HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120285_Gaston_QuantitativeICE_Aug2010_20101222
Gaston East-West Connector
Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
North Carolina
STIP No: U-3321
August 3, 2010
Prepared for the North Carolina Turnpike Authority,
a Division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Prepared by
Table of Contents
Executive Summary..........................................................................................................1
ES-1 Background........................................................................................................1
ES-2 Methodology.......................................................................................................2
ES-2.1 Study Area Boundaries and Timeframe......................................................2
ES-2.2 Land Use Change.......................................................................................2
ES-2.3 Water Resources........................................................................................3
ES-2.4 Wildlife Habitat............................................................................................3
ES-3 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects.........................................................4
ES-3.1 Land Use Change.......................................................................................4
ES-3.2 Water Resources........................................................................................4
ES-3.4 Wildlife Habitat............................................................................................5
ES-4 Mitigation..........................................................................................................6
1.0 Introduction and Background....................................................................................7
1.1 Project Description............................................................................................7
1.2 Definitions..........................................................................................................8
1.3 Eight-Step Process for Evaluating Indirect and Cumulative Effects..................9
1.4 2009 Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment.......................10
1.5 Purpose of this Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment.....11
2.0 Methodology............................................................................................................11
2.1 Study Area Boundaries...................................................................................11
2.1.1 Gaston County.........................................................................................12
2.1.2 Mecklenburg County................................................................................13
2.1.3 Cleveland County....................................................................................13
2.1.4 York County.............................................................................................13
2.1.5 Relating Traffic Analysis Zones to Watershed Boundaries.....................13
2.1.6 Assessment of Study Area Boundary Based on Qualitative Analysis
Results.....................................................................................................14
2.2 Analysis Year..................................................................................................14
2.3 Future No Build Condition Projects.................................................................14
2.3.1 Other Transportation Projects.................................................................15
2.3.2 Household and Employment Growth.......................................................16
2.4 Land Use Forecasting.....................................................................................17
2.4.1 Household and Employment Forecasts...................................................17
2.4.2 Regional Accessibility Analysis...............................................................18
2.4.3 Existing Conditions Land Use..................................................................22
2.4.4 Future Land Use Change Projections.....................................................23
2.5 Environmental Resources for Analysis............................................................24
2.5.1 Farmland.................................................................................................25
2.5.2 Water Resources.....................................................................................25
2.5.3 Wildlife Habitat.........................................................................................27
2.6 Rounding.........................................................................................................29
3.0 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects................................................................30
3.1 Household and Employment Growth...............................................................30
3.2 Land Use Change...........................................................................................32
3.2.1 Consistency with Local Land Use Plans..................................................33
3.3 Water Resources.............................................................................................34
TOC
3.3.1 Impacts of Past and Present Actions.......................................................34
3.3.2 Impacts from Other Actions (No Build Alternative)..................................38
3.3.3 Direct Impacts from the Preferred Alternative.........................................39
3.3.4 Indirect Effects from the Preferred Alternative.........................................39
3.3.5 Potential for Cumulative Effects..............................................................39
3.4 Wildlife Habitat................................................................................................42
3.4.1 Impacts of Past and Present Actions.......................................................42
3.4.2 Impacts from Other Actions (No Build Alternative)..................................42
3.4.3 Direct Impacts from the Preferred Alternative.........................................43
3.4.4 Indirect Effects from the Preferred Alternative.........................................44
3.4.5 Potential for Cumulative Effects..............................................................44
4.0 Evaluate Analysis Results.......................................................................................48
4.1 Bud Wilson Road Interchange.........................................................................48
5.0 Mitigation.................................................................................................................49
6.0 Conclusion..............................................................................................................50
7.0 References..............................................................................................................50
List of Tables
Table 1: Transportation Projects Included in No Build Condition Gaston Urban Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization................................................................................15
Table 2: Transportation Projects Included in No Build Condition
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization................................................16
Table 3: Gravity Model Estimated Change in Households by Watershed, No Build
Compared to Build..........................................................................................................31
Table 4: Gravity Model Estimated Change in Employment by Watershed, No Build
Compared to Build..........................................................................................................31
Table 5: Residential Land Conversion by Watershed No Build Compared to Build........32
Table 6: Employment Land Conversion by Watershed, No Build Compared to Build....33
Table 7: Impaired Waterbodies in the North Carolina Portion of the ICE Study Area.....36
Table 8: Impaired Waterbodies in the South Carolina Portion of the ICE Study Area....37
Table 9: Change in Impervious Surface Cover by Watershed, No Build Compared to
Build................................................................................................................................41
Table 10: Study Area Forest Interior Habitat Patches ....................................................42
Table 11: Forest Interior Habitat Patch Impact Analysis ...............................................43
Table 12: Change in Tree Cover by Watershed (Low Impact Estimate)
No Build Compared to Build ...........................................................................................46
TOC
Table 13: Change in Tree Cover by Watershed (High Impact Estimate)
No Build Compared to Build ...........................................................................................47
List of Figures
Figure 1: Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative ICE Study Areas
Figure 2: TAZ and Subwatershed Boundaries
Figure 3: No Build Transportation Projects
Figure 4: Metrolina Travel Demand Model Region
Figure 5: Parcel-Based Land Use Classification
Figure 6: Absolute Change in Households, 2005 to 2035 No Build Condition
Figure 7: Absolute Change in Employment, 2005 to 2035 No Build Condition
Figure 8: Absolute Change in Households, 2035 No Build to Build
Figure 9: Absolute Change in Employment, 2035 No Build to Build
Figure 10: Absolute Change in Households, 2005 to 2035 Build Condition
Figure 11: Absolute Change in Employment, 2005 to 2035 Build Condition
Figure 12: Impervious Surface Cover
Figure 13: Tree Cover and Forest Interior Habitat Patches
Figure 14: Forest Interior Patches A, B, C, D and E
Figure 15: Forest Interior Patches F and G
Figure 16: Forest Interior Patches I, J, K and L
Figure 17: Forest Interior Patches M, N and O
Figure 18: Forest Interior Patches P, Q and R
Figure 19: Forest Interior Patches S, T and U
Figure 20: Forest Interior Patches V and W
TOC
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Interviews
Appendix B: Household and Employment Forecasts
TOC
Executive Summary
ES-1 Background
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA), a division of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), proposes to construct a controlled-access toll road extending
from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485 near the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport in Mecklenburg County. The proposed project (STIP Project U-
3321) is known both as the “Gaston East-West Connector” and as the “Garden
Parkway.” For this study, the project is referred to as the Gaston East-West Connector.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Gaston East-West Connector
was published in April 2009. A qualitative assessment of potential indirect and
cumulative effects was performed for the Gaston East-West Connector DEIS (LBG,
2009). The qualitative assessment was focused on steps one through five of the eight-
step process for ICE assessment outlined in the NCDOT/ North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Guidance on Indirect and Cumulative Impact
Assessment of Transportation Projects in North Carolina. Steps one through five include
defining study area boundaries, identifying community trends and goals, identifying
resources for analysis, describing cause and effect relationships and identifying
potential impacts for analysis.
A quantitative indirect and cumulative effects assessment was requested by other
agencies in comments on the DEIS, with the specific areas of concern being water
quality and wildlife habitat impacts. Other agencies and the public had no comments on
the Qualitative ICE study, except for recommending the completion of a Quantitative ICE
study. Based on the results of the qualitative assessment and consideration of the
public and agency comments on the DEIS, FHWA and NCTA decided to conduct a
quantitative assessment of potential indirect and cumulative effects for the FEIS.
While the qualitative assessment was focused primarily on steps one through five of the
eight-step process, this quantitative assessment is focused on steps six through eight
(analyze impacts, evaluate analysis results, and assess consequences and develop
mitigation). The purpose of this quantitative assessment is to: 1) provide a detailed
analysis of the potential indirect land use, water resources and wildlife habitat impacts of
the Preferred Alternative; 2) provide a detailed analysis of the potential cumulative land
use, water resources and wildlife habitat impacts that could results from the combination
of the direct and indirect impacts of this project with the impacts of other reasonably
foreseeable actions by others; and 3) to disclose mitigation measures that could be used
to offset any adverse indirect and/or cumulative effects identified by the assessment.
The land use change forecasts developed for this study may be used to provide inputs to
the water quality modeling proposed to address the requirements of NCDENR Division
of Water Quality’s policy document entitled Cumulative Impacts and the 401 Water
Quality Certification and Isolated Wetlands Program (NDWQ, 2004).
