STREAM IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP Project U-3321 - Gaston East-West Connector Final EIS

Streams bridged for hydraulic conveyance or as a result of Concurrence Point 2a are noted
Stream impacts calculated based on right-of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
Sources for Stream Attributes and DEIS DSA 9 Impacts: Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector, Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008
and the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting held April 8, 2008
Source for Preferred Alternative Impacts: PBS&J
Stream ID*Corridor
Segment Stream Name Hydrologic
Unit
Intermittent /
Perennial
Bank
Height
(ft)
Average
Width (ft)
Depth
(in)Substrate
Water
Quality
Classificati
on
USACE
Score
NCDWQ
Score
Draft EIS DSA
9 Preliminary
Design
Preferred
Alternative
Refined Design*
Preferred
Alternative
Service
Roads
318AK3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Perennial2-43-52-6 Silt, Sand, gravel C6825.754
318AK3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent1-31-21 Silt, Sand, gravel C6821.5 131131
318BK3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent1-33-53 Silt, Sand, gravel C4121.5 90
318CK3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent2-423 Silt, sand C5425
318DK3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Perennial1-21-22 Silt, sand, gravel C56194
319K3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent132-5 Silt, sand C5319
321K3cLegion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent1-33-61-6 Silt, Sand, gravel C8324
321K3cLegion Lake Stream3050101Perennial2-45-81-12 Silt to cobble, boulder C8333 1610830
323K3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Perennial11-21 Silt, sand C6619.54 9925
323AK3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent1-252 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble C4225.5
324K3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent11-21-3 Silt, sand C4823
325K3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent1-21-41-5 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble C4821.25
326K3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Intermittent1-21-21-4 Silt, sand, gravel C4121.25 239336
326K3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Perennial432-4 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble C5230.5
328K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent3-441-4 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble C6923.5
328K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101PerennialNANANA NA C69NA
329K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent3-43-51-3 Silt to cobble, boulder C6724
330K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent3-43-51-3 Silt to cobble, boulder C7726
330K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Perennial3-43-51-3 Silt, sand, gravel C77264 749
330AK3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent3-421-2 Silt, sand, gravel C6020.5
331K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent1-32-31-2 Silt, sand, gravel C76.527
331K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Perennial3-62-61-4 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble C76.534
332K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Perennial2-42-31-3 Silt, sand, gravel C8241 31758
333K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent1-21-21-2 Silt, sand, gravel C7424.5
334K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent2-43-52-5
Sand, gravel, boulder,
bedrock C6821
335K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Perennial2-32-32-4 Silt, sand gravel C6334 18019
336K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent1-21-31-3 Silt, sand, gravel C4320.5
337K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent1-42-41-4 Silt, sand, gravel C5626
337K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Perennial2-331-2 Silt, sand, gravel C5723.54
337AK3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent1-42-41-4 Silt, sand, gravel C7423.5
338K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent121-2 Silt, sand C4424.5
338AK3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent121-2 Silt, sand C4419 34
338BK3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent1-22-34 Silt, sand, gravel C57.520.5 68
339K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent121-2 Silt, sand C5023.5 735238
339AK3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent2-43-52-6 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble C5319 63
340K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent2-44-62-6 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble C8228.5 108213
340K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Perennial1-231-3 Silt, Sand, gravel C8234 1244
340AK3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent1-222 Silt, sand, gravel, cobble C7025 359182
341K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent1-221-3 Silt, sand, gravel C5921 282
342K3cUT to Legion Lake Stream3050101Intermittent1-221-2 Silt, sand, gravel C5319.5
343K3cUT to Coffey Creek3050103IntermittentStream outside study corridor added from USGS mappingC7320.5
346J2cUT to Crowders Creek3050101Intermittent12-31-2 Silt, sand C3920.5
347K3cUT to Beaverdam Creek3050101Perennial3-452-3 Silt, sand C48264
NO MECKNO MECK
Total Stream Impacts 4899536029387
Perennial Stream Impacts 3889428679354
Intermittent Stream Impacts 10101735033
* Stream numbers not consecutive because only those streams within the Preferred Alternative Corridor are listed.
1. Bridge required for hydraulic conveyance.
2. Bessemer Branch - The service road proposed under DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27 was bridged by request of resource agencies at the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting held April 8, 2008. Preferred Alternative Refined Design changed access
3. Bridged by request of resource agencies at the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting held April 8, 2008.
4. Stream classification elevated to perennial (due to biology) per NCDWQ
APPENDIX A - TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP Project U-3321 - Gaston East-West Connector Final EIS

