20120285_06_DEISGaston_Ch6_NaturalEnv_20101222

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS
6-1
CH. 6 NATURAL RESOURCES

6.1 GEOLOGY, MINERAL RESOURCES, AND SOILS
6.1.1 GEOLOGY
The Project Study Area is located in the southern Piedmont physiographic province of North
Carolina. The Piedmont occupies about 45 percent of the state’s area. The Piedmont is
characterized by gently rolling, well rounded hills and long low ridges, and some low mountains
(NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources [NCDENR] - NC Geological Survey,
Mineral Resources Fact Sheet, NCDENR Web site:
www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/Mineral%20resources/mineralresources.html).
Within this province, the western half of the project is in the Kings Mountain Belt. The eastern
half is in the Charlotte Belt and is underlain by igneous rocks (Generalized Geologic Map of
North Carolina, NCDENR Division of Land Resources, 1994).
Granite outcrops are present in the Project Study Area. The igneous rocks are good sources for
crushed and cut stone for roads and buildings (NCDENR - NC Geological Survey, Mineral
Resources Fact Sheet, NCDENR Web site:
www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/Mineral%20resources/mineralresources.html).
6.1.2 MINERAL RESOURCES
According to the NCDENR Department of Land Resources list last updated May 19, 2008, there
are several active and inactive permitted mines in Mecklenburg and Gaston counties (List of
Permitted Active and Inactive Mines in North Carolina, Department of Land Resources – Division
of Land Resources, May 2008). Mecklenburg County has six active mines for crushed stone and
Gaston County has four active mines for sand, one for sand and gravel, and one for crushed stone.
The list also includes four inactive crushed stone mines in Gaston County. The only mine located
near the Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) is the JEJ Borrow Pit on Delta Drive, north of I-85.
This pit is northwest of Corridor Segment H2A, and none of the DSAs would directly impact this
borrow pit.
Historically, gold was mined in Gaston County. Old gold mines are discussed in Section 5.2.1.2.
6.1.3 SOILS
The US Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has
published soil surveys for all counties in North Carolina. The surveys for the Project Study Area,
Soil Survey of Gaston County, North Carolina (NRCS, May 1989) and Soil Survey of Mecklenburg
Chapter 6 summarizes the project’s impact on natural resources.  Sections within this chapter evaluate the project’s 
impacts with respect to geology, mineral resources, and soils, water resources, natural communities, wetlands, 
streams, and protected species.   

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-2
County, North Carolina (NRCS, June 1980), provide maps showing the soil types within Gaston
County and Mecklenburg County, and information on soil properties that can affect land use.
The Project Study Area crosses eight general soil associations: Cecil, Cecil-Pacolet, Cecil-Urban
land, Gaston-Winnsboro-Cecil, Tatum, Appling-Wedowee-Pacolet, Madison, and Chewacla-
Congaree. Soil associations are groupings of soils with similar geology and landscape occurrence
across the region. These soil associations are described in more detail in the Natural Resources
Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector (Earth Tech, February 2008), incorporated
by reference.
Each general soil association contains one or more soil mapping units. Map units are named for
the major soil or soils within the unit, but may contain minor inclusions of other soils. The soil
map unit scale provides adequate information to list specific management concerns that can be
expected. Within the Gaston County portion of the DSAs, there are 33 different soil types crossed
by the preliminary engineering design right of way. Within the Mecklenburg County portion of
the DSAs, there are fourteen soil types.
Appendix M includes a table that lists each soil type, the acreage of each soil within the right of
way, physical properties of the soils, and concerns related to road construction. Appendix M
also has a figure showing the locations of the soils.
The DSAs contain one hydric soil mapping unit, Worsham loam, 0-2 percent slope (USDA NRCS,
1989). Hydric soils are one indicator of potential wetlands. The area crossed by the DSAs also
contains four non-hydric soil mapping units that may contain inclusions of hydric soils
comprising two to five percent of the soil unit area. These are Chewacla loam, Helena sandy
loam, Lignum silt loam, and Monocan loam (NRCS, 1989).
6.1.4 IMPACTS TO SOILS AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Mineral Resources. There are no active or inactive mines permitted by the NCDENR Division
of Land Resources that would impact the DSAs.
Soils. The properties of soils, including shrink-swell
potential, erosion hazard, risk of corrosion, and suitability as
roadfill, can affect the engineering design of a roadway. The
table in Appendix M includes a table that lists the
properties and limitations of these soils for roadway
construction. Some of these properties are discussed in
general in the following text.
The soils in the area underlain by the DSAs are rated “moderate” or “severe” for road
construction. This means that the soil properties indicate special planning, design, or
maintenance is needed to overcome soil limitations. The concern cited in the Soil Surveys for all
soils was low strength. Some soils also had shrink-swell potential. Shrink-swell potential is the
potential for a soil volume to change with a loss or gain of moisture. Shrinking and swelling can
cause damage to structures and roads without special design (NRCS, 1989)
The primary soils within the DSAs have suitability as roadfill that ranges from “fair” to “poor”.
This is an indication that the roadbed may need to be undercut, removing several inches of the
soil, and replacing it with a more suitable soil. These soils generally have a high risk of corrosion
Soils  
The soils in the area underlain 
by the DSAs are rated 
“moderate” or “severe” for 
road construction.  The 
expected soil limitations can be 
overcome through proper 
engineering design. 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-3
for both uncoated steel and concrete. To prevent corrosion, an epoxy-coated steel may be needed.
Soil limitations can be overcome through proper engineering design. Decisions regarding soil
limitations and methods to overcome them would be determined during final design of the
Preferred Alternative.
6.2 WATER RESOURCES
This section discusses water resources in the Project Study Area and potential impacts to these
resources. Details are documented in the Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston
East-West Connector (Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008), incorporated by reference and available
on the NCTA Web site (www.ncturnpike.org/projects/gaston).
6.2.1 WATER RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS
6.2.1.1 River Basins, Named Streams, and Lakes
River Basins. The project is located in the Catawba River basin (US Geologic Survey [USGS]
Hydrologic Unit Codes 03050101 and 03050102; NC Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] sub-
basins 03-08-34, 03-08-36, and 03-08-37). The Project Study Area has rolling topography
dissected by wide floodplains along larger streams.
Named Streams. Thirteen named streams, found on either
USGS topographic maps or in NCDWQ hydrology data, occur
within and near the DSAs and are typically larger channels. Ten
of these named streams are in Gaston County, two are in
Mecklenburg County (Beaverdam Creek and Legion Lake
Stream) and one is the boundary between the counties (Catawba
River/Lake Wylie). Figure 4-7 shows the locations of the named
streams and Table 6-1 provides information about each named
stream.
TABLE 6-1: Named Streams Within the Detailed Study Alternatives
Surface Water Name 
(from east to west) 
Hydrologic 
Unit Substrate Channel Width (ft) Current 
Classification* 
Stream Index #
Abernethy Creek 03050101 cobble 30 ‐ 40 C 11‐135‐4 
Oates Creek (Branch) 03050101 cobble 8 ‐ 12 C 11‐135‐5‐1 
Bessemer Branch 03050101 cobble, bedrock 12 C 11‐135‐5 
Crowders Creek 03050101 sand and cobble 40 ‐ 50 C 11‐135 
McGill Branch 03050101 sand and cobble 6 C 11‐135‐9 
Ferguson Branch 03050101 cobble, boulder, and 
bedrock 4 ‐ 12 C 11‐135‐8 
Blackwood Creek 03050101 sand and gravel 24 ‐ 32 C 11‐135‐7 
Mill Creek 03050101 Sand, gravel, cobble, 
boulder 1.5 ‐ 10 C 11‐131 
Catawba Creek 03050101 sand and gravel 20 ‐ 50 C 11‐130 
South Fork Catawba 
River 03050102 NA 600 ‐1200 WS‐V 11‐129‐(15.5) 
Catawba River (Lake 
Wylie) 03050101 NA 800 ‐ 2000 WS‐V, B 11‐(123.5) 
Named Streams 
There are thirteen named 
streams crossing or in the 
immediate vicinity of the DSAs. 
Ten are in Gaston County, two 
are in Mecklenburg County, 
and one (Catawba River/Lake 
Wylie) forms the county 
boundary. 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-4
TABLE 6-1: Named Streams Within the Detailed Study Alternatives
Surface Water Name 
(from east to west) 
Hydrologic 
Unit Substrate Channel Width (ft) Current 
Classification* 
Stream Index #
Beaverdam Creek 03050101 sand to boulder and 
bedrock 8 ‐ 10 C 11‐126 
Legion Lake Stream 03050101 sand to boulder and 
bedrock 8 ‐ 10 C 11‐126‐1 
Source:  Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East‐West Connector (Earth Tech Inc., February 2008). 
* Classifications are described in Section 6.2.2.1. 
Numerous unnamed perennial and intermittent tributaries are also present in the Project Study
Area. Surveyed streams within the DSAs are shown on Figure 2-9a-ii and described in more
detail in Section 6.4 and Appendix N.
Lake Wylie and the Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project.
Lake Wylie is a dammed portion of Catawba River. Lake Wylie
is part of the Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project operated by Duke
Energy. The Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project includes thirteen
hydropower stations and eleven reservoirs. The Hydro Project
spans over 200 river miles and encompasses approximately
1,700 miles of shoreline within nine counties in North Carolina
and five counties in South Carolina. It provides 841 megawatts of renewable hydropower, and
cooling water to more than 8,100 megawatts of fossil and nuclear power generation, including the
Allen Steam Station (Duke Energy Corporation Web site: www.duke-energy.com/catawba-
wateree-relicensing/about-cw.asp).
The Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project is licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC). The FERC licenses and governs all non-federal hydropower projects located on
navigable waterways. As part of the licensing process, the FERC defines the lands and facilities
included in the hydropower project operating obligation and under FERC’s jurisdiction, called the
FERC project boundary (Duke Energy Corporation Web site: www.duke-energy.com/catawba-
wateree-relicensing/relicensing-terms.asp).
For Lake Wylie, the FERC project boundary is the “full pond contour”, which is approximately
569 feet above Mean Sea Level. Any crossings of this contour require a permit from FERC
(Telephone interview, Allen Steam Station FERC Permit Coordinator, March 2, 2006).
6.2.1.2 Water Supply Resources
Two named water bodies that cross the DSAs carry designations from NCDWQ indicating water
supply uses. The Catawba River/Lake Wylie downstream of Paw Creek (Stream Index #11-
(123.5)) and the South Fork Catawba River (Stream Index #11-129-(15.5)) are designated as
WS-V. The Catawba River/Lake Wylie upstream of Paw Creek to I-85 (Stream Index #11-(122))
is designated WS-IV (NC Waterbodies Reports, NCDWQ Web site:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reportsWB.html). Water supply watershed critical and
protected areas associated with Lake Wylie are just north of the DSAs, and are shown on
Figure 4-7.
WS-V waters are protected as water supplies which are generally upstream of and draining to
WS-IV waters (waters protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly
Lake Wylie 
Lake Wylie is the oldest lake on 
the Catawba River.  It was 
created in 1904 by a dam near 
Fort Mill, South Carolina. 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-5
developed watersheds), waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking water,
or waters formerly used as water supply. No categorical restrictions on watershed development
or treated wastewater discharges are required for WS-V waters. However, the Water Resources
Commission or its designee may apply appropriate management requirements as deemed
necessary for the protection of downstream receiving waters (Surface Water Classifications,
NCDWQ Web site: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html).
The majority of the area crossed by the DSAs is not currently served by public water (Figure 4-4)
and these areas rely on private wells or community wells for drinking water.
6.2.1.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers
No federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers occur within the
Project Study Area (US Department of Interior Web site:
www.rivers.gov/wildriverslist.html).
No waterbodies in the Project Study Area are found on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, a list of
free-flowing river segments possessing outstanding natural or cultural value (National Park
Service Web site: www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri).
There are no state-listed river segments protected under the state Natural and Scenic Rivers Act
(NCGS 113A-30 through 113A-44) located within the Project Study Area (NC Division of Parks
and Recreation Web site: www.ils.unc.edu/parkproject/resource/river.html).
6.2.2 WATER QUALITY
6.2.2.1 Best Usage Classifications
The NCDWQ classifies stream segments according to their highest supportable use. Unless
otherwise stated, unnamed tributaries with no designated best usage classification share the
classification of their respective receiving waters. Table 6-1 displays the classifications of all
named streams within the Project Study Area.
Eleven of the thirteen named streams in the Project Study Area
are classified as C (NC Waterbodies Reports, NCDWQ Web site:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reportsWB.html). Class C
waters are protected for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses
involving human body contact with water where such activities
take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.
There are no restrictions on watershed development activities for Class C waters.
As stated in Section 6.2.1.2, the Catawba River/Lake Wylie is designated WS-IV and WS-V, and
the South Fork Catawba River is designated WS-IV. The Catawba River/Lake Wylie also is a
Class B water. WS-IV and WS-V waters are protected as water supplies as well as for Class C
uses (Section 6.2.1.2). The B designation includes waters protected for primary recreation in
addition to all Class C uses. Primary recreational activities include swimming, skin diving,
water skiing, and similar uses involving human body contact with water where such activities
Wild and Scenic Rivers 
There are no federal or state 
listed wild or scenic rivers in 
the Project Study Area. 
Surface Water Supplies 
The Catawba River/Lake 
Wylie and the South Fork 
Catawba River are 
designated surface water 
supplies. 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-6
take place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis (Primary Surface Water Classifications,
NCDWQ Web site: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html).
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within one mile of the Project Study Area.
6.2.2.2 Impaired Waters
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to report biennially to the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the quality of the waters in their state. In general,
305(b) reports describe the quality of surface waters, groundwaters, wetlands, and existing
programs to protect water quality. The 305(b) report also describes whether the waters support
their designated uses (e.g., swimming, aquatic life support, water supply), as well as likely causes
(e.g., sediment, nutrients) and potential sources of impairment.
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to develop a list of
waters, derived from the 305(b) report, that are not meeting water
quality standards or which have impaired uses (NCDWQ Web site:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2006IR_FINAL_000.pdf).
USEPA's water quality planning and management regulations that
implement section 303(d) of the CWA can be found in 40 CFR
Section 130. The North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and
Impaired Waters List is an integrated report that includes both the
305(b) and 303(d) reports (NCDWQ Web site:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2006IR_FINAL_000.pdf).
Three of the water resources located in the Project Study Area are designated as impaired water
bodies under the CWA. Abernethy Creek, Crowders Creek, and Catawba Creek (Figure 4-7) are
listed on the Final 2006 303(d) list as having impaired biological integrity (NCDWQ Web site:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/303d_Report.pdf). The impaired use is aquatic life, and
the potential source of impairment for all of these streams is urban runoff and storm sewers.
Industrial sources are also cited as a source of impairment for Crowders Creek from US 321 to
the North Carolina/South Carolina state line.
A Draft 2008 303(d) list has been published. In the Project Study Area, Abernethy Creek,
Crowders Creek, McGill Branch, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River (Figure 4-7) are
listed on the Draft 2008 303(d) list as having impaired biological integrity (NCDWQ Web site:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/B.Draft2008303dList.pdf). The impaired use is aquatic
life, and the potential source of impairment for all of these streams is urban runoff and storm
sewers.
Two additional water resources, Blackwood Creek and Catawba River/Lake Wylie (Figure 4-7),
are listed in the Final 2006 305(b) integrated report but do not occur on the Final 2006 303(d) list
or the Draft 2008 303(d) list (NCDWQ Web site:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/06IRcountysummary.xls). These waters are not
supporting one or more of their designated uses, but are not sufficiently degraded to be included
on the 303(d) list.
303(d)‐Listed Streams in the 
Project Study Area 
Abernethy Creek, Crowders 
Creek, and Catawba Creek, 
are listed on the Final 2006 
303(d) list as having 
impaired use for aquatic life. 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-7
6.2.2.3 Point Source Discharges
Point source discharges in North Carolina are regulated through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program administered by the NCDWQ. All dischargers are
required to obtain a permit to discharge. As of October 7, 2008,
there are 36 permitted discharge points into streams that run
through Project Study Area (NCDWQ Web site:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/PublicNotices.html). These dischargers are listed in
Appendix O.
The NPDES permits in the Project Study Area allow for discharges into Abernethy Creek,
Crowders Creek, Blackwood Creek, McGill Branch, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River,
and Catawba River/Lake Wylie. Dischargers permitted for 1 million gallons per day (MGD) or
more include Duke Energy Corporation Allen Steam Station (10 MGD to Catawba River/Lake
Wylie), City of Gastonia Crowders Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) (6 MGD to
Crowders Creek), City of Belmont WWTP (5 MGD to Catawba River/Lake Wylie), Town of
Cramerton Eagle Road WWTP (4 MGD to South Fork Catawba River), Clariant Corporaton
(3.9 MGD to Catawba River), and Pharr Yarns, Inc. (1 MGD to South Fork Catawba River).
6.2.2.4 Non-Point Source Discharges
Unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment, non-point source pollution comes from
many non-discrete sources. Non-point source pollution includes fertilizers, herbicides, and
insecticides in stormwater runoff from farms and residential areas; hydrocarbons and chemicals
from urban runoff; sediments from construction sites, land clearing, and eroding stream banks;
bacteria and nutrients from livestock, animal wastes, and faulty septic systems; and atmospheric
deposition. The effects of non-point source pollutants on water resources vary and, in many
instances, may not be known.
As part of the Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector (Earth
Tech, February 2008), biologists conducted a general visual observation of potential non-point
source discharges located within and near the DSAs. Atmospheric deposition from passing
vehicles; fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides in runoff from nearby agricultural and
residential areas; and hydrocarbon and chemical runoff from nearby roadways and residential
driveways were identified as potential sources of non-point source pollution near the DSAs.
6.2.2.5 Water Quality Monitoring and Basin-Wide Assessments
The NCDWQ maintains an Ambient Monitoring System (AMS), which consists of a network of
monitoring stations established to provide site-specific, long-term water quality information for
significant rivers, streams, and estuaries throughout the state. Data from the AMS are used to
support several NCDWQ water management programs, including Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan development, 305(b) and 303(d) reporting to USEPA, and development of
NPDES permit limits.
Three of the active AMS sampling stations are located within the Project Study Area: South
Fork Catawba River at NC 7 in McAdenville (Station Number C6500000), South Fork Catawba
Point Source Discharges 
There are 36 permitted 
discharge points into streams 
that run through the Project 
Study Area. 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-8
River in south Belmont (Station Number C7000000), and Catawba Creek at the NC/SC State line
(Station Number C7400000) (NCDWQ Web site: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/ams.html)
A Basinwide Assessment Report for the Catawba River Basin was prepared in April 2008 by
NCDWQ (NCDWQ Web site: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/documents/2008CTBBAUrptweb.pdf).
Three fish community sample sites, evaluated as part of the assessment, were located within or
adjacent to the DSAs. Table 6-2 outlines the evaluation results for these three sites.
TABLE 6-2: Bioclassification of Sampled Waterbodies Near the Detailed Study Alternatives
Waterbody Crossing Location Relation to DSAs Sample Date Bioclassification 
4/24/07 Poor 
5/22/02 Fair Catawba Creek Union‐New Hope Road 
(SR 2435) 
Just north of Corridor 
Segment K2A 
5/19/97 Good‐Fair 
Crowders Creek Linwood Road  
(SR 1131) At Corridor Segment H3 6/22/04 Poor 
4/24/07 Fair 
5/22/02 Fair Crowders Creek Crawford Road  
(SR 1108) 
Just south of Corridor 
Segment J1A 
5/19/97 Fair 
Source:  Basinwide Assessment Report for the Catawba River Basin, NCDWQ, April 2008 
The fish site on Catawba Creek at SR 2435 (Union-New Hope Road) in Gaston County has
declined in classification from Good-Fair in 1997, to Fair in 2002, to Poor in 2007. This stream
drains a portion of the City of Gastonia.
The northern fish site on Crowders Creek at SR 1131 (Linwood Road) in Gaston County received
a classification of Poor after its first sampling event in 2004. The site is bordered by Linwood
Springs Golf Course and has no riparian zone or canopy. This site had the lowest total habitat
score of any fish sampling site in the Catawba River basin from 2004-2007.
The downstream fish site on Crowders Creek at SR 1108 (Crawford Road) in Gaston County
received classifications of Fair after each sampling event in 1997, 2002, and 2007. However,
habitat scores at this site are gradually increasing due to increased bank stability and wider
riparian zones. All of the sampled sites are tributaries to Lake Wylie.
The Catawba River, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba Creek have been impacted by silt
and sediment build-up. Boat navigation has been affected in the Catawba River north of the
Allen Steam Station and in the South Fork Catawba River north of the Allen Steam Station canal
outlet. Mud islands can be seen in the Catawba River during periods of drought. Activities such
as waterskiing occurred in these areas of the rivers, but are no longer possible due to shallow
water. Catawba Creek also has experienced siltation near the Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden
(Telephone interview, Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, September 4, 2008).
6.2.3 IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES
Water Quality. Stormwater runoff from roadways carries quantities of silt, heavy metals,
petroleum products, nitrogen, and phosphorous. These materials can potentially degrade water
quality and aquatic habitat integrity. The effects on water quality depend on the size of the