1
ES-2 Methodology
ES-2.1 Study Area Boundaries and Timeframe
The study are defined in the qualitative ICE study consisted of portions of southern
Gaston County, northern York County, western Mecklenburg County and eastern
Cleveland County. The study area boundaries presented in the qualitative ICE
assessment were refined as part of the preparation of this quantitative assessment. The
study area boundaries were altered to encompass the entirety of Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) 12-digit subwatersheds (See Figure 1). The study area consists of the following
HUC 12 subwatersheds:
Upper Crowders Creek (030501011501)
Lower Crowders Creek (030501011504)
Catawba Creek (030501011502)
Mill Creek-Lake Wylie (030501011505)
Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River (030501020605)
Lake Wylie-Catawba River (030501011406)
Paw Creek-Lake Wylie (030501011404)
Beaverdam Creek (030501011503)
The future analysis year for the quantitative ICE assessment is 2035 to coincide with the
2035 long-range transportation plans for the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (GUAMPO), the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MUMPO) and the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS) (GUAMPO,
2010; MUMPO, 2010 and RFATS, 2010). The analysis year for the 2009 qualitative ICE
assessment was 2030 because the current long-range plans at that time had a horizon
year of 2030.
ES-2.2 Land Use Change
To analyze the potential indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative on patterns of future
household and employment growth, a gravity model analysis was conducted using travel
time information from the April 13, 2006 version of the Metrolina travel demand model.
Gravity models are used often in transportation and travel modeling. They are based on
the observation that the overall attractiveness of an area to potential residents is a
function of the capacity of an area for development (vacant developable land in valued
and affordable locations) and accessibility to employment and activity centers. The
model produces quantified results that can serve as the basis for assessing land use
change. The gravity model formulation essentially holds that all other factors influencing
development held constant, growth will shift towards areas with the greatest relative
accessibility improvement as a result of the project. As discussed further below,
coordination with MPOs and county planning departments led to the decision to use the
gravity model approach to estimate the No Build condition because the Build condition
was reflected in the prevailing demographic forecasts.
Demographic projections in the Metrolina travel demand model for the study area are
developed by GUAMPO, MUMPO and York County/RFATS and used in their long-range
transportation plans (LRTPs). The most recent MPO LRTPs and demographic forecasts
2
at the time of this study were for the year 2035. A series of interviews with the MPOs
and county planning departments in the study area was conducted to determine whether
the 2035 forecasts should serve as the No Build condition or Build condition for this ICE
study. Interviews were held with planners from GUAMPO, MUMPO, RFATS, Gaston
County, Mecklenburg County and York County. Summaries of each meeting are
provided in Appendix A. All three of the MPOs with responsibility for developing the
demographic forecasts for the study area confirmed that the Gaston East-West
Connector was assumed to be completed in the allocation of future growth to specific
zones. During the demographic forecasting efforts for the Metrolina model, additional
growth was added in areas that were expected to become more attractive to
development with the project, including southern Gaston County and northern York
County. This means that the indirect land use effect of the project is already reflected in
the forecasts. Therefore, the Metrolina model forecasts should be used to represent the
Build condition. All the participants concurred that the forecasts represent the Build
condition and it was reasonable to use the gravity model approach to redistribute
households and employment for the No Build condition.
Once the No Build and Build distribution of households and employment were
established, these estimates were converted into potential changes in land use based on
the average density of proposed or existing development in the study area.
ES-2.3 Water Resources
Impervious surface cover is an accepted indicator for assessing the potential for water
quality impacts as a result of future development. Impervious surface cover increases
runoff volumes, which in turn can affect stream stability and water quality indicators.
Existing impervious surface cover in the study area was assessed using Feature
Analyst, a GIS program that converts shading in aerial photography into measurable
vector polygons. To project future growth in impervious surface cover for the No Build
and Build conditions associated with future household and employment growth, the
NRCS TR-55 manual percent impervious surface factors for various types of
development were used (e.g. residential, commercial/industrial). The impact
assessment methodology also accounted for the impervious surface growth associated
with the Gaston East-West Connector (e.g. the direct impact) and with other reasonably
foreseeable transportation projects in the study area.
ES-2.4 Wildlife Habitat
Forest cover and the size and configuration of undisturbed habitat blocks are the key
indicators for assessing potential upland wildlife habitat impacts. As with impervious
surface cover, tree cover was delineated using Feature Analyst. A range of potential
impacts of future development on tree cover were estimated in order to appropriately
reflect the uncertainty involved in predicting the exact location of future development.
The low end estimate assumed development would be prioritized away from tree cover,
while the high end estimate assumed development would be prioritized in areas with tree
cover. Direct impacts to tree cover from the Gaston-East Connector and other
reasonably foreseeable transportation projects in the study area were also accounted
for.
3
In addition to the tree cover impact assessment described above, an analysis was
performed to identify interior forest habitat and assess the direct impacts and indirect
edge effects of the proposed project on interior forest habitat. For analysis purposes, an
edge effect distance of 300 feet was selected for this study to identify potential interior
forest habitat areas. An edge effect distance of 300 feet is supported by the relevant
literature on FIDS (such as certain neotropical migrant birds) and has been used for
other transportation project NEPA evaluations (e.g. Intercounty Connector FEIS,
Maryland).
To assess existing conditions, an edge effect zone of 300 feet was created around
existing roadways, development and other open areas (e.g. large waterbodies,
agricultural fields etc.). Forested areas outside of the existing conditions edge effect
zone were indentified as the forest interior habitat blocks. The edge effects of the
proposed project were then superimposed on the existing conditions mapping to
determine the incremental increase in edge effects and habitat fragmentation impacts.
ES-3 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects
ES-3.1 Land Use Change
Up to 3,700 additional households and 300 fewer jobs are anticipated in the study area
as a result of the indirect development shifts associated with the project. This is not new
growth or lost growth, but rather represents households and employment that would
have located elsewhere in the Metrolina region under the No Build condition. The overall
indirect effect of the project for the study area as a whole is relatively small in
comparison to the growth in households (42,200) and employment (33,100) expected
between 2005 and the 2035 No Build condition.
The indirect effects of the project are not distributed evenly throughout the study area.
The project generally increases growth relative to the No Build in the zones along the
alignment in southern Gaston County and northern York County. These areas would
experience an increase in relative accessibility that would, all other factors held constant,
make these zones more attractive for development as a result of the project. Figures 8
and 9 show the change in households and employment from the No Build condition to
the Build condition based on the gravity model methodology.
In terms of land conversion, the indirect land use effect of the project is an approximately
1.5 percent increase in the total area of residential land (or 1,200 acres) and a 0.4
percent decrease in the total employment-related land (or 100 acres) compared to the
No Build condition. Cumulative land conversion to developed uses under the Build
condition totals 24,700 acres (15,300 acres of residential land conversion and 9,400
acres of employment land conversion, see Tables 5 and 6).
ES-3.2 Water Resources
The Preferred Alternative would directly add approximately 500 acres of impervious
surface cover to the study area, with the largest increase (200 acres) in the Upper
Crowders Creek subwatershed. As discussed in the FEIS, the design of the Preferred
Alternative would incorporate stormwater treatment measures to reduce the potential for
4
impacts to the affected watersheds. The changes in the distribution of households and
employment resulting from the Preferred Alternative could add 300 acres of impervious
surface cover to the study area, or a one percent increase over the No Build condition
(See Table 9). The largest indirect increases in impervious surface cover are projected
for the Catawba Creek subwatershed (300 acres) and the Lower Crowders Creek
subwatershed (200 acres).
The combination of past actions (e.g. existing impervious cover), other actions (the No
Build condition) and the direct and indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative is
predicted to be a total acreage of impervious surface cover in the study area of 31,500
or 19.8 percent. The incremental effect of the Preferred Alternative accounts for 800
acres or about 6.8 percent of the cumulative increase in impervious surface cover from
existing conditions. Although some unavoidable decreases in water resource quality are
expected in the watersheds with the greatest growth, the incremental water quality
impacts of future growth would be less than past growth due to the stormwater treatment
and riparian buffer policies in the study area.
While impervious surface cover provides a useful metric for assessing potential
cumulative effects, it is not possible to conclude from an analysis of impervious surface
cover alone whether or not violations of water quality standards will occur at specific
downstream locations. As part of the application for a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for the proposed project, additional modeling of pollutant loadings will be
conducted in accordance with NCDENR Division of Water Quality’s policy document
entitled Cumulative Impacts and the 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated
Wetlands Program (NCDWQ, 2004).