Wetlands bridged as a result of Concurrence Point 2a are noted
Wetland impacts calculated based on right-of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
Sources for Attributes and Draft EIS DSA 9 Impacts: Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector, Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008
and the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting held April 8, 2008
Sources for Preferred Alternative Impacts: PBS&J
Wetland Number*Corridor Segment
Wetland
Size
(acres)
Cowardin
Classification DWQ Rating Wetland Quality
Rating
Draft EIS DSA 9
Preliminary Design
Preferred
Alternative
Refined Design*
Preferred
Alternative Service
Roads
25H2a0.03PEM1B37Low
26H2a0.01PEM1F20Low
27H2a0.01PSS3C31Low
28H2a0.01PEM1B27Low
29H2a0.14PSS1C40Low0.100.10
30H2a0.03PSS1/3C44Low0.030.03
31H2a0.70PEM1Fh39Low
32H2a0.02PSS1B31Low
33H2a0.10PFO1C47Medium
34H2a2.91PFO1C73High0.07
35H2a1.17PEM1/SS1C78High1.171.17
36H2a0.06PFO1B40Low0.060.06
37H2a0.06PFO1B21Low
37AH2a0.01PFO1B23Low
38H2a0.04PEM1B21Low
39H2a0.38PFO1C47Medium
40H2a0.05PFO1A26Low
41H2a0.02PFO1B31Low
42H2a0.002PFO1B32Low
43H2a0.01NANANA0.010.01
44H2a0.37PFO1G42Low0.050.05
45H2a0.04PFO1Ah19Low
46H30.57PSS1Bds69High
47H30.11PFO1Cs16Low0.04
48H30.09PFO1C59Medium0.01
49H30.16PFO1C34Low
50H30.14PFO1C28Low
51H32.07PFO1C70High1.351.25
52H30.23PFO1Cd55Medium
53H30.20PFO1C22Low
54H30.48PFO1C22Low
58H30.06PEM1C36Low0.010.01
59H30.38PSS1Fh46Medium0.010.01
77H30.02PFO1C39Low
78H30.22PEM1/SS1F36Low0.040.03
79H30.02PEM1/SS1Fd39Low< 0.01
80H30.01PFO1G36Low
81H30.03PFO1B20Low0.030.03
82H30.38PFO1Cd20Low0.210.21
83H30.10PFO1Cd20Low0.010.01
84H30.06PSS1B32Low0.010.01
85H30.35PFO1C63High
86H30.03PEM1B27Low0.030.01
87H30.14PFO1B19Low< 0.01< 0.01
95H30.02PFO1/4C23Low
99J4a2.19PFO1C/PUBH34Low0.460.38
100J4a0.26PFO1/EM1C24Low0.040.02
103J4a6.70PFO1C83High
106J4a0.47PFO1C/B39Low< 0.01

APPENDIX A - TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP Project U-3321 - Gaston East-West Connector Final EIS

Wetlands bridged as a result of Concurrence Point 2a are noted
Wetland impacts calculated based on right-of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
Sources for Attributes and Draft EIS DSA 9 Impacts: Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector, Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008
and the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting held April 8, 2008
Sources for Preferred Alternative Impacts: PBS&J
Wetland Number*Corridor Segment
Wetland
Size
(acres)
Cowardin
Classification DWQ Rating Wetland Quality
Rating
Draft EIS DSA 9
Preliminary Design
Preferred
Alternative
Refined Design*
Preferred
Alternative Service
Roads
107J4a0.44PFO/SS1Fh48Medium0.010.01
108J4a0.04PEM1C16Low0.040.04
109J4a0.03PFO1/EM1C28Low0.030.03
142J2d1.52NANANA
147J2d0.02PFO136Medium
148J2d0.20PEM141Medium
149J2d0.17PFO133Low
150J2d0.40PFO139Medium
151J2d0.03PFO135Medium
152J2d0.32PFO139Medium
153JX40.05PFO137Medium
154JX40.42PFO1F43Medium
155JX40.13PFO19Low
157JX40.39PFO130Low
158JX40.01PFO18Low
159JX40.63PEM125Low
160JX40.05PFO113Low
161JX40.17PFO133Low< 0.01< 0.01
162JX40.10PFO121Low
163JX40.03NANANA
164JX40.02PFO14Low0.020.02
165JX40.35PFO135Medium
166JX40.05PFO17Low0.050.05
167JX40.06PFO119Low
168JX40.17NANANA
169JX40.21PFO142Medium
176JX40.004PFO10Low
177JX40.01PFO113Low
178JX40.01PFO113Low
179JX40.22PFO155Medium
180JX40.03PFO121Low
181JX40.004PFO113Low
182JX40.01PFO12Low
183JX40.05PFO123Low
184JX40.03PFO18Low
187JX40.56PFO1A53Medium
188JX40.54PFO1A43Medium0.170.16
189J1e5.51PSS151Medium0.360.33
190J1e0.09PFO113Low
191J1e0.20PFO113Low
192J1e0.99PFO159Medium
214J1e0.15PFO158Medium
214J1ePFO158Medium
215J1e0.02PFO14Low
216J1e0.01PFO14Low
217J1e0.02PFO18Low0.020.02
218J1e0.05PEM117Low0.050.05
219J1e0.01PEM115Low0.010.01
220J1e0.03PEM117Low