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-9
waterways crossed, the number of such crossings, amount of impervious surface, and the season
of construction. Streams with low flow are more severely affected since they have less volume to
dilute the runoff. However, construction during periods of low precipitation can result in reduced
impacts since stormwater does not carry the pollutants downstream.
All DSAs cross numerous streams in the Project Study Area, including streams on the 303(d) list
of impaired waters. DSAs that use Corridor Segments H3-J4a (DSAs 4, 5, and 9) or Corridor
Segments H2B-H2C-J3 (DSAs 22, 23, and 27) are located parallel to, but outside the floodplain, of
Crowders Creek, a 303(d) listed stream. These DSAs may have a greater chance of impacting
water quality in Crowders Creek due to relative proximity, than DSAs that use Corridor
Segments farther away (DSAs 58, 64, 68, 76, 77, and 81).
Short-term impacts to water quality within the Project Study Area may result from soil erosion
and sedimentation from areas disturbed by construction of the project. Uncontrolled erosion and
sedimentation can potentially destroy aquatic algae, eliminate benthic (bottom-dwelling)
macroinvertebrate habitat, eradicate fish spawning habitat, and remove food resources for many
stream species. Construction impacts to water quality may not be restricted to the communities
in which the construction activity occurs, but also may affect downstream communities.
Long-term impacts to water quality also are possible due to particulates, heavy metals, organic
matter, pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, and bacteria that are often found in highway runoff.
Indirect and cumulative effects to water quality are discussed in Section 7.5.
The following are potential impacts to water quality that could occur under any of the DSAs.
• Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed vegetation removal,
erosion, and/or construction.
• Decreased light penetration/water clarity from increased sedimentation.
• Changes in water temperature with vegetation removal.
• Changes in the amount of available organic matter with vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction activities and
construction equipment, and spills from construction equipment.
• Alteration of water levels and flows as a result of interruptions and/or additions to surface
and groundwater flow from construction.
Water-Based Recreational Activities. Boating, fishing, and waterskiing occur on the
Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River, particularly in the areas south of the Allen Steam
Station on the Catawba River and south of the Allen Steam Station canal on the South Fork
Catawba River, where the rivers have been less impacted by siltation. However, boat traffic on
the South Fork Catawba River is constrained by the existing NC 273 bridge (Armstrong Road)
over the river. This bridge’s height allows passage of pontoon boats and ski boats, but not large
houseboats or sailboats (Telephone interview, Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, September 4,
2008).
The DSAs that cross the South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River north of the Allen Steam
Station (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) would cross the rivers in areas that are less
navigable due to siltation, and therefore would have less impact on recreational uses of the
rivers.