ES-3.4 Wildlife Habitat
The Preferred Alternative would directly impact 1,000 acres of tree cover, 300 acres of
which would occur in the Upper Crowders Creek subwatershed. The Preferred
Alternative would directly impact 290 acres of forested interior habitat and result in
indirect edge effects potentially reducing the quality of an additional 480 acres of forest
interior habitat within 300 feet of the right-of-way. Depending on the specific locations
chosen for future development, the indirect changes in the development patterns
associated with the Preferred Alternative could increase tree cover loss by 100 to 1,400
acres. The greatest potential for indirect effects on forest cover is within the Catawba
Creek subwatershed.
The combination of past actions (e.g. existing tree cover), other actions (the No Build
condition) and the direct and indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative is predicted to
be a total acreage of tree cover in the study area of 84,800 to 71,400 acres. This
represents a cumulative loss of forest cover of 9,500 to 22,900 acres or a percent
decrease of 10 to 24 percent from existing conditions. The actual impacts will depend on
the specific location of each new development, although the actual number will likely be
closer to the low estimate. The incremental effect of the Preferred Alternative accounts
for 1,100 to 2,400 acres of the cumulative loss of forest cover from existing conditions.
Planning strategies to minimize potential impacts to wildlife habitat include encouraging
higher density development in appropriate locations and preserving contiguous habitat
blocks that provide the highest quality habitat.
5
ES-4 Mitigation
The basic requirement to consider mitigation measures is established in the CEQ NEPA
regulations (40 CFR 1502.16 (h)). Compensatory mitigation for the direct impacts of the
Preferred Alternative to regulated resources (e.g. wetlands and streams) is discussed in
the FEIS. With respect to mitigation for indirect and cumulative effects related to land
use change, both the NCDOT ICE Guidance and FHWA’s Interim Guidance: Questions
and Answers Regarding the Consideration of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts in the
NEPA Process, note that it is necessary to identify mitigation actions beyond the control
of the transportation agencies. While such mitigation cannot be committed to be
implemented as part of the project, the purpose of identifying the mitigation is to inform
the affected local jurisdictions and other reviewers of the EIS. Mitigation for the indirect
and cumulative effects on land use, water resources and tree cover identified by this
study could be reduced in magnitude through implementation and enforcement of the
following planning strategies. As noted in the text below, many of these strategies are
already beginning to be implemented in the study area.
Zoning/Comprehensive Planning to support higher density development in
planned growth areas and to discourage growth in environmentally sensitive
areas. Gaston County has adopted a Unified Development Ordinance that
provides new flexibility for higher density development, including Traditional
Neighborhood Development (TND) and a streamlined development process.
York County is in the process of developing a Unified Development Ordinance.
Open Space Planning is also an important part of protecting key wildlife habitat
areas. York County completed an Open Space Plan in 2009.
Growth Management through restrictions on the expansion of infrastructure.
Water and sewer service should be strictly tied to areas designated for growth in
local land use plans. There is some evidence of consideration of this type of
policy in parts of Gaston County. For example, Gaston County’s “Existing
Initiatives Map” identifies areas where sewer service should not be extended,
including a portion of the South Fork Crowders Creek watershed.
Riparian buffers. Existing riparian buffer policies applicable to the study area
are discussed in Section 3.3.1. These policies are a key aspect of water
resources protection.
Stream Restoration. Many urban streams have been straightened, channelized,
piped and buried, and/or stripped of native vegetation. Stream restoration
policies would directly improve habitat and water quality by addressing erosion
and sedimentation issues.
Land Acquisition/Conservation Easements. Conservation easement
programs, such as the Gaston Conservation District Land Preservation Program
are another strategy for preserving high quality wildlife habitat that can be
implemented by the private or public sector. The mapping of interior forest
patches conducted for this study provides information that could be used to
prioritize areas for conservation planning and land acquisition investments.
6
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA), a division of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), proposes to construct a controlled-access toll road extending
from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485 near the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport in Mecklenburg County. The proposed project (STIP Project U-
3321) is known both as the “Gaston East-West Connector” and as the “Garden
Parkway.” For this study, the project is referred to as the Gaston East-West Connector.
The purpose of the Gaston East-West Connector is to improve east-west transportation
mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte
metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly
growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. The
project is intended to address transportation problems resulting from the limited number
of crossings of the Catawba River between Gaston and Mecklenburg counties and a
lack of east-west roadways in southern Gaston County. With continued growth expected
in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County, the demand for
connectivity between the two counties will increase and existing congestion on the
primary existing east-west roadways (I-85 and US 29-74) will worsen.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Gaston East-West Connector
was published in April 2009. Based on the analyses presented in the DEIS and the
comments received from other agencies and the public, NCTA and FHWA have
identified Detailed Study Alternative (DSA) 9 as the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred
Alternative is a four-lane limited-access toll facility connecting I-85 in Gaston County to I-
485 in Mecklenburg County, including new bridge crossings over the South Fork and
Catawba Rivers. In addition to the freeway-to-freeway interchanges at I-85 and I-485,
the Preferred Alternative includes eight interchanges providing local access at the
following locations (listed from west to east):
US 29-74
Linwood Rd (SR 1133)
US 321
Robinson Rd (SR 2416)
NC 274 (Union Rd)
NC 279 (South New Hope Rd)
NC 273 (Southpoint Rd)
Dixie River Rd (SR 1155)
The design of the Preferred Alternative has been refined since the DEIS, including
design changes made to minimize environmental impacts. In particular, the interchange
at Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423) considered in the DEIS has been eliminated and the
footprints of four of the interchanges (Robinson Rd, NC 274 (Union Rd), NC 273
(Southpoint Rd), and I-485) have been reduced.
7
1.2 Definitions
A comprehensive evaluation of the impacts of federal actions on the environment is
grounded in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing
regulations. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for the implementation
of NEPA specifically require that environmental impact statements include the evaluation
of indirect and cumulative effects along with the disclosure of potential direct impacts.
This study uses the terms “indirect effects” and “cumulative effects”, however, the terms
“impact” and “effect” are synonymous under NEPA, and can be beneficial or adverse (40
C.F.R. §1508.8).
As a guide to the evaluation of indirect effects and cumulative impacts under NEPA, the
CEQ regulations and other relevant sources provide definitions of direct, indirect and
cumulative effects:
Direct impacts are “caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. (40
C.F.R. §1508.8)
Indirect effects are those effects that “. . . are caused by the action and are later in time
and farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” Indirect effects
“may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the
pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and
water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.”(40 C.F.R. §1508.8(b)).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation/ Department of Environment and
Natural Resources Guidance on Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment of
Transportation Projects in North Carolina outlines three types of indirect effects:
Encroachment-Alteration Effects - alteration of the behavior and function of the
affected environment caused by project encroachment (physical, chemical, or
biological) on the environment.
Induced Growth Effects - changes in the intensity of the use to which land is put
that are caused by the action/project. These changes would not occur if the
action/project does not occur. For transportation projects, induced growth is
attributed to changes in accessibility caused by the project.
Induced Growth Related Effects - alteration of the behavior and function of the
affected environment attributable to induced growth.
Cumulative effects are “the impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” (40 C.F.R. §1508.7).
According to the FHWA’s Interim Guidance: Questions and Answers Regarding the
Consideration of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts in the NEPA Process, cumulative
impacts include the total of all impacts to a particular resource that have occurred, are
8
occurring, and will likely occur as a result of any action or influence, including the direct
and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts of a proposed project (FHWA, 2003).
1.3 Eight-Step Process for Evaluating Indirect and Cumulative Effects
The assessment of potential indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) for the Gaston East-
West Connector Project has been conducted in accordance with the eight-step process
outlined in the NCDOT/NCDENR Guidance on Indirect and Cumulative Impact
Assessment of Transportation Projects in North Carolina (NCDOT, 2001). The eight-step
process presented in the NCDOT/NCDENR Guidance was based on the eight-step
process developed for National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Report 403: Guidance for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation
Projects (Transportation Research Board, 1998). The eight-step process provides a
structured framework for defining study area boundaries, identifying important trends
and issues, and analyzing the potential for land use change and related environmental
impacts on valued and vulnerable resources. Each of the eight steps is described briefly
below.
Step 1 – Define the Study Area Boundaries. Set appropriate study area
boundaries for the analysis of indirect and cumulative effects as well as the
timeframe for the analysis.
Step 2 – Identify the Study Area Communities’ Trends and Goals. Gather
information on community trends and goals in the study area, focusing on
socioeconomic and land use issues.