APPENDIX A - TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP Project U-3321 - Gaston East-West Connector Final EIS

Wetlands bridged as a result of Concurrence Point 2a are noted
Wetland impacts calculated based on right-of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
Sources for Attributes and Draft EIS DSA 9 Impacts: Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector, Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008
and the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting held April 8, 2008
Sources for Preferred Alternative Impacts: PBS&J
Wetland Number*Corridor Segment
Wetland
Size
(acres)
Cowardin
Classification DWQ Rating Wetland Quality
Rating
Draft EIS DSA 9
Preliminary Design
Preferred
Alternative
Refined Design*
Preferred
Alternative Service
Roads
221J1e0.12PFO118Low
222J1e0.02PFO118Low
223J1e0.09PEM117Low
224J1e0.02PFO112Low
225J1e0.06PFO118Low
226J1f0.06PFO123Low
227J1f0.18PFO123Low
228J1f0.12PEM116Low
229J1f0.22PEM116Low
230J1f0.06PEM128Low
231J1f0.10PEM123Low
232J1f1.20PEM121Low
233J1f0.07PSS10Low
234J1f0.03PFO111Low0.03
235J1f0.05PEM1/PFO161Medium< 0.01
235AK1a0.07PFO117Low
236K1a0.01PFO10Low0.01
237K1a0.56PFO137Medium
238K1a0.13PFO135Medium
239K1a0.02PEM118Low
239AK1a0.05PEM128Low
240K1a0.09PFO122Low
241K1a1.34PFO139Medium0.890.83
242K1a0.15PSS113Low
243K3a0.10PFO120Low
244K3a0.06PFO125Low
245K3a0.59PFO1Ah77High
246K3a0.08PFO1Ah77High0.030.08
247K3a1.26PFO1Ah77High
248K3a4.76PFO1Ah93High 0.661 0.661
249K3a0.18PFO1Ah61Medium
252K3a0.42PEM1/PSS1/PFO19Low0.01
252AK3a0.01PFO17Low
253K3a0.35PEM126Low0.350.35
254K3a0.11PEM115Low0.01
255K3a0.01PEM115Low0.010.01
256K3a0.02PEM115Low
278K3b0.18Palustrine23Low
283AK3a0.01Palustrine70High
284K3a0.47Palustrine70High
285K3a0.05Palustrine44Medium0.04
286K3a0.33Palustrine68High
287K3a0.02Palustrine42Medium
288K3a0.004Palustrine46Medium< 0.01< 0.01
289K3b0.23Palustrine43Medium0.230.23
290K3b0.05Palustrine64Medium
291K3b0.07Palustrine9Low
292K3b0.01Palustrine32Low
293K3b0.02Palustrine23Low

APPENDIX A - TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP Project U-3321 - Gaston East-West Connector Final EIS

Wetlands bridged as a result of Concurrence Point 2a are noted
Wetland impacts calculated based on right-of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
Sources for Attributes and Draft EIS DSA 9 Impacts: Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector, Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008
and the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting held April 8, 2008
Sources for Preferred Alternative Impacts: PBS&J
Wetland Number*Corridor Segment
Wetland
Size
(acres)
Cowardin
Classification DWQ Rating Wetland Quality
Rating
Draft EIS DSA 9
Preliminary Design
Preferred
Alternative
Refined Design*
Preferred
Alternative Service
Roads
293AK3b0.00Palustrine23Low
294K3b0.18Palustrine38Medium
295K3b0.01Palustrine22Low
296K3c0.01PalustrineNANA
297K3c0.30Palustrine58Medium
317K3c4.78Palustrine62Medium0.370.37
317AK3c0.03Palustrine31Low
318K3c0.09Palustrine24Low
319K3c0.30Palustrine23Low
320K3c0.01Palustrine23Low0.01
321K3c0.02Palustrine14Low0.020.02
323K3c0.02Palustrine17Low0.020.02
324K3c0.02Palustrine22Low0.020.02
325K3c0.03Palustrine15Low0.030.02
326K3c0.08Palustrine41Medium
327K3c0.12Palustrine60Medium
328K3c0.03Palustrine53Medium
329K3c0.56Palustrine43Medium0.42
329AK3c0.00Palustrine27Low
330K3c0.05Palustrine19Low
331K3c0.05Palustrine17Low
331AK3c0.01Palustrine38Medium
332K3c0.10Palustrine38Medium0.10
333K3c0.05Palustrine17Low0.020.02
333AK3c0.01Palustrine16Low0.01
334K3c0.14Palustrine42Medium0.020.03
335K3c0.43Palustrine33Medium
336K3c0.07Palustrine11Low
337K3c0.23Palustrine68High
337AK3c0.03Palustrine27Low
337B K3c0.02Palustrine35Medium
338 H30.35PEM116Low
340 H30.02PFO1B36High
TOTAL 7.56.90.1
* Wetland numbers not consecutive because only those within the Preferred Alternative Corridor are listed.
1. Without extending the Catawba Creek bridge, the impact to Wetland 248 would be 1.50 acres