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-10
The DSAs that cross the South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River south of the Allen Steam
Station (DSAs 5, 23, 64, and 77) would cross in areas that provide for more recreational
opportunities. Recreation likely would be temporarily affected during construction of the bridges.
Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project. Lake Wylie is included in the FERC boundary for the
Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project for which Duke Energy has a FERC license. As mentioned
previously, any crossings of the Lake Wylie approximately 569 feet above mean sea level contour
line require a permit. Since all the proposed DSAs cross the entire width of Lake Wylie, they will
cross the contour line, thus triggering the need for a permit. NCTA has initiated coordination
with Duke Energy Corporation regarding the FERC permit process. In addition, FERC has been
invited to be a cooperating agency in this study because FERC’s approval would be needed for
any of the DSAs.
6.2.4 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS
Water Quality. In accordance with the North Carolina
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NCGS
Chapter 113A, Art. 4), as amended, and NC Administrative
Code Title 15A, Chapter 4 (Sedimentation Control), an
erosion and sedimentation control plan must be prepared
for land-disturbing activities that cover one or more acres
to protect against runoff from a ten-year storm.
Prior to construction, an erosion and sedimentation plan will be developed for the Preferred
Alternative in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design
(NCDENR Division of Land Resources, June 2006) and Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, March 1997). Examples of Best Management Practices
(BMP) for erosion and sedimentation control include, but are not limited to the following
activities during construction and maintenance:
• Use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff during
construction. Regular maintenance and inspection of these structures is recommended to
ensure effectiveness;
• Elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains or adjacent to streams and
tributaries will help reduce the potential for petroleum contamination or discharges of
other hazardous materials into receiving waters;
• Rapid re-seeding of disturbed sites to help alleviate sediment loading and reduce runoff.
Increased runoff from new highway surfaces can be partially mitigated by providing for
grassed road shoulders and limited use of ditching;
• Careful management and use of herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds, or other
chemical constituents will minimize potential negative impacts to water quality.
Roadside maintenance crews should be well versed in the use of these chemicals; and
• Avoid direct discharges into streams whenever feasible. Runoff effluent should be
allowed to filter through roadside vegetation in order to remove contaminants and to
minimize runoff velocities.
The NCDOT also has Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures that requires proper
handling and use of construction materials (NCDOT, January 2002). The contractor would be
Water Quality Mitigation 
Impacts from erosion and 
sedimentation will be minimized by 
implementing control measures in 
accordance with NCDENR and 
NCDOT guidance and BMPs.   

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-11
responsible for taking every reasonable precaution throughout construction of the project to
prevent pollution of any body of water. The contractor also shall be responsible for preventing
soil erosion and stream siltation.
Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project. If one of the DSAs is selected as the Preferred Alternative,
the NCTA will coordinate with Duke Energy Corporation to obtain the necessary FERC permit.
The process is expected to result in a FERC license revision to allow the transfer of land within
the FERC project boundary to NCTA to construct the Gaston East-West Connector including the
bridges over Lake Wylie. The No-Build Alternative would not require initiation of the FERC
permit process.
6.3 NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE
Natural communities include terrestrial (land-based) communities and aquatic communities, and
their respective wildlife resources. The following information is summarized from the Natural
Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector (Earth Tech, Inc., February
2008), incorporated by reference.
Representative animal species that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range
distributions) are also cited in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3. Fauna observed during field
investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*).
6.3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Nine terrestrial communities were identified within the DSAs: disturbed/maintained areas,
agricultural land, clearcut, hardwood forest, mesic mixed hardwood forest, mixed pine-hardwood
forest, pine forest, pine plantation, and successional community. These terrestrial communities
are shown in Figure 6-1 and briefly described below. Details about these communities are
provided in the Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector.
Disturbed/Maintained Area. The majority of the terrestrial communities found within the
DSAs are disturbed/maintained. The community includes four types of habitat that have
recently been, or are currently impacted by, human disturbance. These include regularly
maintained roadside shoulders, mining, commercial development, and residential areas. A few
areas that have been recently clear-cut are included in this disturbed/maintained community.
Agricultural Land. This community is not a natural community, but one that is planted and/or
maintained by humans for the purpose of growing food crops or livestock. The most common crop
encountered in the Project Study Area is pasture grasses for the purpose of growing hay.
Clearcut. This community is artificially created as a result of a recent timber harvest. Typically
clearcuts are composed of early regenerating trees and shrubs, large amounts of leftover downed
woody debris, and numerous colonizing herbaceous species.
Hardwood Forest. Hardwood forest is found throughout the DSAs and consists mostly of
mature forests. Species currently found in the canopy include northern red oak (Quercus rubra),
southern red oak (Quercus falcata), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and red maple (Acer
rubrum). Because of past disturbance, an occasional Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) or shortleaf

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-12
pine (Pinus echinata) is often found scattered within this community. Understory species include
red maple, flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and American holly (Ilex opaca). Exotics can be
problematic in these communities, with Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), autumn olive (Eleagnus sp.) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) being the
most common species encountered.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype. The mesic (moderately moist) mixed
hardwood forest (Piedmont subtype) is uncommon within the DSAs and is distinguished from the
previously described hardwood forest in that it is relatively mature. The canopy is dominated by
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, and red
oak. It occurs on lower slopes, steep north facing slopes, and in ravines.
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest. The mixed pine-hardwood forest is found in both upland and
wetland communities having hardwoods, but with a larger component of pines than the
previously described hardwood forest approaching an even mixture of pines and hardwoods.
These pines include Virginia pine, shortleaf pine, and occasionally loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
This community is typically found on upland areas throughout the DSAs. These communities
usually contain younger trees, and past disturbances have created the mixture of tree species.
Exotic vegetation is often present in highly disturbed examples of this community.
Pine Forest. Scattered throughout the DSAs are pine forests that appear associated with
abandoned agricultural land, unmanaged clearcuts, and unmaintained pine plantations. These
pine forests are typically young and contain Virginia pine, shortleaf pine, and loblolly pine. This
community is differentiated from pine plantations in that they are not heavily managed for
timber production.
Pine Plantation. This community is an artificial community that consists of planted pine
stands that are managed for timber production. The most commonly encountered species are
loblolly pine and shortleaf pine. These vary in age depending on the stage of production, and
range from young stands with the canopy beginning to close to mature stands ready for harvest.
Successional Community. The successional community includes those communities that occur
after a natural or artificial disturbance and are in an early successional state. This community,
like the clearcut, is composed of colonizing species and is characterized by a lack of a tree canopy.
This community develops into a variety of communities when in a mature state.
6.3.2 TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE
In the descriptions below, wildlife or tracks observed in the field are indicated with an asterisk
(*).
Species that prefer open areas for foraging and nesting can be found in the successional, clearcut,
and disturbed communities. The animal species present in these habitats are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation to both living and dead
faunal components. The European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), northern mockingbird* (Mimus
polyglottos), and field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) are common birds that use these habitats to find
insects, seeds, or worms. The American crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove*
(Zenaida macroura), American robin* (Turdus migratorius), raccoon* (Procyon lotor), and the
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) are true opportunists and will eat virtually any edible

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-13
items including vegetation, fruits, seeds, insects, and carrion. Large open expanses are often
used by raptors such as the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and scavengers such as the
turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and clearings or prefer a
mixture of habitat types. The eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and raccoon* prefer a
mix of herbaceous and woody vegetation and may be found in the dense shrub vegetation, along
roadsides, and in residential areas. White-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus) will utilize the
forested areas as well as the adjacent open areas. The black rat snake* (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta)
will utilize forested habitat and open areas to forage for rodents. Blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata),
northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), song
sparrows (Melospiza melodia), Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis), white-throated
sparrows (Zonotrichia albicollis), and bluebirds (Sialia sialis) are likely species that occur in the
Project Study Area and utilize edge habitat. Five-lined skinks (Eumeces fasciatus) and black
racers (Coluber constrictor) are common reptile species that utilize a mixture of habitat types.
Mature pine, hardwood, and mixed forest habitats are important habitat for many species.
Neotropical migratory birds, in particular, are dependent on these areas. Species such as
pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) and barred owls (Strix varia) prefer forested riparian
areas while neotropical migrant species such as the ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), wood thrush
(Hylocichla mustelina), and Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) prefer the upland woods.
In the leaf litter of the forested habitats, the southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)
and the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) may be found. Gray squirrels* (Sciurus
carolinensis) are often observed in wooded areas. The spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) can be
found under forest litter and in brushy undergrowth. The eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina)
is a terrestrial turtle but will be found near streams in hot, dry weather. The ground skink
(Scincella lateralis) may also be found in forested communities. Forested wetlands are especially
appealing to great blue herons* (Ardea herodias), mud salamanders (Pseudotriton montanus),
southern cricket frogs (Acris gryllus), and green frogs (Rana clamitans melanota).
6.3.3 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES AND SPECIES
A variety of flowing and stillwater habitats occur in the DSAs. The streams range from small
intermittent channels to large perennial streams such as Catawba Creek and Crowders Creek
(Figure 6-1). Stillwater habitats range from small farm ponds to a large water supply reservoir
(Lake Wylie). This allows for a variety of aquatic communities to be present throughout the
DSAs. In the descriptions below, species observed in the field are indicated with an asterisk (*).
All streams in the DSAs are designated as warmwater habitats by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). The following fish species are presumed to occur in streams within the DSAs;
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill* (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), rosyside dace*(Clinostomus funduloides), eastern mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrooki), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), greenfin shiner (Notropis
analostanus), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), and
tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi). Fish sampling was not undertaken for the project.
Streams also support a diverse assemblage of invertebrate life and semi-aquatic vertebrates.

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-14
Common types of adult and larval invertebrates include snails* (Physidae), crayfish* (Decapoda),
stoneflies (Plecoptera), mayflies* (Ephemeroptera), caddisflies* (Trichoptera), water pennies*
(Coleoptera), dobsonfly* (Corydalidae), scud* (Amphipoda), dragonflies* (Anisoptera), and
damselflies* (Zugoptera). Semi-aquatic amphibians typically associated with streams include
southern two-lined salamanders* (Eurycea cirrigera), dusky salamander* (Desmognathus fuscus),
and green frogs* (Rana clamitans). Asiatic clams* (Corbicula fluminea) were a very common
exotic mollusk species in project streams.
Numerous farm ponds and a large reservoir (Lake Wylie) occur within the DSAs. Usually farm
ponds are stocked with a low diversity of game species. Typical species found in farm ponds
include largemouth bass, bluegill, channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatu)s, and mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrooki). Lake Wylie supports a thriving recreational fishery. Popular target
species found in the lake include largemouth bass, bluegill, black crappie (Poxomis
nigromaculatus), white crappie (Poxomis annularis), white perch, (Morone americana), blue
catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), and channel catfish.
6.3.4 IMPORTANT NATURAL AREAS
This section describes lands identified by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as
significant natural areas, and lands protected under conservation easements by the Catawba
Lands Conservancy.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) maintains an
inventory of the best examples of various natural communities
across the state (NCNHP Web site: www.ncnhp.org). There are
no special procedures or requirements for protection of these sites
under State law. There are two significant natural heritage areas
recorded by the NCNHP within or directly adjacent to the DSAs.
Both are located in Gaston County and are the Crowders
Mountain State Park and Vicinity, and the Stagecoach Road
Granitic Outcrop.
The Crowders Mountain State Park and Vicinity site is just west of the DSAs. North Carolina
Department of Parks and Recreation owns part of this site and manages it as Crowders Mountain
State Park; the remaining land is privately owned. The DSAs do not encroach on either the
publicly-owned or privately-owned portions of the site.
The Stagecoach Road Granitic Outcrop is on privately-owned land located south of Blackwood
Creek and east of Crowders Creek, in Corridor Segment H3 (DSAs 4, 5, and 9). Figure 2-9k
shows this site in relation to the DSAs. The Stagecoach Road Granitic Outcrop is “significant for
its good quality Granitic Flatrock natural community, the best in this section of the Piedmont.
The gently sloping, smooth granite outcrop has bare rock with vegetation mats of typical flatrock
species. The rock is surrounded by an unusual, basic-influenced forest dominated by hickories.
This forest now remains only in a 50-foot band around the rock, as the rest of the surroundings
having been logged in the early 1990s.” (NCNHP, Natural Heritage Inventory of Gaston County,
2000).
Natural Heritage Program 
Sites 
There are two significant 
natural heritage areas 
recorded by the NCNHP 
within or directly adjacent to 
the DSAs:  Crowders 
Mountain State Park and 
Vicinity, and the Stagecoach 
Road Granitic Outcrop.