Step 3 – Identify Resources for Analysis. Identify specific valued, vulnerable or
unique elements of the natural environment that will be analyzed in the
assessment of indirect and cumulative effects.
Step 4 –Describe Cause and Effect Relationships. Identify all the potential
impact-causing activities of the project and select specific impact-causing
activities for analysis.
Step 5 – Identify Potential Impacts For Analysis. Compare the impact-causing
activities developed in Step 4 with the inventory of goals in Step 2 and the
resources in Step 3.
Step 6 – Analyze Impacts. Determine the magnitude and location of the potential
impacts identified in Step 5.
Step 7 – Evaluate Analysis Results. Evaluate the uncertainties in the
methodology used to evaluate impacts, in order to better understand the analysis
results.
Step 8 – Assess Consequences and Develop Mitigation. When an impact
conflicts with a goal from Step 2 or a resource from Step 3, assess the
consequences of that impact and develop strategies and potential mitigation to
address it accordingly.
The eight-step analysis process is fully consistent with the Council on Environmental
Quality’s Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act
(CEQ, 1997) and the essential elements of the process have been adapted by several
states in addition to North Carolina.
9
1.4 2009 Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
A qualitative assessment of potential indirect and cumulative effects was performed for
the Gaston East-West Connector DEIS (LBG, 2009). The qualitative assessment was
focused on steps one through five of the eight-step process and noted that the decision
of whether or not an additional quantitative analysis was warranted would be made
following the public review of the DEIS. The major components of the qualitative indirect
and cumulative effects assessment are summarized below, for additional detailed
information refer to the full report available on the project website.
Step 1 – Define the Study Area Boundaries. A study area was defined that
included most of Gaston and parts of Cleveland, Mecklenburg, and York (SC)
Counties. The factors considered in identifying the study area included
commutesheds, environmental features, local expert interviews and political
boundaries. A temporal boundary spanning from 1989 to 2030 was established
for the assessment. The year 1989 is the year the Gaston East-West Connector
concept was first identified on the Gaston Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. The
year 2030 is the horizon year for the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (GUAMPO) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (2030 LRTP)
(May 2005), and the Mecklenburg-Union MPO (MUMPO) 2030 LRTP (Amended
September 2005). The year 2030 is the analysis year for the traffic studies
conducted for the DEIS and is consistent with the 20-year outlook typically used
in transportation planning.
Step 2 – Identify the Study Area Communities’ Trends and Goals. A review of
planning documents for the study area was conducted, as well as interviews with
professional staff in the areas of planning, engineering, real estate development,
and environmental advocacy to identify important trends and goals. The
interviews included representatives from GUAMPO, City of Gastonia Planning
Department, Town of Belmont Planning Department, Gaston Economic
Development Commission, Bessemer City Planning Department, Gaston County
Chamber of Commerce, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department, Charlotte-
Douglas International Airport, York County, Real Estate and Building Industry
Coalition, Catawba Riverkeeper, Crowders Mountain State Park, and Allen Tate
Realty.
Step 3 – Identify Resources for Analysis. Information was gathered on land use
and valued or vulnerable environmental resources in the study area. The
resources considered included waterbodies, wetlands, natural heritage sites, air
quality, noise, cultural resources and agricultural land. A detailed socioeconomic
profile of the study area communities was also developed. A grid-cell based
composite map was created based on the occurrence of notable features in the
study area.
Steps 4 and 5 –Describe Cause and Effect Relationships and Identify Potential
Impacts For Analysis. Steps four and five of the eight-step process were
addressed through a grid-cell based mapping analysis of the intersection
between areas with sensitive notable features and areas with growth potential.
Changes in travel times resulting from the project were incorporated in the
10
analysis to represent areas that may become more accessible and therefore
more attractive to development. Potential indirect and cumulative effects were
described qualitatively taking into account the information gained from the
interviews and the information gathered on notable features and growth trends.
1.5 Purpose of this Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Assessment
A quantitative indirect and cumulative effects assessment was requested by other
agencies in comments on the DEIS, with the specific areas of concern being water
quality and wildlife habitat impacts. Other agencies and the public had no comments on
the Qualitative ICE study, except for recommending the completion of a Quantitative ICE
study. Based on the results of the qualitative assessment and consideration of the
public and agency comments on the DEIS, FHWA and NCTA decided to conduct a
quantitative assessment of potential indirect and cumulative effects for the FEIS.
While the qualitative assessment was focused primarily on steps one through five of the
eight-step process, this quantitative assessment is focused on steps six through eight
(analyze impacts, evaluate analysis results, and assess consequences and develop
mitigation). The purpose of this quantitative assessment is to: 1) provide a detailed
analysis of the potential indirect land use, water resources and wildlife habitat impacts of
the Preferred Alternative; 2) provide a detailed analysis of the potential cumulative land
use, water resources and wildlife habitat impacts that could results from the combination
of the direct and indirect impacts of this project with the impacts of other reasonably
foreseeable actions by others; and 3) to disclose mitigation measures that could be used
to offset any adverse indirect and/or cumulative effects identified by the assessment.
The land use change forecasts developed for this study may be used to provide inputs to
the water quality modeling proposed to address the requirements of NCDENR Division
of Water Quality’s policy document entitled Cumulative Impacts and the 401 Water
Quality Certification and Isolated Wetlands Program (NDWQ, 2004).
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Study Area Boundaries
The study area boundaries presented in the qualitative ICE assessment were refined as
part of the preparation of this quantitative assessment. The study area boundaries were
altered to encompass the entirety of Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 12-digit
subwatersheds. The HUC 12 subwatershed boundaries used to define the study area
were based on the Natural Resources Conservation Service National Cartography &
Geospatial Center’s Watershed Boundary Dataset. The 1:24,000 scale Watershed
Boundaries Dataset provides a seamless national coverage of HUC 12 boundaries and
has been subject to an extensive quality review process to ensure accuracy and
11
compliance with the “Federal Standard for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries.” 1
The study area consists of the following HUC 12 subwatersheds:
Upper Crowders Creek (030501011501)
Lower Crowders Creek (030501011504)
Catawba Creek (030501011502)
Mill Creek-Lake Wylie (030501011505)
Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River (030501020605)
Lake Wylie-Catawba River (030501011406)
Paw Creek-Lake Wylie (030501011404)
Beaverdam Creek (030501011503)
Projected changes in travel times as a result of the project were also considered in
refining the study area boundaries. Transportation projects can influence the uses to
which land is put primarily by changing relative access to land, with access measured by
changes in travel times between trip origins (e.g., home) and trip destinations (e.g.,
work). Regional travel demand models, in this case the Metrolina Travel Demand
Model, can be used to estimate travel times between the numerous origin-destination
pairs in a region. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) are the geographic units used in travel
demand models to organize land use data, as measured by households and
employment. As explained in greater detail in Section 2.3.2, the Metrolina Travel
Demand Model was used to measure the indirect effect of the project vis-à-vis changes
in comparative accessibility of TAZs under existing, No Build, and Build conditions.
Figure 1 shows the qualitative ICE study area in relation to the revised quantitative ICE
study area and watershed boundaries. The rationale for the changes to the study area
boundaries is discussed by county in Sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.4, below.
2.1.1 Gaston County
In Gaston County, a small portion of the northwest corner of the qualitative ICE study
area was removed, including the northern half of Bessemer City and part of Gastonia. To
the east of Gastonia, a portion of Belmont and an adjacent unincorporated area along
the I-85 corridor was removed. The transportation modeling conducted for the project
with the Metrolina Travel Demand Model shows that the TAZs in these areas would not
experience any substantial change in travel times as a result of the Gaston East-West
Connector and thus are unlikely to experience growth pressures attributable to the
project. The reason this area would not experience substantial changes in accessibility is
that it is already in close proximity to I-85, which is the existing primary east-west
roadway and crossing of the Catawba River in Gaston County.
The study area was expanded to the north to include the entirety of the Duharts Creek-
South Fork Catawba River subwatershed (030501020605). The expanded area includes
parts of Gastonia, Lowell, McAdenville, Ranlo and Spencer Mountain. This expansion of
the study area was made only for the purpose of including the entire watershed in the
study area, not because of accessibility changes in this area.
1 For more information on the Watershed Boundary Dataset refer to
http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/index.html
12
2.1.2 Mecklenburg County
In Mecklenburg County, the study area was expanded to include the entire Paw Creek-
Lake Wylie subwatershed (030501011404). Although there are not substantial
accessibility changes for this watershed, it does contain part of two important No Build
condition projects-- the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport third runway and
intermodal freight facility.