APPENDIX A - TABLE 3
POND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED PRELIMINARY DESIGN
STIP Project U-3321 - Gaston East-West Connector Final EIS
Pond impacts calculated based on right-of-way limits plus a buffer of 25 feet from each slope stake line
Source for Pond Attributes and DSA 9 Impacts: Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector, Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008
Source for Refined Design Impacts: PBS&J
Earth Tech
Pond ID
Corridor
Segment
General Location Along
Corridor
Total Acres
Within Corridor
Cowardin
Classification
Draft EIS DSA 9
Preliminary
Design
Preferred
Alternative Refined
Design*
Preferred
Alternative Service
Roads
4H2A South of Belfast Dr 1.31PEM1/PUBHh
5H2A South of Belfast Dr 1.56PUBHh/PEM1Fh0.33
10H3
Linwood Springs Golf
Course 0.82PUB3Hhx
11J4a
Linwood Springs Golf
Course 0.93PUB3Hhx
12J4a
Linwood Springs Golf
Course 1.23PUB3Hh1.231.23
17J4a North of New Haven Dr 0.26PUB3H
18J4a
Adjacent to Crowders Creek
Rd 0.07PUB3Hh0.030.03
24J2d East of Robinson Rd 1.43PUBHh1.151.09
25J2d East of Robinson Rd 1.93PUBHh
26J2d East of Robinson Rd 0.27PUBHh
27J2d West of Bud Wilson Rd 0.72PUBHh
28J2d East of Bud Wilson Rd 0.90PUBHh
29J2d East of Bud Wilson Rd 0.17PUBHh
30J2d East of Bud Wilson Rd 0.68PUBHh0.680.68
31JX4 End of Dorchester Dr 0.08PUBHh
32JX4 East of Patrick Rd 0.30PUBHh
37J1e East of Wilson Farm Rd 0.47PUBHh0.340.34
38J1f East of Union Rd (NC 274)0.54PUBHh0.52
40K1A East of Rufus Ratchford Rd 0.41PUBHh0.410.07
41K1A West of Rufus Ratchford Rd 0.65PUBHh
44K3A
West of South New Hope
Rd (SR 279)2.42PUBHh
45K3B
East of South New Hope Rd
(SR 279)1.00PUBHh
46K3B
East of South New Hope Rd
(SR 279)1.04PUBHh
52K3B East of Boat Club Rd 0.20PUBHh0.200.20
56K3C West of I-485 1.06PUBHh
57K3C West of I-485 0.06PUBHh0.060.06
58K3C East of I-485 1.063PUBHh
Total 4.14.20.3
* This column includes mainline and Y-lines
Pond numbers not consecutive because only those within the Preferred Alternative Study Corridor are listed.

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010  

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN

APPENDIX B
Meeting Minutes – March 16, 2010 Agency Meeting

Mitigation Meeting – 03/16/10

MEETING MINUTES

Date: March 16, 2010
1:00 pm to 4:00 pm
NCDOT Board Room – Transportation Building, Raleigh, NC

Project: STIP U-3321 Gaston E-W Connector – STP-1213(6)

Gaston E-W Connector – Meeting Regarding Mitigation:

Attendees:
George Hoops, FHWA
Donnie Brew, FHWA
Steve DeWitt, NCDOT-NCTA
Jennifer Harris, NCDOT-NCTA
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Mickey Sugg, USACE
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Polly Lespinasse, NCDENR-DWQ
Brian Wrenn, NCDENR-DWQ
Bill Gilmore, NCDENR-EEP
Jim Stanfill, NCDENR-EEP
Marc Recktenwald, NCDENR-EEP
Beth Harmon, NCDENR-EEP
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

Via Telephone:
Liz Hair, USACE
Presentation Materials:
• Agenda
• Handout – NCTA - Garden Parkway - Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources
• Handout – EEP - Garden Parkway Project Search: GIS Search and Field Reconnaissance Results
• Handout – EEP - Available Assets in Catawba 01 and Catawba 02
• Presentation on Site Search Conducted by EEP - Powerpoint Slideshow Printout

Purpose:
Discuss and agree upon the mitigation approach for the Gaston East-West Connector for impacts to jurisdictional
resources.