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-15
Catawba Lands Conservancy. The Catawba Lands Conservancy is a non-profit regional land
trust serving the southern Piedmont and lower Catawba River basin by permanently protecting
land, water, and wildlife habitat (Catawba Lands Conservancy Web site: www.catawbalands.org).
The Catawba Lands Conservancy secured a conservation easement on 152 acres owned by Duke
Ventures LLC (a real estate arm of Duke Energy Corporation). The easement is located south of
Union New Hope Road along Catawba Creek, between Corridor Segments K2A and K3A/K1B.
The property includes steep slopes, mature hardwood forests, pine forests, extensive wetlands,
and riparian buffers along Catawba Creek. Figures 2-10y and z show the conservation
easement in relation to the DSAs.
6.3.5 INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES
6.3.5.1 Background
Invasive plant species aggressively invade landscapes, out-
competing native species and displacing them from their
natural environments. According to the US Department of
Transportation (USDOT), nonnative flora and fauna can
cause significant changes to ecosystems, upset the ecological
balance, and cause serious economic harm to agricultural and recreational areas (USDOT
Memorandum: Policy Statement on Invasive Alien Species, April 22, 1999).
Under Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species, issued in 1999, federal agencies and federally-
funded projects cannot cause the introduction or spread of invasive species unless all reasonable
measures to minimize risk of harm have been analyzed and considered. Known invasive plants,
as listed by the individual State in which the project occurs, cannot purposely be used for
construction, revegetation, or landscaping.
FHWA policy is to fully participate in efforts to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive
species. FHWA efforts include research and analysis on the effects of invasive species, training
personnel and educating the public, implementation of beneficial landscaping, and encouraging
innovative transportation system designs. The FHWA also coordinates with other federal
agencies and state and local governments, as well as with international organizations, to
implement control efforts.
6.3.5.2 Invasive Plant Species in the Project Study Area
As previously noted, the DSAs extend through a variety of landscape and habitat types.
Diversified land uses provide a variety of opportunities for invasive plant establishment.
Agricultural weeds in the Project Study Area include kudzu and field garlic. Invasive shrubs are
also common, particularly along sunny edges, and include Chinese privet, thorny elaeagnus,
Russian olive, multiflora rose, and Japanese knotweed. Many of these species were introduced as
ornamentals. Elaeagnus species have been planted as wildlife food, as they produce fleshy
berries eaten by birds and mammals.
Forested areas are far less likely to contain herbaceous invasives, since sun exposure is normally
captured by the tree canopy. Exceptions are ground-ivy and Japanese stilt grass which thrive in
moist, shady bottomlands. However, many invasive vines occur in such habitat, including
Minimizing the Spread of 
Invasive Species 
Federal agencies and federally‐
funded projects cannot cause 
the introduction or spread of 
invasive species unless all 
reasonable measures to
minimize risk of harm have 
been analyzed and considered. 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-16
Chinese wisteria, Chinese yam, English ivy, Japanese
honeysuckle, and porcelain berry.
Invasive trees introduced as ornamentals, such as Chinaberry,
are commonly seen in disturbed residential areas and along
nearby forest edges. Roadways and embankments are often
planted with sericea to control erosion.
Both the US Government and the State of North Carolina
maintain lists of noxious weeds, with accompanying legislation to
restrict the sale, establishment, or transport of these species.
None of the species mentioned above are considered noxious
weeds according to the North Carolina list (02 NCAC 48A. 1700)
or Federal Noxious Weed List (7 CFR 360).
Regional lists are maintained by the Southeastern Exotic Pest
Plant Council (SEPPC) in conjunction with the US Forest
Service, the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the University of
Georgia (Invasive Plants of the Thirteen Southern States, Invasive.org, May 2004). The species
occurring in the Project Study Area and included in the southeastern regional list are listed in
Table 6-3.
TABLE 6-3: Invasive Plant Species in Project Study Area
Common Name Scientific Name  Common Name Scientific Name 
Chinese yam  Dioscorea bulbifera  multiflora rose  Rosa multiflora 
Russian olive  Elaeagnus umbellata  field garlic Allium vineale 
sericea Lespedeza cuneata  porcelain berry  Ampelopsis brevipedunculata  
Chinese privet  Ligustrum sinense  thorny elaeagnus Elaeagnus pungens 
Japanese 
honeysuckle  Lonicera japonica  English ivy  Hedera helix 
Japanese stilt grass  Microstegium vimineum  Chinaberry Melia azederach 
kudzu  Pueraria montana var. lobata  Chinese wisteria Wisteria sinensis 
Japanese knotweed Reynoutria japonica    
Source:  Invasive.org website, Invasive Plants of the Thirteen Southern States, www.invasive.org/seweeds.cfm 
6.3.6 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Project construction would have various impacts to the previously described terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Any construction activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section summarizes potential impacts to the natural
communities in terms of the area impacted and the plants and animals affected.
6.3.6.1 Terrestrial Communities
Both direct and indirect impacts would occur to the terrestrial communities and the animals that
inhabit them under any of the DSAs. Terrestrial communities would be impacted permanently
by project construction from clearing and paving. Table 6-4 provides the acreage of terrestrial
communities by habitat type that would be impacted by each DSA. The acreage represents the
Chinese Privet – an invasive weed.
Photo Credit:  Ted Bodner, 
Southern Weed Science Society, 
Bugwood.org 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-17
area within each DSA’s proposed right-of-way limits. These amounts do not include right of way
needed outside the DSA corridor boundaries. Based upon preliminary engineering design, right
of way is needed outside the DSA corridor boundaries for some cross-street improvements and
service roads. These project elements are mostly roadway widenings in disturbed areas and
comprise a small percentage of total right of way needed for the project.
TABLE 6-4: Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Detailed Study Alternative Community Type 4 5 9 22 23 27 58 64 68 76 77 81 
 Acreage* 
Disturbed/Maintained 552 561 547 540 549 536 513 535 522 514 523 509 
Agricultural 121 142 177 121 142 177 153 220 256 128 148 184 
Clearcut 0 0 20 4 4 24 0 0 20 0 0 20 
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 3 7 0 10 14 7 3 7 0 3 7 0 
Hardwood Forest 268 260 236 307 300 276 456 483 459 354 347 323 
Pine Hardwood Forest 512 526 533 541 555 562 448 396 403 488 502 509 
Pine Forest 126 106 113 120 100 106 118 99 105 116 96 103 
Pine Plantation 4 3 0 4 3 0 17 23 20 4 3 0 
Successional 155 128 114 125 99 85 149 117 102 156 130 115 
Open Water 22 26 21 22 26 21 22 26 21 22 26 21 
Total Acreage* 1,763 1,759 1,761 1,794 1,792 1,794 1,879 1,906 1,908 1,785 1,782 1,784
 Percent of Total Acreage 
Disturbed/Maintained 31.3 31.9 31.1 30.1 30.6 29.9 27.3 28.1 27.4 28.8 29.3 28.5 
Agricultural 6.9 8.1 10.1 6.7 7.9 9.9 8.1 11.5 13.4 7.2 8.3 10.3 
Clearcut 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 
Hardwood Forest 15.2 14.8 13.4 17.1 16.7 15.4 24.3 25.3 24.0 19.8 19.5 18.1 
Pine Hardwood Forest 29.0 29.9 30.3 30.2 31.0 31.3 23.8 20.8 21.1 27.3 28.2 28.5 
Pine Forest 7.1 6.0 6.4 6.7 5.6 5.9 6.3 5.2 5.5 6.5 5.4 5.8 
Pine Plantation 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 
Successional 8.8 7.3 6.5 7.0 5.5 4.7 7.9 6.1 5.3 8.7 7.3 6.4 
Open Water 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.2 
Source:  Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East‐West Connector (EarthTech, Inc. February 2008). 
*Acreage is within the DSAs’ right‐of‐way limits within the area surveyed for natural communities (the DSA corridor boundaries). 
As presented in Table 6-4, the predominant community types in all the DSAs are
disturbed/maintained areas and pine hardwood forest, followed by hardwood forest. These three
community types comprise 72-78 percent of the DSAs’ preliminary engineering design right of
way. Agriculture, pine forest, and successional communities are the next most common
community types, each ranging from 5-11 percent of the right of way area. Each the following
communities comprise 0-1.5 percent of the right-of-way area: clearcut, mesic mixed hardwood,
pine plantation, and open water.
6.3.6.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Potential Impacts. Destruction of natural communities along the DSAs’ rights of way would
result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the
area. Animal species would be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds, mammals,
and some reptiles are mobile enough to avoid mortality during construction. Young animals and

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-18
less mobile species, such as many amphibians, may suffer direct loss during construction. The
plants and animals that are found in the upland communities are generally common throughout
central North Carolina.
Indirect impacts would occur from forest fragmentation. Forest fragmentation occurs when
large, contiguous forests are divided into smaller patches by urbanization, roads, and agriculture.
This process reduces the forest’s function as a habitat for many plant and animal species and has
been shown to reduce biodiversity by altering the amount of forest interior habitat reducing the
amount of habitat available for species requiring large uninterrupted tracts.
When habitat is fragmented, the amount of edge habitat increases at the expense of interior
habitat. Under these circumstances, species dependent upon interior habitat suffer (such as
many migratory or neo-tropical birds), while edge dependant species including invasive species
and predators thrive. Highly fragmented forests do not provide the food, cover, or reproduction
needs of interior forest species. The road itself can also provide a physical barrier to the
movement of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians along wildlife corridors and from one forest
patch to another.
Indirect impacts to habitats also are discussed in Section 7.5. DSAs using Corridor Segments
H1C, J1c, K1A, and K4A (DSAs 5, 23, 27, 58, 64, 68, 77, and 81) have a greater potential to
indirectly affect upland species due to habitat fragmentation in that these corridor segments are
located the farthest distance away from previously fragmented forestland. DSAs 4, 9, 22, and 76
would have comparable levels of lesser indirect effects due to existing habitat fragmentation.
Mitigation Measures. The impacts of habitat fragmentation can be reduced by providing
connections between habitats on either side of the Gaston East-West Connector. In consultation
with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
and USEPA, at a Turnpike-Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting on April 8, 2008, the
NCTA identified a location along all DSAs where wildlife passage structures could be provided to
maintain habitat connectivity.
A wildlife passage structure will be studied at the crossing of Stream S156 during final design of
the Preferred Alternative. Stream S156 (Figure 2-9q and 2-9r) is located between Forbes Road
to the west and Robinson Road to the east. All DSAs cross this stream. DSAs 64 and 68 cross
this stream using Corridor Segment J1b/J1c, DSA 58 crosses this stream using Corridor Segment
JX1, and DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, 27, 76, and 81 cross this stream using Corridor Segment J2c.
Wildlife passages are often additional culverts placed adjacent to the culverts needed for water
passage. During final design, the NCTA will coordinate with the NCWRC, USFWS, and USEPA
on the feasibility and design of the wildlife passage at Stream S156, and on designing bridge
crossings to be wildlife friendly when feasible.
6.3.6.3 Aquatic Communities and Species
Potential Impacts. Impacts to aquatic communities include fluctuations in water temperature
as a result of the loss of riparian (forest) vegetation. Impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations having steep to moderate slopes, can result in the aquatic community
receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. Construction impacts may not be
restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs, but may also affect
downstream communities. Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-19
from increased sedimentation. Sediments have the potential to affect fish and other aquatic life
in several ways including the clogging and abrading of gills and other respiratory surfaces,
affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools and riffles, altering water chemistry, and
smothering different life stages. Indirect impacts to water bodies are also discussed in
Chapter 7.
The relative potential for impacts to aquatic communities can be related to the number of stream
crossings for each DSA. More stream crossings mean a higher number of aquatic communities
can be potentially impacted, either temporarily or permanently. Table 6-5 in Section 6.4.4 lists
the number of stream crossings for each DSA. The number of crossings range from 91 crossings
for DSA 9 to 120 crossings for DSA 58.
Mitigation Measures. As outlined in Section 6.2.3 (Mitigation of Impacts – Water Quality)
impacts to aquatic communities and wildlife from erosion and sedimentation will be minimized
through implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of BMPs.
6.3.6.4 Important Natural Areas
As described in Section 6.3.4, three important natural areas are within or immediately adjacent
to the DSAs: NCNHP Crowders Mountain State Park and Vicinity, NCNHP Stagecoach Road
Granitic Outcrop, and the Catawba Lands Conservancy conservation easement. None of the
DSAs’ preliminary engineering designs would encroach on these sites.
6.3.6.5 Invasive Plant Species
Potential Impacts. Construction of any of the DSAs has the potential to provide opportunities
for invasive plant species. The No-Build Alternative would not provide these opportunities.
Roadway construction vehicles, mowing and maintenance equipment, and vehicles that
subsequently use the roadway can carry seeds and other propagules (cuttings, seeds, or spores) of
these species on their tires and cargoes. Clearing and grading can expose land to colonization by
invasive plants. Once these species become established, they can easily flow down adjacent
waterways and spread along the highways and side roads through air flow and on vehicle tires.
Mitigation Measures. The NCTA will comply with Executive Order 13112. Known invasive
plant species will not be used in construction, revegetation, or landscaping. During construction
of the proposed project, BMPs will be implemented to reduce the potential for spreading invasive
species.
6.4 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
This section provides inventories and evaluates potential impacts to rivers, streams, lakes, ponds,
and wetlands. This section is based on information from the Natural Resources Technical Report
for the Gaston East-West Connector (Earth Tech, February, 2008), incorporated by reference and
available on the NCTA Web site (www.ncturnpike.org/projects/gaston).