A portion of the study area to the east of I-485 was removed based on the results of the
projected travel time improvements being the greatest around and to the east of the
Gaston East-West Connector’s interchange with I-485. The subwatersheds in this
location (030501030103- Upper Sugar Creek and 030501030108- Steele Creek) are
within a heavily developed portion of the City of Charlotte and would be unlikely to
experience further environmental impacts from land use change because the majority of
the land in these subwatersheds is already developed. While a portion of the Charlotte-
Douglas International Airport is within the Upper Sugar Creek watershed, the primary
considerations in terms of cumulative impacts (the new runway and the proposed
intermodal facility) are not and remain within the study area for the quantitative ICE
assessment.
2.1.3 Cleveland County
The study area was expanded approximately one-mile farther into Cleveland County in
order to include the entirety of the Upper Crowders Creek subwatershed
(030501011501).
2.1.4 York County
In York County the study area was expanded to the south to include the entirety of the
following HUC 12 subwatersheds:
Lower Crowders Creek (030501011504)
Mill Creek-Lake Wylie (030501011505)
Beaverdam Creek (030501011503)
A small portion of the study area south of Clover, South Carolina was removed. The
proposed project would be unlikely to alter accessibility and land use patterns in this
area because of the availability of an alternate crossing of Lake Wylie (SC 49).
Intuitively, the greatest potential for indirect land use effects in York County would be the
area in between SC 557/ SC 49 and North Carolina-South Carolina border.
2.1.5 Relating Traffic Analysis Zones to Watershed Boundaries
In order to summarize potential indirect and cumulative effects by watershed it was
necessary to establish a relationship between TAZ boundaries (the unit of geography
used for demographic projections) and watershed boundaries. The study area contains
124 TAZs in their entirety, plus portions of 138 additional TAZs (See Figure 2). Many of
the TAZs follow subwatershed boundaries relatively closely, but others contain portions
13
of multiple subwatersheds. For analysis purposes, the 262 TAZs intersecting the study
area were split into 344 new zones in such a way that each zone corresponded to
exactly one subwatershed and one Metrolina Model TAZ. Household and employment
forecasts for the Metrolina Model TAZs were allocated to the 344 zones in proportion to
area. For example, a zone consisting of 25 percent of the land area of its “parent”
Metrolina Model TAZ was assigned 25 percent of the total households and employment
of the parent TAZ. The assumption with this methodology is that future growth will be
spread relatively evenly within each TAZ. This assumption is appropriate in the absence
of information indicating the specific locations of new development and is unlikely to
substantially affect the results for the study area as a whole.
2.1.6 Assessment of Study Area Boundary Based on Qualitative Analysis
Results
Results from the Land Use Forecasting (Section 3.0) concluded changes to land use
within the Study Area Boundary (as defined in the initial stages of this analysis) as well
as elsewhere within the Metrolina Region. This suggested that perhaps the Study Area
Boundary should be modified. According to the NCDOT ICI Guidance (Volume II, pp. III-
5-III-6), commuteshed is a technique to assist in determining a study area boundary.
The guidance suggests that when using the commuteshed threshold technique, a study
area should take the travel time savings of the project alternatives into account the
setting the study area to coincide with the area accessible under the alternative that
provides the greatest travel time savings. Section 2.4.2 discusses regional accessibility
(travel time savings) and helps to confirm that the Study Area Boundary appropriately
includes areas that are expected to experience the greatest travel time savings.
Therefore, the basic extent of the Study Area Boundary established in the qualitative ICE
study does not need to be modified based on the analysis results contained in this
report. As noted in Sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.4, minor refinements were made to the
study area boundary for purposes of better matching watershed boundaries.
2.2 Analysis Year
The future analysis year for the quantitative ICE assessment is 2035 to coincide with the
2035 long-range transportation plans for the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (GUAMPO), the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MUMPO) and the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS) (GUAMPO,
2010; MUMPO, 2010 and RFATS, 2010). The analysis year for the 2009 qualitative ICE
assessment was 2030 because the current LRTPs at that time had a horizon year of
2030.
2.3 Future No Build Condition Projects
As part of a cumulative impact analysis, it is important to consider the impacts of the
other transportation projects and land development attributable to population and
employment growth. Other projects and developments need to be included in the
analysis if they are “reasonably foreseeable.” This section explains which
projects/actions were included in the No Build condition.
14
2.3.1 Other Transportation Projects
For purposes of cumulative environmental impacts, fiscally constrained projects with the
potential to have environmental impacts (e.g. new alignment and widening projects)
were identified from the 2035 LRTPs for the three MPOs comprising the study area
(GUAMPO, MUMPO and RFATS). In addition, the South Carolina Department of
Transportation’s 2010-2015 STIP was reviewed to determine if additional projects in
York County outside the boundary of RFATs needed to be considered in the
assessment. Currently unfunded transportation projects included in the LRTPs were not
considered reasonably foreseeable. Projects such as bridge replacements without
widening, reconstruction of existing roadways without adding additional travel lanes, and
the addition of turning lanes at intersections were not included because these types of
projects would not affect the quantitative metrics being used in this study (impervious
surface cover and tree cover).
The locations of the projects included in the No Build condition assessment are shown in
Figure 3. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the No Build condition projects from the 2035
LRTPs for GUAMPO and MUMPO, respectively. One project was identified within the
small portion of the study area that overlaps with the RFATS area boundary—widening
of Pole Branch Road from two-lanes to three-lanes from SC 274 to the North Carolina-
South Carolina Stateline (2.4 miles). No major projects in the South Carolina portion of
the study area outside of the RFATs area boundary were identified from the 2010-2015
STIP.
Table 1
Transportation Projects Included in No Build Condition
Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
GUAMPO
Project ID Name Description Distance
(Miles)*
Existing
Facility Year
U-5103
Titman/
Cramerton
Road
Widen existing two-lane road to
three-lane, and construct new
three-lane connector from NC
279 (S. New Hope Rd.) to US
29/74 (Wilkinson Blvd.
2.6 Two-Lane Road 2015
U-3425 Myrtle School
Road
Widen two lane road to three
lanes from US 29/74 (Franklin
Blvd.) to Hudson Blvd.
1.8
Two-Lane Road
2015
U-2713 Linwood
Road
Widen existing facility to three
lanes with some relocation from
Crowder's Creek Rd. to US
29/74 (Franklin Blvd.)
2.2
Two Lane Road 2025
7
NC 279 (S.
New
Hope Road)
Widen existing two-lane road to
four-lane divided from Titman
Road to Union-New Hope Road
3.8
Two-Lane
Road
2025
8
NC 274
(Union
Road)
Widen the existing two-lane
facility to five lanes and
construct a new four-lane
divided realignment from
Robinson Rd. to Beaty Rd.
2.5
Two-Lane
Road 2025
15
GUAMPO
Project ID Name Description Distance Existing Year (Miles)* Facility
14
US 29/74
South Fork
Catawba
River Bridge
No. 82
Widen existing four-lane bridge
on Wilkinson Blvd to six-lanes,
and widen existing four-lane
cross section to six-lanes from
Market St to Alberta St
1.2 Four-Lane
Bridge 2025
11b
Belmont-
Mount Holly
Central Loop
Construct new, four-lane divided
facility from Wilkinson Blvd. to
the proposed Gastonia-Mt. Holly
Connector or to the Belmont Mt.
Holly Loop Link if the Gastonia-
MT. Holly Connector is not built
4.34 NA 2035
*Note: Total distance from GUAMPO 2035 LRTP project descriptions. The portions of these No
Build transportation projects outside the watershed-based study area boundaries were not
included in the cumulative effects assessment.
Table 2
Transportation Projects Included in No Build Condition
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization
MUMPO Index
Number/ NCDOT
STIP Number
Name Description Distance
(Miles)*
Existing
Facility Year
3311/
U-3411
West Blvd
Extension
New road (2 lanes)
from Steele Creek Rd
to I-485
0.66 N/A 2015
3312 West Blvd
Extension
Widening (4 lanes)
from Steele Creek Rd
to I-485
0.66
Two-Lane
Road (by
2015)
2025
3157/
U-5116 Little Rock Road
Relocation (4 lanes)
from Flintrock Rd to
Freedom Dr
(NC 27)
0.55 N/A 2015
22 Fred D. Alexander
Boulevard
New road (4 lanes)
from Freedom Dr (NC
27) to Brookshire Blvd
(NC 16)
1.88 N/A 2015
3003 Freedom Drive (NC
27)
Widening (4 lanes),
Edgewood Rd to
Toddville Rd
1.5 Two-Lane
Road 2015
502 Dixie River Rd./NC
160 Connector
New road (2 lanes),
NC 160 to Dixie River
Rd
1.3 N/A 2015
*Note: Total distance from the MUMPO 2035 LRTP project descriptions. The portions of these No
Build transportation projects outside the watershed-based study area boundaries were not
included in the cumulative effects assessment.