Meeting – Gaston East-West Connector
Page 2 of 6

Mitigation Meeting – 03/16/10

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)
Page 3 of 6

Mitigation Meeting – 03/16/10

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.
Page 4 of 6

Mitigation Meeting – 03/16/10

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.
Page 5 of 6

Mitigation Meeting – 03/16/10

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 “important”
from a permitting perspective.
Jim Stanfill noted that EEP does try to provide associated credits that are of the same stream regimen (i.e. cool
stream mitigation for cool stream impacts). However, Catawba 01 is large and a few projects in the past have had
cold/cool and cool/warm credits allowed.
Chris Militscher noted that USEPA has been providing comments on the proposed project since 2001 and the
FHWA and NCTA have known about the impacts and should have been pursuing on-site and nearby mitigation for
this project. A conceptual mitigation plan was requested to be included in the Draft EIS.
The Preferred Alternative was identified in October 2009, and an on-site mitigation survey was initiated
shortly afterward, following standard procedures. The refined preliminary designs reduced stream impacts
by approximately 12,966 linear feet. NCTA was not in a position in the Draft EIS to develop a conceptual
mitigation plan. The Final EIS is not completed yet, and FHWA and NCTA intend to include a conceptual
mitigation in the Final EIS.
USEPA stated that they cannot comment on the proposed mitigation until there is a more formal presentation of
mitigation that considers on-site mitigation, nearby (or near-site) mitigation, and non-traditional measures. USEPA
also is concerned about the potential amount of indirect and cumulative impacts since waters in the area are
already impaired. The Clean Water Act prohibits actions that further degrade already degraded waters.
FHWA stated they would work with USEPA separately to try to address concerns. NCDOT and FHWA do not
mitigate for indirect and cumulative effects.
Marc Recktenwald stated EEP can focus efforts on the potential nearby mitigation sites identified in Andrea Leslie’s
presentation and have more information to include in a conceptual mitigation plan regarding the feasibility of these
sites. EEP can also provide a list of projects already implemented that have benefited the watershed.
NCDOT will work with NCTA and their consultants to evaluate non-traditional measures.
Leilani Paugh will provide examples of other conceptual mitigation plans for use in developing the plan for the
Garden Parkway.

Page 6 of 6

Mitigation Meeting – 03/16/10

Conclusions
A conceptual mitigation plan for the Preferred Alternative will be prepared and summarized in the Final EIS.
EEP has enough credits in hand to permit the Garden Parkway project, including 13,000 linear feet of stream
mitigation credits at Beaverdam Creek, 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 “important”. Follow-up – For this project, NCDWQ indicated that only “perennial”
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.
Garden Parkway Project Search: GIS Search and Field Reconnaissance Results
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
10 March 2010

Introduction
This document summarizes the results of a stream restoration project search in the 14-digit
hydrologic units affected by the preferred alternative of Garden Parkway. A GIS-based
project search was performed in December 2009 and modified in February 2010. All
possible projects identified through the GIS analyses were visited in the field to determine
feasibility in March 2010.

There are five 14-digit hydrologic units that have streams that may be impacted by the
Garden Parkway corridor; three of these are in Catawba 01 and two are in Catawba 02.
Most of this 177 square mile area is in Gaston County, although a portion is also in
Mecklenburg County. Much of Gastonia, as well as portions of Kings Mountain, Bessemer
City, Belmont, and Charlotte, are contained in this area.

GIS Methods & Results
The following steps were performed via GIS:
1. 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 length by pin
number.
3. Parcels with at least 1,000 ft of stream length were selected.
4. Land use/cover (2001 NLCD) was reclassified and converted to a vector dataset in
order to determine buffer type for restoration potential. Two land use/cover
classes were determined: those with restoration project potential and without
potential. Those land use/cover categories used as restoration potential were--
21- Developed, Open Space of less than 20% impervious cover
22- Developed, Low Density where impervious cover is 20-49%
71- Grassland/Herbaceous not subject to intensive management but can be
used for grazing
81- Pasture/Hay
82- Cultivated Crops
5. The parcel dataset determined in step 3 was clipped by the land use/cover with
restoration potential.
6. Parcels with stream length of at least 1,000 ft of stream length were selected and a
new dataset containing 92 potential projects was created.
7. Each potential project was then analyzed for feasibility with parcel ownership
information and 2005 aerial photographs. Possibility for upstream and
downstream extension of the project was examined. The following criteria were
used to determine whether a project was feasible:
a. Stream length >1500 ft
1
2
b. <4 landowners
c. Drainage area <10 square miles
d. Streams with little or no buffer on at least one side
e. Riparian corridor without severe constraints such as large buildings, large
roads, and large power line right-of-ways.