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-20
6.4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Section 404 of the CWA prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into “Waters of the United
States”, except in accordance with a permit. The term Waters of the United States has broad
meaning and incorporates both wetlands and surface waters. The US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) is responsible for issuing permits and enforcing
permitting requirements under Section 404 of the CWA. The
USEPA issues the regulations, known as Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines, that the USACE must follow when issuing
Section 404 permits. USEPA also participates in the
permitting process.
The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 321-
330. In addition, Executive Order 11990 requires that new
construction in wetlands be avoided to the extent possible,
and that all practical measure be taken to minimize or
mitigate impacts to wetlands.
Water bodies such as rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 Program. By regulation, wetlands also are considered Waters of the
United States. Wetlands are described as:
“Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances, do support a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR
328.3(b)).
The USACE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and evidence of hydrology) in support of jurisdictional determinations.
In 2006, the US Supreme Court addressed the jurisdictional scope of Section 404 of the CWA.
The Court specifically addressed the term Waters of the United States in Rapanos v. US and in
Carabell v. US (hereafter referred to as Rapanos).
The decision provided two new analytical standards for determining whether water bodies that
are not traditional navigable waters (TNWs) (including wetlands adjacent to those non-TNWs),
are subject to CWA jurisdiction. The analytical standards are: (1) if the water body is relatively
permanent, or if the water body is a wetland that directly abuts (e.g., the wetland is not
separated from the tributary by uplands, a berm, dike, or similar feature) a relatively permanent
water body, or (2) if a water body, in combination with all wetlands adjacent to that water body,
has a significant nexus with TNWs.
As a consequence of the US Supreme Court decision in Rapanos, the USEPA and the USACE, in
coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the President’s Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), developed the June 2007 Memorandum - Clean Water Act
Jurisdiction Following the US Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell
v. United States (USACE Web site:
www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/rapanos_guide_memo.pdf). This guidance requires
the application of the two new standards described above, as well as a greater level of
Clean Water Act 
Section 404 prohibits discharges of 
dredged or fill materials into Waters 
of the United States, except in 
accordance with a permit. 

Section 401 requires an applicant for 
a Section 404 permit to obtain 
certification from the State that the 
project complies with State water 
quality standards 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-21
documentation, to support an agency jurisdictional determination for a particular water body.
Furthermore, this guidance required the USACE and USEPA to develop a revised jurisdictional
determination form to be used by field staff for documenting assertion or declination of CWA
jurisdiction. These forms were completed for project streams and wetlands and are included in
the Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector (Earth Tech,
February, 2008).
Updated guidance was issued on December 2, 2008 for making jurisdictional determinations
(USACE Web site: www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/cwa_guide.htm). The updated
guidance does not change the jurisdictional determinations for the Gaston East-West Connector.
Many of the wetlands within DSAs are abutting the stream or surface water body they are
associated with. Almost all wetlands that were adjacent (nearby but not directly abutting a
stream) were determined to have a significant nexus with the stream and with Navigable Waters
of the US. Four wetlands were determined to not have a significant nexus, and were deemed
isolated waters. These wetlands are Wetland 95, Wetland 252, Wetland 253, and Wetland 291
(Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector, Earth Tech, February,
2008).
The NCDWQ also has regulatory input through Section 401 of the CWA, Water Quality
Certification. Section 401 requires an applicant for a Section 404 permit to obtain certification
from the State that the project complies with State water quality standards. The NCDWQ issues
an Individual Water Quality Certification that corresponds to the USACE Section 404 Individual
Permit. Impacts to waters deemed isolated by the USACE will require an isolated waters permit
from the NCDWQ.
6.4.2 CATAWBA RIVER RIPARIAN BUFFER RULES
Permanent riparian buffer protection rules were enacted by the State for the main stem of the
Catawba River and its main stem lakes below Lake James south to the North Carolina/South
Carolina border (15 NCAC 02B.0243-0244). Lake Wylie is one of the main stem lakes in which
the buffer rules apply.
The buffer protection rules apply within 50 feet of all riparian shorelines along the Catawba
River main stem and the seven main stem lakes. The buffer is 50 feet wide and is measured from
the waters edge (at full pond in the lakes) and has two zones. Zone 1 is the 30 feet nearest the
water and Zone 2 is 20 feet landward of Zone 1. Grading and clearing of vegetation in Zone 1 is
not allowed except for certain uses. The outer 20-foot zone (Zone 2) can be cleared and graded
but must be revegetated to maintain diffuse flow to Zone 1. Certain activities (including road
crossings) may be allowable with mitigation but must first be reviewed and given written
approval by NCDWQ. If it can be shown that there are "no practical alternatives" to the proposed
activity, a variance may be allowed with mitigation (NCDWQ Web site:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/documents/FactSheet7-29-04.pdf).
All of the DSAs cross water bodies that are part of Lake Wylie, where the Catawba River
Riparian Buffer Rules apply. The three water bodies within Lake Wylie’s full pond limits (full
pond elevation is 569.4 feet above mean sea level) are stream segments that are flooded due to
the presence of Lake Wylie and are: Catawba River, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba
Creek (Duke Energy Corporation Web site: www.duke-energy.com/lakes/facts-and-maps/lake-
wylie.asp). Lake Wylie’s limits along Catawba Creek end south of Union New Hope Road.

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-22
Corridor Segments K3A and K1B (DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 64, 68, 77, and 81) cross Catawba Creek
within the Lake Wylie limits, but Corridor Segment K2A (DSAs 4, 22, 58, and 76) does not. All
DSAs cross South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River where they are part of Lake Wylie.
6.4.3 EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES
6.4.3.1 Surveys for Jurisdictional Resources
The DSA corridors were field-surveyed to identify Waters of the United States. Published
information and resources were collected prior to the field investigation. Information sources
used to prepare this report included US Geological Survey quadrangle maps, soil surveys for
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, aerial photography, and USFWS National Wetlands
Inventory mapping.
Wetland delineations and stream surveys were performed from October 2006 through March
2007 by biologists with Catena Group, JH Carter and Associates, and S&ME. Water resources
were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Locations of wetlands and
streams were recorded using global positioning system (GPS) technology with reported sub-meter
accuracy.
Jurisdictional wetlands were delineated and evaluated based on criteria established in the US
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Wetlands were classified based on Cowardin et al. (Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States, 1979). Wetland functions were evaluated according to the
NCDWQ’s Wetland Rating System, 4th version (1995). Streams were evaluated for perennial or
intermittent status according to the NCDWQ’s Identification Methods for the Origin of
Intermittent and Perennial Streams (Version 3.1, 2005).
Field jurisdictional verifications for streams and wetlands were performed by the USACE and the
NCDWQ on April 12 and 13; May 2, 3, 10 and 11; and June 25 and 26, 2007. Written verification
was received from NCDWQ by letter dated August 2, 2007 (Appendix A-5). Written verification
from the USACE on final jurisdictional determinations will be provided for the Preferred
Alternative and reported in the Final EIS (Telephone interview, USACE representative, October
15, 2007).
6.4.3.2 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Wetlands and Ponds. The jurisdictional wetlands identified within the DSA corridor
boundaries are shown on Figure 2-9a-ii. Many of the wetlands are small headwater systems
associated with the numerous tributaries. Larger bottomland hardwood wetland systems are
associated with some of the larger streams and Lake Wylie.
Appendix N (Table 1) lists each pond within the DSA corridors. Appendix N (Table 3) lists
each surveyed wetland, its type (Cowardin Classification), and its NCDWQ rating. Based on the
NCDWQ rating form, wetlands were assigned a quality rating of Low, Medium, or High. In
general, wetlands that received a score of 0 to 40 were considered Low Quality. Wetlands with
scores ranging from 40 to 64 were rated Medium Quality, and wetlands with scores of 65 or

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-23
Wetland 268 in Corridor Segment K2A – Type PF01A – 
High Quality 
Photo Credit:  JH Carter and Associates 
greater received a High Quality rating. Some wetland quality ratings were adjusted up or down
based upon professional judgment.
It should be noted that not all wetlands and ponds within the approximate 1,400-foot study
corridor boundaries would be impacted by construction of the project.
A total of 58 ponds and 370 wetlands were identified within the DSA corridors. Approximately
seven percent of the wetlands were rated High Quality, approximately 30 percent were rated
Medium Quality, and the remainder (approximately 63 percent) were rated Low Quality.
The following provides a general description of each wetland type, including ponds, present
within the DSA corridors. Additional information can also be found in the Natural Resources
Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector (Earth Tech, February, 2008).
PEM1. These wetlands are palustrine
(pertaining to marshes or swamps)
emergent wetlands consisting of persistent
emergent vegetation (vegetation in areas
that are periodically submerged but that
extend above water level). These wetlands
are located in areas such as pastures, road
sides or maintained easements typically in
headwaters or along floodplains of streams.
PFO1. These wetlands are palustrine
forested wetlands consisting of broad leaved
deciduous vegetation (deciduous vegetation
loses its leaves each year). Many of these
wetlands are in the headwaters or
floodplains of streams and are hydrologically
driven by groundwater or flooding.
PSS1. These wetlands are palustrine shrub-scrub wetlands composed of broad-leaved deciduous
vegetation that is less than 20 feet in height. Many of these wetlands are in the headwaters or
floodplains of streams and are hydrologically driven by groundwater or flooding.
PSS3C. These are palustrine shrub-scrub
wetlands composed of broad-leaved evergreen
vegetation that is less than 20 feet in height and
are seasonally flooded. Many of these wetlands
are in the headwaters or floodplains of streams
and are hydrologically driven by groundwater or
flooding.
PUBHh. These are palustrine wetlands with
unconsolidated bottoms that are permanently
flooded due to dikes or impoundments. These
include farm ponds or other types of man-made
ponds that have been constructed by damming a
stream or excavating in the headwaters of a drainage system.
Pond P9 – Near Camp Rotary Rd and Corridor 
Segment  HX2