2.3.2 Household and Employment Growth
The cumulative effects analysis considers reasonably foreseeable public and private
developments by using population and employment forecasts for the No Build and Build
16
conditions. The data sources and methodology used in developing the household and
employment forecasts are described in Section 2.4.1. Known major development
proposals were incorporated by the MPOs and local government planners at the time the
household and employment forecasts were made.
2.4 Land Use Forecasting
This section explains the methodology used to analyze future land use change in the
study area. The assessment of the Build condition is based on the TAZ demographic
projections prepared by the planning organizations in the study area for the Metrolina
Travel Demand Model. The No Build condition is estimated using a gravity model
approach that reallocates household and employment growth based on relative
accessibility changes. Household and employment projections at the TAZ-level are
converted into changes in land use based on the average density of proposed or existing
development in the study area.
2.4.1 Household and Employment Forecasts
The Metrolina travel demand model area includes all of Gaston County, Mecklenburg
County, York County (SC), Union County, Cabarrus County, Rowan County, Lincoln
County, and Stanly County. It also includes portions of Iredell County, Cleveland County,
and Lancaster County (SC). Figure 4 shows the ICE study area in relation to the area
covered by the Metrolina travel demand model. The study area represents
approximately 248 square miles or 6 percent of the total land area covered by the model.
The April 13, 2006 version of the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model was used in the
traffic forecasting for the Gaston East-West Connector because this was the most
current version available at the time the updated forecasting activities began (See DEIS
Appendix C: Supporting Traffic Information for Chapter 2- Alternatives Considered).
Since the preparation of the DEIS traffic forecasts, the Metrolina travel demand model
and associated demographic data has been updated for 2035 to support the 2035
LRTPs for the MPOs in the region.
TAZ-level demographic projections in the Metrolina travel demand model for the study
area are developed by GUAMPO, MUMPO and York County/RFATS. As explained in
GUAMPO’s 2035 LRTP, a regional socioeconomic development committee was formed
to develop the previous 2030 forecasts. This committee, along with the assistance of the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s Urban Land Institute, developed a
methodology utilizing economic forecasts, local building permit trends, census data, and
local land development knowledge such as current and future land use, utility
improvements, economic development potential and land availability. The 2030
socioeconomic forecasts were compiled through the use of an expert panel, made up of
local planners, real estate representatives, economic developers and utility providers
(GUAMPO, 2010).
For the 2035 LRTP, updated forecasts were prepared by GUAMPO, MUMPO and the
York County Department of Planning and Development. For the GUAMPO area, an
initial 2035 forecast was developed by extrapolation from the growth rates used in the
17
previous 2030 forecast. The forecast was then refined based on land availability and
known development projects. Finally, the forecasts were reviewed and modified by local
government members before being approved by the GUAMPO Technical Coordination
Committee and Transportation Advisory Committee on March 12, 2008 and March 25,
2008, respectively (GUAMPO, 2010). Updated forecasts were also prepared by MUMPO
and RFATS, also taking into account known development proposals (MUMPO, 2010 and
RFATS, 2010).
A series of interviews with the MPOs and county planning departments in the study area
was conducted to determine whether the updated 2035 forecasts should serve as the No
Build condition or Build condition for this ICE study. Interviews were held with planners
from GUAMPO, MUMPO, RFATS, Gaston County, Mecklenburg County and York
County. Summaries of each meeting are provided in Appendix A. All three of the MPOs
with responsibility for developing the demographic forecasts for the study area confirmed
that the Gaston East-West Connector was assumed to be completed in the allocation of
future growth to specific zones. During the demographic forecasting efforts for the
Metrolina model, additional growth was added in areas that were expected to become
more attractive to development with the project, including southern Gaston County and
northern York County. This means that the indirect land use effect of the project is
already reflected in the forecasts. Therefore, the Metrolina model forecasts should be
used to represent the Build condition. All the participants concurred that the forecasts
represent the Build condition and it was reasonable to use the gravity model approach to
redistribute households and employment for the No Build condition.
2.4.2 Regional Accessibility Analysis
To analyze the potential indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative on patterns of future
household and employment growth, a gravity model analysis was conducted using travel
time information from the April 13, 2006 version of the Metrolina travel demand model.
Gravity models are used often in transportation and travel modeling. They are based on
the observation that the overall attractiveness of an area to potential residents is a
function of the capacity of an area for development (vacant developable land in valued
and affordable locations) and accessibility to employment and activity centers, among
other things. The model produces quantified results that can serve as the basis for
assessing land use change.
The reasonableness of the general areas where growth pressures would be the greatest
with the project was confirmed through the interviews with local planning staff (See
Appendix A) and through consideration of the travel time information for the study area.
Figure 7-2 in the DEIS shows that the largest travel time savings accrue to TAZs along
the Gaston East-West Connector alignment and travel time savings decrease with
increasing distance from the project. Detailed mapping of travel time contours for
specific origin-destination pairs in the project area is provided in Appendix C of the
Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report. These maps show a greater
travel time savings with the project for areas along the alignment (such as the Belmont
Peninsula) when compared to other areas (e.g. Gastonia).
The results from this analysis confirm that not only all areas expected to achieve the
greatest travel time savings (greater than 11 minutes) are included within the Study Area
18
Boundary, but the Study Area Boundary also includes all areas expected to achieve a
travel time savings greater than 5 minutes and even some areas expected to achieve
less than five minutes travel time savings.
Transportation Improvements and Accessibility
Accessibility refers to “the number of opportunities available within a certain distance or
travel time” (Hanson, 1995). As movement becomes less costly, either in terms of time
or money, between any two places, accessibility increases. The propensity for
interaction between any two places increases as the cost of movement between them
decreases. Accessibility can also be understood as the attractiveness of a place of
origin (how easy it is to get from there to all other destinations) and as a destination (how
easy it is to get to there from all other origins and destinations). Consequently, the
structure and capacity of the transportation network affect the level of accessibility in a
given area. The accessibility of places can have an impact on land value, and hence the
use to which land is put. Holding all other factors constant, the gravity model formulation
assumes that areas where accessibility increases as a result of a transportation project
will be relatively more attractive for development than if the project had not been built.
Studies have found that the effect of highways on land prices has been diminishing over
time since early studies of the first segments of the interstate system in the 1950s.
Boarnet and Haughwout (2001) note that studies have shown that incremental
improvements in areas that already possess highway access have reduced the
magnitude of the influence of highways on land development activity:
As more highways are built, and the metropolitan highway network
matures, the incremental effect on accessibility from new or improved
highways decreases, thus accounting for a smaller change in land prices
due to any access premium.
New evidence suggests that metropolitan highway projects still influence
land use in the way that theory predicts. The important difference
between the new evidence and earlier studies is that the geographic
scale of the land use effect appears to be somewhat smaller. A new
highway or improvement might importantly reduce travel times in the
immediate vicinity of a project, even if the resulting changes in
metropolitan-wide transportation accessibility are small. Hence the land
use effects of modern highway projects likely operate over a very fine
geographic scale, rather close to the project (Boarnet and Haughwout,
2000).
Other Factors Influencing Development Shifts
While accessibility changes are a necessary condition for transportation improvements
to influence land development, they are not sufficient to stimulate land use change in the
absence of other conditions supportive of such development. Other factors influencing
the likelihood of regional development shifts include:
19
Land availability and price - Development cannot take place without the
availability of land of a quality and price suitable for development. Property
values are de-facto indicators of the potential for land use change because
investment decisions revolve around market prices. Land prices are likely to
reflect a parcel’s suitability for development (favorable topography), the
availability of other suitable parcels in the area, the attractiveness of the location
and many of the other factors listed below. An abundance of suitable, low priced
land may be indicative of potential development if other factors are present. A
scarcity of land or high price does not necessarily indicate a lower probability of
development, however. If other factors described here are favorable, high-
density development may occur where land is scarce or high priced.