Sixteen projects that met the criteria in step 7 above were found in the search area (see
Table 1 and Figure 1), which comprise 49,300 ft of stream. Three of the sixteen projects
are in golf courses. Most of the sixteen projects are in the western two hydrologic units of
Catawba 01. Only 15,900 ft of project were found within 1 mi of the Garden Parkway
corridor. 22,400 ft of project (which includes the 15,900 ft within 1 mi) were found
within 2 mi of the corridor. Limitations in finding feasible projects were primarily due to
the small size of most parcels in this developed area and constraints within the riparian
corridors. Those 76 projects that were rejected due to criteria in step 7 are listed in Table
2.

Table 1. Possible restoration projects in the Garden Parkway area.
14-digit HU Major stream
Number
of
projects
Total
project
length
(ft)
Project length
w/in 1 mi of
Parkway corridor
(ft)
Project length
w/in 2 mi of
Parkway corridor
(ft)
Catawba 01
03050101170040 Catawba R 0 0
03050101180010 Crowders Cr 9 31500 6900 10900
03050101180020 Catawba Cr 5 14000 7000 9500
Catawba 02
03050102060020
S Fk Catawba R
East 1 2000 2000 2000
03050102070030
S Fk Catawba R
West 1 1800
TOTAL 16 49300 15900 22400

Fi
g
u
r
e

1
.

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

G
I
S

s
c
r
e
e
n
.

3
Table 2. Potential projects that did not meet minimal criteria.
Forested
buffer
>4
landowners<1500 ft
Drainage
area >10
sq mi Physical constraints
19 x pond
27x along major road
46 x
54x
55x
59 x pond downstream
65 x golf course
72x
83x
85x
86x school in construction?
87x
107x
113 x
118 xgolf course, manicured to stream
123 xx
124x
126x
127x
130 xgolf course, manicured to stream
131 xgolf course, manicured to stream
132x
136x
137 x
138 x corridor constrained by buildings
141x powerline
154x
155x
160xx
165xx in-line pond
166 x
167x
168xx
175xx
176 x powerlines in corridor
185 x powerlines in corridor
186xx
187 x stream culverted under soccer field
189x
190xx
191x x
192 x in-line pond
193x
194x
196x
197x
199 x apartment complex, corridor constrained
202x
Limiting factors for rejected sites
Project #
4
Table 2. Potential projects that did not meet minimal criteria (cont).
Forested
buffer
>4
landowners<1500 ft
Drainage
area >10
sq mi Physical constraints
204x in-line pond
205x
224x
227x x
229 xx
230x x
231x x
233 x roads in for future development, in corridor
234x x
235 x in developing property of Franklin Square Mall
237x x
247 x buffer on 1 side
255xx
257x
259x
263xx powerline in corridor
265x
267x x condominiums along narrow corridor
269x
272x upstream of pond
273x upstream of pond
279x in-line pond
280x x in-line pond
281 x in-line pond
295x x near WTP or WWTP
296x x in-line pond
300 x in-line pond
312 quarry
Project #
Limiting factors for rejected sites

5
6
Results of Field Reconnaissance
Each of the 16 projects identified through the GIS screen were visited in March 2010.
Due to limited time available, landowners were not contacted to determine interest in a
project. Projects on private land were not thoroughly evaluated; feasibility was determined
based on what could be seen from public right-of-ways.

Projects were placed in one of three feasibility tiers (Table 3), which are:
1. Tier 1: good project possibility
2. Tier 2: project has significant constraints
3. Tier 3: project is not feasible
Nine projects (for a total of 32,400 ft) are in Feasibility Tier 1. Five projects (for a total of
12,100 ft, all in Catawba 01) are in Feasibility Tier 2. Two projects were dropped and are
in Feasibility Tier 3. See Figure 2 for project locations and Table 4 for descriptions of each
of the sixteen projects evaluated in the field.

Table 3. Possible restoration projects in the Garden Parkway area post-field
reconnaissance.
14-digit HU Major stream
Number
of
projects
Total
project
length
(ft)
Tier 1 (ft)
(good project
possibility)
Tier 2 (ft)
(projects have
considerable
constraints)
Catawba 01
03050101170040 Catawba R 0 0
03050101180010 Crowders Cr 8 28500 23400 5100
03050101180020 Catawba Cr 5 14000 7000 7000
Catawba 02
03050102060020
S Fk Catawba R
East 1 2000 2000
03050102070030
S Fk Catawba R
West 0 0
TOTAL 14 44500 32400 12100

Fi
g
u
r
e

2
.

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

a
n
d

f
e
a
s
i
b
i
li
t
y

t
i
e
r
s

a
f
t
e
r

f
i
e
l
d

r
e
c
o
n
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
.

7
Ta
b
l
e

4
.

F
i
e
l
d

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
.