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-24
Streams. The jurisdictional perennial streams (having water flow year-round) and intermittent
streams (having water flow part of the time) identified within the DSA corridor boundaries are
shown on Figure 2-9a-ii.
A total of 452 perennial and intermittent stream
segments were identified within the DSA corridors.
Appendix N (Table 5) lists each surveyed stream,
whether it is perennial or intermittent, its bank
height, average width and depth, substrate (what
the bottom is comprised of), its water quality
classification, and NCDWQ score. Within the
DSAs, the streams range from small intermittent
channels to large perennial streams. The smaller
stream channels are first- or second-order
tributaries, and bed material typically consists of
sand, gravel, and cobble. On the more impacted
channels, sand and sediments are common. Most
of the streams are clear to moderately turbid.
Riparian (forested) buffers along these streams
vary from being almost nonexistent along some smaller more urban streams to extensive forested
buffers along streams in more remote rural locations. Incision has constricted or eliminated the
overbank flow of many of the smaller streams, resulting in channel depths that can approach four
feet or more.
6.4.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
6.4.4.1 Impacts to Ponds, Wetlands, and Streams
Project construction for any of the DSAs cannot be accomplished without infringing on surface
waters, including streams, wetlands, and ponds. Anticipated surface water impacts are under
the jurisdiction of the USACE and the NCDWQ. Streams may be filled, relocated, or placed in a
culvert by project construction. Wetlands may be either partially or completely filled. In some
instances, larger wetland areas may become hydraulically disconnected from an adjacent stream.
Table 6-5 presents the amount of streams, wetlands, and ponds estimated to be impacted by
each DSA. The impacts were calculated using the preliminary engineering designs’ construction
limits, with an additional 25-foot buffer. Appendix N includes tables that list the impacts to
individual ponds (Appendix N, Table 2), wetlands (Appendix N, Table 4), and streams
(Appendix N, Table 6), by DSA.
TABLE 6-5: Impacts to Waters of the United States
Detailed Study Alternatives Resource 4 5 9 22 23 27 58 64 68 76 77 81 
 Ponds            
   Ponds  
   (# impacted)* 10 8 8 9 7 7 12 10 10 12 10 10 
   Ponds (acres) 6.3 5.1 4.1 5.1 3.9 2.9 5.5 3.1 2.1 5.5 6.1 3.3 
 Wetlands 
   Wetlands 
   (# impacted) * 60 48 52 52 40 44 60 53 57 54 42 46 
Crowders Creek – Stream S14 
Photo Credit:  S&ME 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-25
TABLE 6-5: Impacts to Waters of the United States
Detailed Study Alternatives Resource 4 5 9 22 23 27 58 64 68 76 77 81 
   Wetlands (acres) 7.4 6.9 7.5 8.8 8.2 8.9 12.1 12.5 13.2 9.7 9.1 9.8 
 Streams             
   Perennial 
   (# crossings) 74 62 59 78 67 64 86 74 71 80 69 66 
   Perennial  
   (linear ft) * 48,296 42,733 38,894 50,100 44,609 40,766 50,739 40,915 37,223 46,105 40,033 36,771
   Intermittent 
   (# crossings) 32 37 32 33 38 33 34 38 32 31 36 31 
   Intermittent 
   (linear ft) * 9,048 9,501 10,101 8,953 9,406 10,006 9,505 9,537 9,986 9,364 9,678 10,417
   Total Streams 
   (# crossings) 106 99 91 111 105 97 120 112 103 111 105 97 
   Total Streams 
   (linear ft) * 57,344 52,234 48,995 59,053 54,015 50,772 60,244 50,452 47,209 55,469 49,711 47,188
Source:  Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East‐West Connector (EarthTech, Inc., February 2008), TEAC Meeting, April 8, 
2008. 
Notes:  Highest and lowest values are indicated by bold font.  *Impacts were calculated using the preliminary engineering designs’ 
construction limits, with an additional 25‐foot buffer, in accordance with NCDOT procedures. 
Impacts listed in Table 6-5 exclude streams and wetlands projected to be bridged. Section 4.7.3
describes major drainage structures, including bridge locations. As shown in Table 6-5, pond
impacts range from 2.1-2.9 acres for DSAs 68 and 27, to 6.1-6.3 acres for DSAs 77 and 4.
Wetland impacts for the DSAs range from 6.9 acres for DSA 5 to 13.2 acres for DSA 68. The
three DSAs with the most wetland acres impacted (DSAs 58, 64, and 68) are those that use
Corridor Segment H1C, the westernmost corridor segment. Only one impacted wetland, Wetland
253, was considered an isolated wetland (Figure 2-9z). This wetland is located in Corridor
Segment K3A, and DSAs 9, 27, 68, and 81 would impact the entire 0.35 acres of this wetland.
Most stream impacts would occur to perennial streams. DSA 58 and DSA 22 would impact the
most linear feet (lf) of perennial stream, at 50,739 linear feet and 50,100 lf, respectively. The
fewest linear feet of perennial stream impacts would occur under DSA 81 (36,771 lf) and DSA 68
(37,223 lf). The difference between the highest value of perennial stream impacts (50,739 lf) and
the lowest value (36,771 lf) is 13,968 lf.
The number of intermittent stream crossings and the linear feet of impacts to intermittent
streams are more similar among the DSAs. The DSA with the most linear feet of intermittent
stream impacts is DSA 81 (10,417 lf), which is the DSA with the fewest linear feet of perennial
stream impact. The DSA with the fewest linear feet of intermittent stream impact is DSA 22
(8,953), which has one of the most linear feet of perennial stream impact. The difference between
the highest value of intermittent stream impacts (10,417 lf) and the lowest value (8,953 lf) is
1,464 lf.
6.4.4.2 Impacts to Catawba River Buffers
Based on the preliminary engineering designs within each DSA, impacts to the Catawba River
riparian buffers are projected for the crossings of Lake Wylie. Since Lake Wylie spans the Project
Study Area, none of the DSAs could avoid crossing Catawba River buffers.

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-26
Road crossings are subject to the Catawba River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B.0243). Road
crossings that impact greater than 40 linear feet (lf), but equal to or less than 150 lf or one-third
acre (14,505 square feet) of riparian buffer are allowable without mitigation. Road crossings that
impact greater than 150 lf or one-third acre of riparian buffer are allowable with mitigation.
These uses require prior written authorization from the NCDWQ.
Table 6-6 lists the area of impact estimated for each DSA. DSAs 4, 22, 58, and 76 would have
the least overall impacts to Catawba River buffers. These DSAs would be designated as uses that
are allowable without mitigation because they would cumulatively impact less than one-third
acre (14,505 square feet) of buffer area. DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 64, 68, 77, and 81 would be designated
as uses that are allowable with mitigation because they would cumulatively impact more than
one-third acre of buffer.
TABLE 6-6: Impacts to Catawba River Buffers
Detailed Study Alternative Resource 4 5 9 22 23 27 58 64 68 76 77 81 
Catawba River           
   Zone 1 (sq ft) 490 3,940 490 490 3,940 490 490 3,940 490 490 3,940 490 
   Zone 2 (sq ft) 3,655 3,675 3,655 3,655 3,675 3,655 3,655 3,675 3,655 3,655 3,675 3,655 
 South Fork Catawba River           
   Zone 1 (sq ft) 0 5,205 9,910 0 5,205 9,910 0 5,205 9,910 0 5,205 9,910 
   Zone 2 (sq ft) 0 6,110 6,560 0 6,110 6,560 0 6,110 6,560 0 6,110 6,560 
 Catawba Creek 
   Zone 1 (sq ft) 0 350 0 0 350 0 0 350 0 0 350 0 
   Zone 2 (sq ft) 0 3,310 0 0 3,310 0 0 3,310 0 0 3,310 0 
Total Buffer Impacts           
   Zone 1 (sq ft) 490 9,495 10,400 490 9,495 10,400 490 9,495 10,400 490 9,495 10,400
   Zone 2 (sq ft) 3,655 13,095 10,215 3,655 13,095 10,215 3,655 13,095 10,215 3,655 13,095 10,215
   Zones 1 & 2 4,145 22,590 20,615 4,145 22,590 20,615 4,145 22,590 20,615 4,145 22,590 20,615
Source:  Preliminary Engineering Designs (PBS&J, January 2008). 
Notes:  Catawba River – All buffer impacts occur on the east side for Corridor Segments K3C and K4A.  South Fork Catawba River – All 
buffer impacts occur on the west side for Corridor Segments K3A and K4A.  No impacts with Corridor Segment K2A.  Catawba Creek – All 
buffer impacts occur on the west side for Corridor Segment K1B.  No impacts with Corridor Segments K3A or K2A. 
Catawba River. Corridor Segments K3C (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) and K4A (DSAs
5, 23, 64, and 77) cross the Catawba River. All of the DSAs would encroach on Catawba River
buffers along the Catawba River on the east side. There would be no encroachment on the west
side, as the proposed bridges over the Catawba River would span buffer Zones 1 and 2 on the
west side.
South Fork Catawba River. Corridor Segment K2A (DSAs 4, 22, 58, and 76), Corridor
Segment K3A (DSAs 9, 27, 68, and 81), and Corridor Segment K4A (DSAs 5, 23, 64, and 77) cross
the South Fork Catawba River where it is part of the main stem Lake Wylie. The bridge for
Corridor Segment K2A would be long enough to span buffer Zones 1 and 2 on both side of the
river because the bridge was extended to maintain existing roadway access on either bank.
The bridge for Corridor Segment K3A and the bridge for Corridor Segment K4A would impact
buffer Zones 1 and 2 on the west side of the river. On the east side, the bridges were extended to
maintain existing roadway access.

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-27
Catawba Creek. Corridor Segment K2A (DSAs 4, 22, 58, and 76) does not encroach on the
portion of Catawba Creek that is a part of the main stem Lake Wylie. Corridor Segment K3A
(DSAs 9, 27, 68, and 81) and Corridor Segment K4A (DSAs 5, 23, 64, and 77) cross the Catawba
Creek with bridges in approximately the same location, where the creek part of the main stem
Lake Wylie.
The preliminary engineering designs for Corridor Segment K3A would not encroach on buffer
Zones 1 or 2. The bridge would be extended to the east past buffer Zones 1 and 2 to span Wetland
248 (Section 4.7.3).
The preliminary engineering designs for Corridor Segment K4A would encroach on a small area
of buffer Zones 1 and 2 on the west side of the creek. The bridge would be extended on the east
side past buffer Zones 1 and 2 to span Wetland 248.
6.4.5 PERMITTING AND MITIGATION
6.4.5.1 Section 404/401 Permit Issues
Permits will be required for roadway encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and surface
waters. The type of activity, the extent of the impacts, and the specific environmental impact will
be considered by the Wilmington District of the USACE before a determination is made to
authorize use of a permit, the requirements attached to the permit, and the type of permit to be
issued by the agency.
The USACE Wilmington District issues an Individual Permit
for projects that result in 0.5 acre or more of fill to wetlands
or 300 linear feet or more of stream impacts, or if the project
is considered by the agency to be a major action. An
Individual Permit requires a full public interest review,
including public notices and coordination with involved
agencies, interested parties, and the general public. This
project’s EIS process will serve the requirements for public
coordination for the Section 404 Individual Permit.
Implementation of any of the DSAs would require issuance of an Individual 404 Permit from the
USACE Wilmington District for stream and wetland impacts. This project would also require a
401 Water Quality Certification from the NCDWQ prior to issuance of the Individual 404 Permit.
The NCDWQ issues an Individual Water Quality Certification which corresponds to the USACE
individual permit. Impacts to waters deemed isolated by the USACE require an isolated waters
permit from the NCDWQ.
In accordance with Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, “no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be
permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less
adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other
significant adverse environmental consequences.” (40 CFR 230.10(a)).
Section 404 Permit 
Implementation of any of the DSAs 
will require an Individual Permit 
from the USACE and a Section 401 
Water Quality Certification from the 
NCDWQ for wetland and stream 
impacts.    