State of the regional economy - Even if changes in accessibility are great,
development is not likely to occur if the regional economy will not support new
jobs and households, if credit or financing is not readily available, or if firms
conclude that the availability of labor, suppliers, or local markets for goods, are
not sufficient.
Infrastructure - In addition to transportation infrastructure, other infrastructure
such as water and sewer service is important in supporting development.
Location attractiveness and amenities - Good schools and access to recreational
opportunities are important considerations in household location decisions.
Local political/regulatory conditions - Low business, property and sales tax rates,
the availability of incentives for development, such as tax abatements and a
regulatory environment that is favorable to business are factors favorable to
development. The speed, ease, or predictability of the development review
process can also impact development costs and is a factor to be considered.
Land use controls - Development is shaped by zoning ordinances and other land
use controls. These controls influence the amount of land available for various
uses, the densities permitted, and the costs of development. However,
pressures for development can prompt communities to alter land use controls.
Gravity Model Methodology
The version of the gravity model being used for this study was presented by Hirschman
and Henderson in the 1990 Transportation Research Record article, Methodology for
Assessing Local Land Use Impacts of Highways. This form of the model states that:
Gj = Gt * VjAj/∑ViAi
Where
Gj = household (or employment) growth in each TAZ j
Gt = total household (or employment) growth expected for the region as a whole (in this
case the Metrolina model region).
20
Vj = (Lj x Va x Vb x Vc x …..) the product of vacant land and other factors of location
suitability and attractiveness.
Aj = accessibility index (composite weighted travel time to employment centers (or
employment and residential centers) from subregion j).
The first step in the evaluation is the estimation of accessibility so that the change in
regional accessibility attributable to the Preferred Alternative can be evaluated against
the No Build condition.
The standard formulation of an accessibility index for transportation analysis is derived
by multiplying the employment (trip attractions) in each zone by the friction factors
calculated between each zone and all other zones based on skim times and trip
purpose. The accessibility index (Aj) for a given TAZ j is calculated as follows:
Aj = ∑ Ei/Tij
a
Where
Ei = employment in each TAZ i
Tij = the travel time between TAZ j and each other TAZ i
a = exponential time-impedance parameter, found to equal 2.0 in most calibrated
applications of the technique
For this evaluation the accessibility measure for home-based work trips was used since
household locations decisions are most often based on commute times to employment
centers. To evaluate the effect of accessibility on the location decision of employers, a
composite accessibility index was formulated to incorporate centers of employment and
residential activity in the weighting of travel time changes. This is designed to reflect the
importance to employers of proximity to both households (labor and customers) and
other employers (suppliers, service providers, customers).
Aj = ∑ ((Hi +Ei)/Tij
a)
Where
Ei = employment in each TAZ i
Hi = households in each TAZ i
Tij = the travel time between TAZ j and each other TAZ i
This index can be used to measure the change in accessibility of each zone to
employment in all other zones when the Preferred Alternative is compared to the No
Build Alternative. The accessibility indices from the Metrolina travel demand model for
the Build condition establishes a baseline to which the No Build condition was compared
to estimate the difference in accessibility. All TAZs within the Metrolina model region
were evaluated (See Figure 4). Zone-to-zone travel times used in the evaluation
represent congested travel times for home-based trips to work during the PM peak
period. Based on the results of the planning organization interviews, the 2035 forecast
21
household and employment levels were used as the Build condition (the initial baseline)
and the No Build condition derived based on the difference in accessibility between the
Build and No Build conditions.
Hirschman and Henderson describe a method for incorporating factors other than to
accessibility into the gravity model appropriate for an area that has been evaluated as
part of a transportation demand modeling effort (Hirschman and Henderson, 1990). In
many regions (including the ICE study area for this project), the transportation planning
process requires that regional growth totals be allocated to individual traffic analysis
zones so that future trip patterns can be estimated. In the process of this population
forecasting, local officials take planned projects, and the capacity and attractiveness for
future development into account when allocating regional growth. When applying a
gravity model it is not necessary, therefore, to measure the individual elements that
make up Vj explicitly for each subregion. Values for Vj can be derived implicitly once
baseline Aj values have been calculated because values for total regional growth (Gt)
and growth in each zone (Gj) are known in the baseline condition and reflect
consideration of zone development attractiveness and potential. Once baseline Vj
values have been derived it becomes possible to calculate growth in a zone for
scenarios where accessibility changes by holding the Vj values constant. An analyst can
run the gravity model for each accessibility change scenario by varying the accessibility
scores while holding all other factors constant.
One important limitation implicit in this application of the gravity model is that there is no
constraint on the growth a zone can experience. To address this limitation, a separate
analysis of developable land was performed for the subset of TAZs that comprise the
study area and the household and employment allocations to certain TAZs were reduced
based on the expectation that build-out conditions would occur (See Section 2.4.4).
2.4.3 Existing Conditions Land Use
Mapping of existing land use in the study area was developed based on GIS parcel data
for Gaston, Mecklenburg and York counties combined with spot checking against 2009
NAIP orthophotography. Three basic categories of land use were delineated:
Residential (development associated households)
Commercial, industrial, office, schools and government institutions (development
associated with employment).
All other land (including agricultural uses, vacant parcels and transportation right-
of-ways).
For Gaston and Mecklenburg counties, the available parcel data contained detailed
information on the use of each property from tax assessments that was used to classify
parcels into the three categories listed above. For York County, this detailed parcel use
information was not available and the classification of parcels to land use categories was
accomplished based on GIS layers depicting zoning districts and residential subdivisions
and manually using the orthophotography.
Figure 5 illustrates the land use classification mapping by parcel for the study area.
22
2.4.4 Future Land Use Change Projections
In order to assess potential impacts on environmental resources resulting from future
development, it is necessary to convert the No Build and Build condition household and
employment projections into estimates of land use change. This section explains the
residential and employment land conversion methodologies and the methodology used
to estimate buildable land and limit the level of development that could reasonably be
accommodated within each zone.
Direct Project Land Conversion
Direct land conversion resulting from the Preferred Alternative was calculated using the
preliminary engineering right-of-way boundaries.
Residential Land Conversion
The acreage of land that would be converted to residential-related uses in the future was
projected based on density information from a GIS database of 44 approved
developments in Gaston County provided by the Gastonia City Planning Department.
The database includes developments in the vicinity of the Gaston East-West Connector
corridor, including the Presley development (2.4 units per acre 2 ), Stagecoach Station
(3.1 units per acre) and Crowder’s View (3.3 units per acre). Excluding five
developments consisting solely of apartments, the weighted average density (by land
area) of the remaining developments in the database was 3.2 units per acre. The
exclusion of apartments helps ensure that the average density is conservative. In
addition, given that slightly lower densities could be expected in other portions of the
study area not covered by the Gaston County database (e.g. parts of York County), this
density was lowered to an even 3.0 units per acre for the purpose of projecting future
residential land conversion. Residential land conversion for the No Build and Build
conditions was calculated for each zone in the study area by dividing the growth in
households from 2005 to 2035 by the density factor of 3.0.
Employment Land Conversion
A comparable database of recent commercial and industrial developments was not
available for the purpose of making projections about employment density. Therefore,
the existing density of employment was calculated based on the study area employment
estimates for 2005 and the area of land devoted to commercial, industrial or institutional
uses (based on the methodology described in Section 2.4.3). The employment density
factor for the study area is 3.5 employees per acre of commercial/industrial/institutional
land. This factor is considered conservative (likely to overestimate rather than
underestimate) potential impacts because it is skewed by large parcels containing
substantial areas of undeveloped land. Employment-related land conversion for the No
Build and Build conditions was calculated for each zone in the study area by dividing the
growth in employment from 2005 to 2035 by the density factor of 3.5.
2 This density calculation is based on the acreage of the entire Presley site, which also includes 750,000
square feet of commercial development. The density of the just the residential portion of the site would likely
be higher.
23
Buildable Land Estimates
As noted in Section 2.4.2, the gravity model formulation used to reallocate households
and employment based on changes in accessibility did not include any cap on the
amount of development that could occur in any one TAZ. To account for development
constraints in the TAZ-level household and employment allocations for the study area,
an analysis of buildable land by zone was conducted. The following constraints were
excluded from the buildable land area:
Existing roads and right-of-ways- estimated using a 100-foot buffer on the
centerline of interstates and a 30-foot buffer on the centerline of all other road
types. For the Build condition assessment only, the right-of-way boundary of the
Preferred Alternative was added as a constraint on buildable land.
Existing developed land- based on the impervious surface estimates described in
Section 2.5.2.3
Wetlands- based on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping.