Pr
o
j
e
c
t

#

Es
t
.

le
n
g
t
h

(f
t
)
Ke
y

l
a
n
d
o
w
n
e
r
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

Ty
p
e
*
Project Feasiblity**
16
50
0
0
Ke
n
n
e
t
h

&

E
v
e
l
y
n

Oa
t
e
s
Cr
o
p

&
/
o
r

p
a
s
t
u
r
e
;

c
o
u
l
d

v
i
e
w

o
n
l
y

s
m
a
l
l

po
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.

T
h
e
r
e
,

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

e
r
o
d
i
n
g

&
b
u
f
f
e
r
e
d

o
n

1

s
i
d
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
R
&

E
?
1
34
16
0
0
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

Gr
o
u
p
,

L
L
C
Co
u
l
d

v
i
e
w

o
n
l
y

s
m
a
l
l

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.

Th
e
r
e
,

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

w
i
t
h

c
a
t
t
l
e

a
c
c
e
s
s

&

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

bu
f
f
e
r
Un
k
n
o
w
n
R
&

E
?
1
50
40
0
0
A
l
f
r
e
d

L
e
e

S
t
o
w
e
Ca
t
t
l
e

a
c
c
e
s
s
,

n
o

b
u
f
f
e
r
,

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

e
r
o
d
i
n
g
.

Po
s
s
i
b
l
e

w
e
t
l
a
n
d

r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
So
m
e

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

i
n

n
a
r
r
o
w

pa
s
t
u
r
e
;

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
o
u
l
d

c
a
u
s
e

pa
s
t
u
r
e

l
o
s
s
R
&

E
1
97
40
0
0
Ge
o
r
g
e

&

B
a
r
b
a
r
a

Ja
c
k
s
o
n
Co
u
l
d

v
i
e
w

o
n
l
y

s
m
a
l
l

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.

Th
e
r
e
,

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

w
i
t
h

h
o
r
s
e

a
c
c
e
s
s

&

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

bu
f
f
e
r
Ho
r
s
e

p
a
s
t
u
r
e

a
r
e
a
;

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

wo
u
l
d

c
a
u
s
e

p
a
s
t
u
r
e

l
o
s
s
R

&

E
1
17
8
40
0
0
J
o
y

S
p
a
r
r
o
w
Co
u
l
d

v
i
e
w

o
n
l
y

s
m
a
l
l

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.

Ha
y
f
i
e
l
d

&

i
n
a
c
t
i
v
e

p
a
s
t
u
r
e
.

S
t
r
e
a
m

n
o
t

fe
n
c
e
d

o
u
t
.

B
u
f
f
e
r

o
n

1

s
i
d
e
.
E
1
17
9
48
0
0
J
a
m
e
s

T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
Ho
r
s
e

f
a
r
m
,

c
o
u
l
d
n
'
t

s
e
e

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

u
p

c
l
o
s
e
.

Ho
r
s
e
s

w
i
t
h

s
t
r
e
a
m

a
c
c
e
s
s
,

h
i
g
h

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

u
s
e
.

So
m
e

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

w
o
o
d
y

b
u
f
f
e
r
.
R
&

E
1
20
6
20
0
0
Da
v
i
d

&

K
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
e

De
a
s
Ca
t
t
l
e

p
a
s
t
u
r
e
,

w
i
t
h

l
i
mi
t
e
d

s
t
r
e
a
m

a
c
c
e
s
s
.

Bu
f
f
e
r
e
d

o
n

1

s
i
d
e
.

St
r
e
a
m

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y

st
a
b
l
e
.
E
1
25
2
50
0
0
Je
f
f
r
e
y

S
t
o
w
e

&

La
u
r
a

H
e
n
k
e
l
Nu
r
s
e
r
y

&

c
a
t
t
l
e

u
s
e
.

P
o
n
d
.

N
o

b
u
f
f
e
r
,

ov
e
r
g
r
a
z
e
d

p
a
s
t
u
r
e
,

l
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k

a
c
c
e
s
s
.
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

p
o
n
d
R
1

*R

=

r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
;

E

=

e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t

**
T
i
e
r

1

=

g
o
o
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

T
i
e
r
2

=

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

h
a
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s,

T
i
e
r

3

=

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

n
o
t

f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e

8
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

#

Es
t
.

le
n
g
t
h

(f
t
)
Ke
y

l
a
n
d
o
w
n
e
r
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

Ty
p
e
*
Project Feasiblity**
31
3
20
0
0
P
e
a
r
l

H
a
n
d
Go
o
d

b
u
f
f
e
r

o
n

l
e
f
t

b
a
n
k
,

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y

l
o
g
g
e
d

on

r
i
g
h
t

b
a
n
k
.

S
t
r
e
a
m

is

i
n
c
i
s
e
d
.