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-28
6.4.5.2 Mitigation Issues
Mitigation policy for jurisdictional wetlands has been established by USEPA and 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]), 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 US. Compensatory mitigation is sought only after all reasonable efforts have been
made to avoid or minimize impacts.
6.4.5.3 Avoidance and Minimization
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practical possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of
the US 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 US and Catawba River riparian buffers. Implementation of these steps
would be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Strict adherence to
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 DSAs incorporate measures to avoid and minimize impacts to Waters of the United States
and the Catawba River buffers.
The horizontal alignment of the preliminary engineering designs was adjusted where possible to
minimize or avoid impacts to streams, wetlands, and ponds. The presence of wetlands and

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-29
streams, and minimizing or avoiding impacts to these resources, was a factor in considering
interchange configurations.
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, NCDWQ, USFWS, USEPA, 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 (Section 9.2.3), 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.
However, the NCTA agreed to include several bridges in the preliminary engineering designs,
beyond those required to convey floodwaters (Section 4.7.3), to avoid or minimize stream and
wetland impacts. These bridge locations are described below.
• Corridor Segment H2A (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27) – bridge the service road over
Bessemer Branch.
• Corridor Segment H2C (DSAs 22, 23, and 27) – lengthen the mainline bridges over
Chapel Grove Road to span Stream S70.
• Corridor Segment HX2 (DSAs 76, 77, and 81) – lengthen the mainline bridges over Camp
Rotary Road to span Stream S79.
• Corridor Segment H3 (DSAs 4, 5, and 9) – bridge Blackwood Creek (Stream S135).
• Corridor Segments J3 and J2a (DSAs 22, 23, 27, 76, 77, and 81) – lengthen the bridge
over Crowders Creek (Stream S14) to span Wetland 103.
• Corridor Segment J1c (DSAs 64 and 68) – bridge Stream S178 (unnamed tributary to
Crowders Creek).
• Corridor Segment K3A (DSAs 9, 27, 68, and 81) – 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.
• Corridor Segment K1B (DSAs 5, 23, 64, and 77) – 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.
6.4.5.4 Compensatory Mitigation
Waters of the United States. 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 404 Permit, mitigation for impacts
to surface waters will be required by the USACE and the Division of Water Quality.
Furthermore, in accordance with its regulations (33 CFR Part 332), the USACE requires

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-30
compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic
environment are minimal. It is anticipated that stream impacts will be greater than USACE and
NCDWQ regulatory thresholds and will require compensatory mitigation.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the US.
Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site (i.e.,
compensatory on-site mitigation). There are many possible streams in the Project Study Area
whose restoration may qualify as on-site mitigation for stream impacts. On-site restoration can
include removal of existing fill materials at old bridge end bents, stabilization of degraded
streams, and restoration of floodplains surrounding new bridges.
An off-site mitigation program based on in-lieu fee payments made to the NCDENR Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (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). Coordination with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies during
NCTA monthly meetings determined that payment of an in-lieu fee would be an available option
for off-site mitigation.
Catawba River Buffers. Implementation of DSA 4, 22, 58, or 76 would be designated as uses
that are allowable without mitigation because they would cumulatively impact less than
one-third acre (14,505 square feet) of buffer area. However, these DSAs would require written
authorization for disturbances to the buffer from the NCDWQ prior to construction (15A NCAC
02B.0244).
Implementation of DSA 5, 9, 23, 27, 64, 68, 77, or 81 would be designated as uses that are
allowable with mitigation because they would cumulatively impact more than one-third acre of
buffer. A determination of ‘no practical alternatives’ is required from the NCDWQ, and approval
of mitigation (15A NCAC 02B.0244).
The required area of mitigation shall be determined by the NCDWQ by applying a multiplier of
2.0 to impacts in Zone 1 of the riparian buffer and a multiplier of 1.5 to impacts in Zone 2.
Mitigation shall be the same distance from the Catawba River as the proposed impact, and as
close to the location of the impact as feasible. The NCDWQ will issue a mitigation determination
that specifies the required area and location of mitigation (15A NCAC 02B.0244).
Mitigation may be met by payment of a compensatory mitigation fee to the Riparian Buffer
Restoration Fund, donation or real property or of an interest in real property, or restoration or
enhancement of a non-forested riparian buffer (15A NCAC 02B.0244).
6.5 PROTECTED SPECIES
This section summarizes the protected species assessments prepared for the project. Details are
documented in the Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East-West Connector
(Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008), incorporated by reference and available on the NCTA Web site
(www.ncturnpike.org/projects/gaston). For the purposes of this section, the term “protected
species” includes those species listed by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (ESA).

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-31
6.5.1 BACKGROUND
6.5.1.1 Federal Regulations
Endangered Species Act. Some populations of plants and animals are declining either as a
result of natural forces or their difficulty competing with humans for resources. Plants and
animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the
ESA.
The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of endangered or threatened species,
including the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Critical habitat is a term used in the
ESA to describe a specific geographic area(s) that is
essential for the conservation of a threatened or
endangered species and that may require special
management and protection.
The USFWS determines whether a species should be federally listed as threatened or
endangered. A listed species is protected under the ESA until its population has recovered to the
point that it can be removed from the list. Any activity permitted, funded, or conducted by a
federal agency determined to affect a listed species or designated critical habitat requires a
consultation with the USFWS. Consultation may be informal or formal. If formal consultation is
needed, the result of the consultation is a written Biological Opinion by the USFWS of whether
the proposed action is likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species and/or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The bald eagle was adopted as a national symbol in
1782. During the next century and a half, the bald eagle was heavily hunted. This led Congress
to pass the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act in 1940 to prevent the species from becoming
extinct. In 1962, Congress adopted the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect
golden eagles, which also strengthened protection of bald eagles since they were often killed by
people mistaking them for golden eagles. The BGEPA prohibits the “take, possession, sale, or
purchase” of the bald eagle as well as the “offer to sell, purchase, export or import” the bald eagle
“at any time or in any manner (16 USC 668-668d).” (USFWS Web site:
www.fws.gov/permits/mbpermits/ActSummaries.html).
The BGEPA defines the ‘‘take’’ of an eagle to include a broad range of actions: ‘‘pursue, shoot,
shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, or molest or disturb’’; the broadest of these
terms is ‘‘disturb.’’ ‘‘Disturb’’ has been defined by the USFWS in regulations (50 CFR 22.3) as: ‘‘to
agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the
best scientific information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by
substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest
abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering
behavior.’’
Endangered Species and Threatened 
Species 
Endangered species are those plants and 
animals in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of their range.  
Threatened species are those likely to 
become endangered in the foreseeable 
future (USFWS Web site: 
www.fws.gov/endangered/glossary.html). 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-32
Projects located in proximity to a bald eagle nest may have the potential to “disturb” the species
and thus could result in an incidental take. The USFWS has proposed regulations that would
provide a basis for authorizing incidental takes of bald eagles under the BGEPA (72 FR 31,141,
June 7, 2007). That rulemaking has not yet been finalized.
Since the bald eagle was declared recovered and removed from the Federal List of Threatened
and Endangered Species in July 2007, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) is the
primary law protecting bald eagles. The bald eagle also continues to be protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
6.5.1.2 State Regulations
North Carolina Endangered Species Act. The NC Endangered Species Act (NCGS Chapter
113, Article 25), enacted in 1987, authorizes the NCWRC to monitor and protect rare animal
species in the state as well as develop and implement management plans for listed species. The
NC Endangered Species Act prohibits the taking of state-listed species. Organisms that are
listed as State Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the NCNHP List of
Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC Endangered Species
Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. The state protection regulates
the taking, collection, or sale of state-listed species, but does not apply to the management of
lands for agriculture, forestry, or development (including transportation projects).
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. The NC Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979 (GS Chapter 106, Article 19B) authorizes the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture to monitor and protect rare plant species in the state. The law is
aimed primarily at protecting rare plants from the actions of illegal traffickers and minimizing
the impacts of state development projects on rare plant populations. The NCNHP currently
maintains a database that tracks rare plant populations.
6.5.2 PROTECTED SPECIES LISTED FOR GASTON AND MECKLENBURG
COUNTIES
6.5.2.1 Federally Protected Species
The USFWS lists three species under federal protection considered to have ranges extending into
Gaston County, and five species under federal protection considered to have ranges extending
into Mecklenburg County (USFWS Web site: www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html). These species
are listed in Table 6-7.
TABLE 6-7: Federally Protected Species in Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties
Common Name Scientific Name County Status 
Vertebrates 
Bald eagle  Haliaeetus leucocephalus Gaston, 
Mecklenburg 
Delisted 
(BGPA) 
Bog turtle  Clemmys muhlenbergii Gaston  T(S/A) 
Invertebrates 
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Mecklenburg E 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-33
TABLE 6-7: Federally Protected Species in Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties
Common Name Scientific Name County Status 
Vascular Plants 
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Mecklenburg E 
Schweinitz's 
sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Gaston, 
Mecklenburg E 
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Mecklenburg E 
Notes: 

BGPA 
E 

T 

T(S/A) 
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 
Endangered‐A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. 
Threatened‐A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
Similarity of Appearance‐Threatened due to similarity of appearance with other 
rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically 
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation
Source:  USFWS Web site: www.fws.gov/nc‐es/es/countyfr.html, Updated 1/31/08. 
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species follows.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Status: Delisted
Date First Listed: March 1967
Date Downlisted: July 1995
Date Delisted: August 2007
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan reaching seven
feet. Adults have a dark brown body with a pure white head and
tail, whereas the juvenile plumage is chocolate brown to blackish
with white mottling on the tail, belly and underwings. The bald
eagle is primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes,
usually nesting near large bodies of water where it feeds. It preys
primarily on fish, but will feed on birds, mammals, turtles, and
carrion when fish are unavailable.
Bald eagles were first listed as Endangered in 1967 due to population decline caused by the
pesticide DDT and other factors. Since this listing the population of eagles in the lower 48 states
has increased from 487 breeding pairs to an estimated 9,789 breeding pairs in 2007. Due to this
recovery and additional protection provided by the BGEPA and the MBTA, the eagle was
removed from the list of endangered species in 2007.
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
Status: Threatened (Similarity of Appearance)
Federally Listed: November 1997
The bog turtle is a small freshwater turtle reaching a
maximum shell length of 4.5 inches. This species is
distinguished by a conspicuous orange, yellow, or red
blotch on each side of the head.
The bog turtle is semi-aquatic and is typically found in
freshwater wetlands characterized by open fields,
bog turtle 
Photo Credit:  USFWS 
bald eagle 
Photo Credit:  NCTC Image 
Library, USFWS 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-34
meadows, or marshes with slow-moving streams, ditches, and boggy areas. The bog turtle is also
found in wetlands in agricultural areas subject to light to moderate livestock grazing, which helps
to maintain an intermediate stage of succession. During the winter, this species hibernates just
below the upper surface of mud.
The southern population of the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
to the northern population; therefore, the southern population is not afforded protection under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
Status: Endangered
Date Listed: June 1993
The Carolina heelsplitter is a greenish brown to dark brown mussel, often with faint greenish
brown to black rays on the younger specimens.
Historic records report the Carolina heelsplitter occurring in small to large streams and rivers as
well as ponds, probably mill ponds on small streams. Current records report populations
occurring in six small streams and one small river, but none in the area of the DSAs. The
substrate where the heelsplitter is found is usually mud, muddy sand, or muddy gravel in
streams with stable, well-shaded banks. A South Carolina population was found in a sand,
gravel, and cobble substrate.
The decline of the Carolina heelsplitter is attributed to siltation and habitat alterations caused by
agricultural, forestry, and development activities; road and golf course construction; runoff and
discharge of municipal, industrial, and agricultural pollutants; impoundments, channelization,
dredging, and sand mining; and other factors having an adverse effect on the aquatic
environment.
Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Status: Endangered
Federally Listed: September 1989
Michaux's sumac, or false poison sumac, is a densely
hairy shrub with erect stems, which are 1 to 3 feet in
height. Flowers are greenish-yellow to white. The plant
flowers from April to June; its dull red fruit is produced
in October and November. Michaux's sumac grows in
sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic
soils. Most of the plant's remaining populations are on
highway rights of way, roadsides, or on the edges of
artificially maintained clearings.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Status: Endangered
Date Listed: May 1991
Schweinitz’s sunflower is a perennial herb that grows from 3 to 6 feet tall from a cluster of carrot-
like tuberous roots. The fine hair on the underside of the leaves is distinctive and is one of the
best characteristics to distinguish Schweinitz's sunflower from its relatives. From September to
Michaux’s sumac 
Photo credit:  USFWS 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-35
frost, Schweinitz's sunflower blooms with comparatively
small heads of yellow flowers.
Schweinitz's sunflower usually grows in open habitats not
typical of the current general landscape in the Piedmont.
The habitat of this sunflower tends to be dominated by
members of the aster, pea, and grass families, an
association emphasizing affinities of the habitat to both
longleaf pine-dominated sandhills and savannas of the
southeastern coastal plain and to glades, barrens, and
prairies of the Midwest and Plains (USFWS, 1994).
NCNHP records indicate that there is one known
Schweinitz’s sunflower population about 4,900 feet south of
the DSAs.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
Status: Endangered
Date First Listed: October 1992
The smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows up to 4.9
feet tall. The rays of the flowers (petal-like structures) are light
pink to purplish. Flowering occurs from May through July.
The known range of the smooth coneflower consists of 22
populations found only in Virginia, North Carolina (Durham and
Granville counties), South Carolina, and Georgia. Most of the
populations are small, containing less than 100 plants each.
Four of the populations contain less than 10 plants each.
In North Carolina the habitat of smooth coneflower is open
woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs,
and power line rights of way. Optimal sites are characterized by
full sunlight and little competition (Gaddy, 1991). The major
factors contributing to endangered status of this species are collecting, residential and industrial
development, shade from woody vegetation, highway construction and improvement, and certain
types of roadside and power line right-of-way maintenance. Like most coneflowers, this species is
intolerant of dense shade.
6.5.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) and Candidate (C) species are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until
they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 6-8 includes Candidate
and FSC species listed for Gaston and Mecklenburg counties and their state classifications.
Organisms that are listed as State Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on
the NCNHP List of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However,
the level of protection given to state-listed species does not apply to NCTA activities.

Schweinitz’s sunflower  
Photo credit:  USFWS 

Smooth coneflower 
Photo credit:  USFWS 

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-36
TABLE 6-8: Candidate and Federal Species of Concern in Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties
Common Name Scientific Name NC Rank Federal 
Rank 
Counties of 
Occurrence 
Vertebrate 
American eel Anguilla rostrata W1 FSC Mecklenburg 
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis SC FSC Mecklenburg 
Invertebrate 
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana E FSC Mecklenburg 
Vascular Plant 
Georgia aster Symphotrichum georgianum T C Gaston, 
Mecklenburg 
Dwarf aster Eurybia mirabilis SR‐T FSC Mecklenburg 
Prairie birdsfoot‐trefoil Lotus unifoliatus var. helleri SR‐T FSC Mecklenburg 
Shoals spiderlily Hymenocallis coronaria Not 
listed FSC Gaston, 
Mecklenburg 
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum E‐SC FSC Mecklenburg 
Notes: C 
FSC 
E 
T 
Candidate                                              SC       Special Concern   
Federal Species of Concern                SR       Significantly Rare 
Endangered                                           W1     Watch List 1 (rare, but relatively secure) 
Threatened 
Sources: Franklin and Finnegan, ed., 2006; LeGrand, McRae, Hall, and Finnegan, 2006 
NCNHP  Web sites: www.ncnhp.org/Images/2006RarePlantList.pdf    www.ncnhp.org/Images/2006RareAnimalList.pdf 
USFWS Web site: www.fws.gov/nc‐es/es/countyfr.html 
6.5.3 SURVEYS FOR PROTECTED SPECIES
Information concerning the occurrence of federally-protected species within the Project Study
Area was obtained from the USFWS list of protected and candidate species posted by the
Ecological Services branch of the USFWS office in North Carolina (USFWS Web site:
www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html). Information concerning species under state protection was
obtained from the NCNHP lists of rare plants and animals (NCNHP Web site:
www.ncnhp.org/Images/2006RarePlantList.pdf and
www.ncnhp.org/Images/2006RareAnimalList.pdf). Files from the NCNHP were reviewed for
documented sightings of species on state or federal lists.
Various field surveys were performed beginning in 2005. These surveys include the following, in
order of occurrence:
Carolina Heelsplitter Survey. Mussel surveys were conducted by NCDOT biologists on
September 15, 16 and 21, 2005. NCDOT biologists evaluated 28 streams that could potentially be
crossed by the proposed Gaston East-West Connector DSAs. NCDOT biologists visited each of
these sites and, based on what was observed, conducted either a typical mussel screening (100
meters upstream and 400 meters downstream) or a habitat assessment.
Plant Surveys. Surveys for protected plant species were conducted within the DSAs in October
2005 by biologists from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Environmental Services, Inc (ESI), HW
Lochner, and Earth Tech. The surveys were for protected plant species listed as Threatened or
Endangered by the USFWS that have ranges extending into Gaston or Mecklenburg Counties.
Prior to field investigations, available mapping and aerial photography was reviewed to identify
potential suitable habitat for the protected plant species. Following identification of potential

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-37
suitable habitat areas, biologists conducted field surveys for listed plant species by walking
transects through the identified areas of suitable habitat.
Results of the plant surveys are detailed in the Protected Plant Species Surveys Gaston East-West
Connector Study (PBS&J 2006), incorporated by reference.
General Field Survey. A general field survey for natural habitats was conducted by Earth
Tech biologists from October 16 to November 8, 2006.
Bald Eagle Survey. An aerial survey for bald eagles was performed by helicopter on
December 19, 2006 by Earth Tech biologists. The survey included the Catawba River/Lake Wylie
area within the Project Study Area. Areas along the shoreline and adjacent to the shoreline were
surveyed for the presence of large nests. Also, areas with historical next data were surveyed
thoroughly in an attempt to relocate the recorded nests. Large nests identified during the aerial
survey were ground-truthed on February 8, 2007, by biologists using a spotting scope and
binoculars.
6.5.4 SURVEY FINDINGS AND IMPACTS TO PROTECTED SPECIES
6.5.4.1 Federally Protected Species
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – Delisted (protected by Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NONE REQUIRED
Three unoccupied large nests were observed outside of the DSAs during the bald eagle survey.
Two of the nests were found to be occupied by great blue herons. The third nest, located in an
electrical transmission tower, did not appear to be sufficiently large for bald eagles and is
thought to be an osprey nest.
Two eagle nests have been documented on Lake Wylie. One confirmed eagle nest was observed in
a location that has been tracked by the NCWRC. The NCWRC provided location data for this
occurrence (Gaston #1) and has tracked fledgling survival during previous years. The nest was
observed in a relatively new subdivision southeast of Belmont, approximately 1.6 miles north of
the Project Study Area. Two adult eagles were observed in the general area and one of these
eagles was observed on the nest on February 8, 2007. Earth Tech biologists were not able to
locate the second documented nest site which is reported to be approximately 0.5 miles south of
the DSAs’ boundaries on Worrells River Road, near the Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden.
There are no bald eagle nests within the DSAs. The closest observed nest is about 1.6 miles
north of the DSAs. Therefore, it is likely that eagles forage for fish within the DSA area.
Because the bald eagle is no longer listed as a threatened or endangered species, it is no longer
protected under the ESA. However, the eagle is still protected under the BGEPA and the MBTA.
Continued coordination with the USFWS is recommended to insure that provisions within these
two Acts are met.

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-38
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) – Threatened (Similarity of Appearance)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NONE REQUIRED
Potential habitat exists for this species in the Project Study Area. Numerous emergent and
shrub-scrub wetlands that may be suitable for the species exist in the DSAs. Suitability of these
wetlands as bog turtle habitat was determined based on descriptions and/or photographs of the
wetlands in the delineation reports. Habitat suitability of the wetlands was not field verified and
no site specific searches for the bog turtle have been performed. A search of the NCNHP
database did not reveal any occurrences of the bog turtle within the Project Study Area. There is
an occurrence of the bog turtle approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the DSAs in Gaston County.
Two additional occurrences were recorded approximately 4.3 miles northeast of the DSAs.
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) – Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Freshwater mussels were not found in any of the surveyed streams during the Carolina
heelsplitter surveys. Therefore, it is concluded that the Carolina heelsplitter does not occur in
the project vicinity. The NCNHP does not list any known populations up or downstream in any
of the surveyed streams, which all flow into the Catawba River. There are no known occurrences
in the Catawba River up or downstream of the confluences of these streams. The Gaston East-
West Connector project will have no effect on the Carolina heelsplitter (NCDOT, October 2005).
Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) – Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac occurs throughout the DSAs. No populations of Michaux's
sumac were found during the directed surveys. The NCNHP record for Michaux's sumac is
historic, and nearly all of the area has been developed, farmed, and otherwise negatively
impacted for suitable habitat. NCNHP records did not document the location of any known
populations of the sumac within one mile of the DSAs. Based on the results of the field survey,
the project will not directly or indirectly impact any Michaux's sumac populations within the area
surveyed. This project will have no effect on any populations of Michaux's sumac (PBS&J, March
2006).
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) – Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT/NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
The powerlines, roadsides and open areas within the DSAs are high probability areas for
potentially suitable Schweinitz's sunflower habitat. These high probability areas were surveyed
for the presence/absence of Schweinitz's sunflower. One population of Helianthus schweinitzii
was observed within the DSAs. This population is located in Corridor Segment K2A (DSAs 4, 22,
58, and 76), south of Catawba Creek along the western side of Union New Hope Road (SR 2435).
The proposed right of way of the Gaston East-West Connector in Corridor Segment K2A does not
encroach on this population. Due to its location along the northern edge of the DSA corridor, it is
assumed that all direct impacts to the observed Schweinitz's sunflower population can be
avoided. Indirect impacts from the DSAs to this site also are not likely. The preliminary

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-39
engineering designs in Corridor Segment K2A have a grade separation with Union New Hope
Road (SR 2435) in this area, with no direct access that could induce adjacent development.
Concurrence from the USFWS on the biological conclusion of May Affect/Not Likely to Adversely
Effect will be needed if DSA 4, 22, 58, or 76 is selected as the Preferred Alternative. Only
informal consultation is likely to be required.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) – Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is present in the Project Study Area. Suitable habitat for
smooth coneflower within the DSAs was surveyed, but no populations of smooth coneflower were
found. NCNHP records did not document the location of any known populations of the smooth
coneflower within one mile of the DSAs. Based on the results of the field survey, the project will
not impact the smooth coneflower within the area surveyed. This project will have no effect on
any smooth coneflower populations (PBS&J, March 2006).
6.5.4.2 Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species
No FSC species were observed during the field surveys. One Candidate species, Georgia aster,
was observed in the DSAs. This population contained many asters in peak bloom and is located
south of I-85 in a powerline right of way approximately 2,000 feet north-northwest of the
intersection of Shannon Bradley Road and Crescent Lane (Corridor Segment H2A – DSAs 4, 5, 9,
22, 23, and 27) in Gaston County. The proposed right of way in Corridor Segment H2A does not
encroach on this population of Georgia aster.
6.5.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON PROTECTED SPECIES AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
Table 6-9 summarizes the DSAs’ potential effects on protected species. The No-Build
Alternative would not impact protected species.
There is a population of the endangered Schweinitz’s sunflower on the northern edge of
Segment K2A (DSAs 4, 22, 58, and 76), but the species is not expected to be adversely affected.
Concurrence from the USFWS on this conclusion will be needed if DSA 4, 22, 58 or 76 is selected
as the Preferred Alternative. Only informal consultation is likely to be required.
Surveys for federally protected species are valid for two years from the survey date. Once the
Preferred Alternative is selected, the area will be resurveyed for protected species and the results
reported in the Final EIS.

NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 6

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 6-40
TABLE 6-9: Summary of Effects on Federally Protected Species
Common Name Scientific Name County Status Potential Habitat 
Present in DSAs? Biological Conclusion
Vertebrates 
Bald eagle  Haliaeetus 
leucocephalus 
Gaston, 
Mecklenburg Delisted Yes None Required 
Bog turtle  Clemmys muhlenbergii Gaston  T(S/A) Yes None Required 
Invertebrates 
Carolina 
heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Mecklenburg E Yes No Effect 
Vascular Plants 
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Mecklenburg E Yes No Effect 
Schweinitz's 
sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Gaston, 
Mecklenburg E Yes 
May Affect/ 
Not Likely to 
Adversely Affect 
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Mecklenburg E Yes No Effect 
Source:  USFWS Web site: www.fws.gov/nc‐es/es/countyfr.html, Updated 1/31/08 
Notes: E‐Endangered‐A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.   
T ‐ Threatened‐A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.  T(S/A) ‐ Similarity of Appearance‐Threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare 
species and is listed for its protection.  These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 
7 consultation.