S
t
r
e
a
m

ha
s

b
e
e
n

f
l
a
g
g
e
d
/
s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
.
Po
s
s
i
b
l
y

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

pr
o
j
e
c
t
R
&

E
1
37
30
0
0
Le
w
i
s

&

J
u
a
n
i
t
a

Yo
u
n
g
Cr
o
w
d
e
r
s

M
t
n

G
o
l
f

C
o
u
r
s
e
;

g
r
e
e
n

&

r
o
u
g
h

to

s
t
r
e
a
m

e
d
g
e
;

l
a
r
g
e

s
t
r
e
a
m
,

a
c
t
i
v
e

e
r
o
s
i
o
n
;

mu
c
h

p
r
i
v
e
t
Pl
a
y

a
r
e
a
s

a
t

s
t
r
e
a
m

e
d
g
e
,

mu
l
t
i
p
l
e

s
t
r
e
a
m

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
E
2
10
9
21
0
0
Ea
r
l

D
w
a
y
n
e

Go
o
d
s
o
n
Co
u
l
d

v
i
e
w

o
n
l
y

s
m
a
l
l

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.

Th
e
r
e
,

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

w
i
t
h

h
o
r
s
e

a
c
c
e
s
s
.

S
t
r
e
a
m

wi
t
h

n
o

b
u
f
f
e
r
,

e
r
o
d
i
n
g
.
In
t
e
n
s
i
v
e

h
o
r
s
e

u
s
e
,

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

sm
a
l
l

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

o
n

b
a
n
k
.
R

&

E
2
17
4
30
0
0
Ci
t
y

o
f

G
a
s
t
o
n
i
a

Go
l
f

C
o
u
r
s
e
Gr
e
e
n

a
t

s
t
r
e
a
m

ed
g
e
.

N
o

w
o
o
d
y

ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

m
a
s
s
i
v
e

b
a
n
k

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
.

E
n
t
i
r
e

pr
o
p
e
r
t
y

i
s

h
i
g
h
l
y

m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
Pl
a
y

a
r
e
a
s

a
t

s
t
r
e
a
m

e
d
g
e
,

mu
l
t
i
p
l
e

s
t
r
e
a
m

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
E
2
20
3
15
0
0
C
i
t
y

o
f

G
a
s
t
o
n
i
a
Li
n
e
b
e
r
g
e
r

P
a
r
k
.

H
i
g
h

i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.

C
h
a
n
n
e
l

r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

p
l
a
c
e

(c
r
o
s
s

v
a
n
e
s
,

f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n

b
e
n
c
h
)
.

B
u
f
f
e
r

ne
e
d
e
d
.
Pa
v
e
d

p
a
t
h
s

&

p
l
a
y

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

in

5
0
'

b
u
f
f
e
r
E
2
21
4
25
0
0
Ci
t
y

o
f

G
a
s
t
o
n
i
a

Co
u
n
t
r
y

C
l
u
b
St
r
e
a
m

w
i
t
h

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

i
n
-
l
i
n
e

p
o
n
d
s

&

t
h
e
n

ag
a
i
n
s
t

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

l
i
n
e

w
i
t
h

m
u
l
t
i

l
a
n
d
o
w
n
e
r
s
.

Pl
a
y

a
r
e
a
s

a
t

s
t
r
e
a
m

e
d
g
e
In
-
l
i
n
e

p
o
n
d
s
,

p
l
a
y

a
r
e
a
s

a
t

st
r
e
a
m

e
d
g
e
,

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
R

&

E
2
30
30
0
0
F
M
C

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
FM
C

L
i
t
h
i
u
m

p
l
a
n
t
,

m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
s

bu
y
l
l
i
t
h
i
u
m
.

W
o
u
l
d

l
i
k
e
l
y

n
e
c
e
s
s
i
t
a
t
e

a

Ph
a
s
e

1

e
n
v
i
r
o

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Ch
e
m
i
c
a
l

p
l
a
n
t
,

p
o
n
d

a
t

do
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

e
n
d
3
24
0
18
0
0
C
i
t
y

o
f

G
a
s
t
o
n
i
a
Se
w
e
r
l
i
n
e

e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t

o
n

r
i
g
h
t

b
a
n
k
,

l
e
f
t

b
a
n
k

fo
r
e
s
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

m
u
c
h

p
r
i
v
e
t
Se
w
e
r
l
i
n
e

e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
3
*R

=

r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
;

E

=

e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t

**
T
i
e
r

1

=

g
o
o
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

T
i
e
r
2

=

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

h
a
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s,

T
i
e
r

3

=

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

n
o
t

f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e

Ta
b
l
e

4
.

F
i
e
l
d

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
c
o
n
t
)
.

9

Gaston East‐West Connector  
STIP Project No. U‐3321 – June 2010  

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN

APPENDIX C
Project Atlas for Potential On-Site, Adjacent, and Nearby Mitigation
Opportunities