Rivers, streams and lakes- based on the USGS National Hydrography Dataset
and the applicable riparian buffer requirements for the study area (e.g. 50-foot
buffer zone on the Catawba River/Lake Wylie in North Carolina and York County,
South Carolina and a 100-foot buffer on perennial tributaries of the Catawba
River in York County).
100-year floodplain- based on FEMA’s Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(DFIRMs) for Gaston, Mecklenburg and York counties.
Conserved land- including properties in the North Carolina “Lands Managed for
Conservation and Open Space” database, Conservation Tax Credit Properties
and the proposed Berewick Regional Park. Major land areas in this category
within the study area include Crowders Mountain State Park, Daniel Stowe
Botanical Garden, and a Catawba Land Conservancy conservation easement
along Catawba Creek.
While additional constraints could be considered, the data necessary to analyze the
selected constraints listed above was readily available for the study area and provides a
reasonable approximation of constrained land. The amount of household and
employment growth was reduced in certain zones under both the No Build and Build
conditions so that the total buildable land area for that zone would not be exceeded. The
excess households and employees were not reallocated to other zones with remaining
capacity in the study area. The households and employment that would not “fit” in the
built-out zones were assumed to either occur at a much higher density than assumed by
the simple land conversion analysis or would occur elsewhere in the region (outside the
ICE study area).
2.5 Environmental Resources for Analysis
Water resources and wildlife habitat were selected as the resources for analysis in this
quantitative ICE assessment based on the comments received on the DEIS and
coordination with the resource agencies at Turnpike Environmental Agency (TEAC)
3 Developed parcels were not used as the basis for defining existing developed land because of the
possibility of larger rural residential parcels being subdivided in the future.
24
meetings held on August 12 and September 8, 2009. Farmland was considered as a
potential resource for detailed analysis, but ultimately rejected as explained in Section
2.5.1. The methodologies used to assess water resources and wildlife habitats are
explained in Sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3, respectively. The analysis of both water resources
and wildlife habitat relies on land conversion estimates as a data input.
2.5.1 Farmland
Farmland is important as an industry, as open space and as a wildlife habitat for certain
species (e.g. grassland birds). The U.S. Census of Agriculture data for the area of land
in farms in 1987 and 2007 are summarized by county below.
Gaston County- 37,561 acres in 2007, compared to 40,937 acres in 1987 (a
decrease of 3,376 acres or 8.2 percent).
Mecklenburg County- 19,135 acres in 2007, compared to 35,929 acres in 1987
(a decrease of 16,794 acres or 46.7 percent).
York County- 124,176 acres in 2007, compared to 128,718 acres in 1987 (a
decrease of 4,542 acres or 3.5 percent).
Within Gaston County, many of the agricultural areas are located in the northern portions
of the county that have not experienced substantial development pressures. Therefore,
the proportional loss of farmland in southern in Gaston County is likely greater than the
county-level Census of Agriculture data suggest due to suburban residential
development associated with the growth of Charlotte. A Voluntary Agricultural District
program began in Gaston County in 2004 with the objective of protecting and conserving
the agricultural open space.
Farmland was not selected as a resource for detailed analysis because farmland is not a
major land use throughout most of the study area and there are methodological issues
with distinguishing active farmland from other types of open undeveloped land based on
aerial photography. However, some indication of the potential for impacts to agricultural
land in the future as a result of land conversion associated with household and
employment growth can be obtained from Tables 5 and 6. Specific impacts to
agricultural lands will depend on the decisions of individual land owners as influenced by
land prices and the economics of farming.
In addition to Gaston County’s existing Voluntary Agricultural District Program, farmland
conservation policies that could be considered by local governments include agricultural
protection zoning, cluster developments, conservation easements, farmland mitigation
requirements, and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR).4
2.5.2 Water Resources
Impervious surface cover is an accepted indicator for assessing the potential for water
quality impacts as a result of future development. Impervious surface cover increases
runoff volumes, which in turn can affect stream stability and water quality indicators.
4 See the “Farmland Protection Toolbox”
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27761/fp_toolbox_02-2008.pdf
25
Numerous studies have found that first order to third order streams with watersheds
exceeding 10 percent impervious surface cover exhibit impacted stream quality.
Streams with watersheds exceeding 25 percent impervious surface cover typically
exhibit degraded conditions and often do not meet water quality standards (Center for
Watershed Protection, 2003).
Existing Conditions
Existing impervious surface cover in the study area was assessed using Feature
Analyst, a GIS program that converts shading in aerial photography into measurable
vector polygons. The analysis was conducted with 2007 aerial photography for the study
area. The resulting polygons were compared for accuracy against the most recent
available (2009) aerial photography. The comparison revealed that Feature Analyst
provided a reasonable estimate of impervious surface cover associated with
development, but that it also incorrectly identified many agricultural areas and wetlands
as impervious. Therefore, the impervious surface layer was manually edited to remove
the incorrectly categorized areas.
Impacts from Future Household and Employment Growth
To project future growth in impervious surface cover for the No Build and Build
conditions associated with future household and employment growth, the NRCS TR-55
manual percent impervious surface factors were used. For residential development, the
impervious surface percent applicable to the anticipated average density of future
development (1/3 acre per household) is 30 percent (SCS, 1986). For employment-
related development, an impervious surface percentage of 70 percent was selected
based on the NRCS TR-55 manual percent impervious surface cover factor for
commercial development.
Impacts from Other Transportation Projects
Impervious surface cover associated with the No Build transportation projects was
estimated based on the length of the project and the number of new travel lanes
specified in the LRTPs for the study area. The impervious surface estimates for the No
Build projects assume 12-foot travel lanes and six-foot shoulders.
Direct Impacts
The direct increase impervious surface cover associated with the proposed project was
also accounted for in the analysis based on the right-of-way boundaries for the Preferred
Alternative. The right-of-way was estimated to consist of 34.29 percent impervious cover
based on a typical section for the Preferred Alternative (96-feet of impervious surface out
of the 280-foot right-of-way width).
26
2.5.3 Wildlife Habitat
Existing Conditions
Forest cover and the size and configuration of undisturbed habitat blocks are the key
indicators for assessing potential upland wildlife habitat impacts. As with impervious
surface cover, tree cover was delineated using Feature Analyst. The resulting polygons
were reviewed in comparison to 2009 aerial photography and found to reasonably
represent tree cover without the need for manual post-processing. Note that the existing
tree cover estimates include street trees in urban areas, not just undeveloped upland
forest areas.
Impacts from Future Household and Employment Growth
A range of potential impacts of future development on tree cover was estimated in order
to appropriately reflect the uncertainty involved in predicting the exact location of future
development. The low estimate of potential tree cover impacts assumed that
development would be prioritized away from forested areas. In this scenario, all the
unconstrained non-forested land in a TAZ would develop first. Only when this supply of
land was exhausted would impacts to forest cover occur to accommodate the remaining
land conversion projected for the TAZ. If sufficient unconstrained non-forested land was
available in a TAZ to accommodate future growth, no impacts to forest cover for that
TAZ were included in this low-end estimate. In actuality, future development of forested
areas will likely be closer to the low end of the range than the high estimate discussed
below because deforested areas are typically preferred for development over forested
areas as lands historically cleared for agriculture bear many of the same traits (e.g.,
relatively well-drained, relatively flat, etc.) that makes the land suitable for development.
The high estimate of tree cover impacts assumed that future land conversion would
occur in forested areas first, and would only affect non-forested areas when all the
unconstrained forest cover in a zone was developed (see Section 2.4.4 for the
methodology used to identify constrained vs. unconstrained land). For example, if there
were 20 acres of unconstrained forest in a zone and 40 acres of expected land
conversion, all 20 acres of forest were assumed to be impacted. If the acreage of
unconstrained forest in a zone was greater than the acreage of land conversion, all of
the land conversion was assumed to occur in the forested portion of the zone.
Impacts from Other Transportation Projects
The impacts of the No Build condition transportation projects on tree cover were
estimated by taking in account the approximate width of the new or widened roadways
based on the LRTP project descriptions. The No Build transportation project pavement
“footprint” was widened by 20 feet on either side of each roadway to account for
potential impacts from roadway construction, slope limits and clear zones.
Direct Impacts
The direct impacts of the Preferred Alternative on tree cover were calculated using the
right-of-way boundaries as the approximate limit of impacts.
27
Wildlife Habitat Edge Effects and Fragmentation
In addition to the tree cover impact assessment described above, an analysis was
performed to identify interior forest habitat and assess the direct impacts and indirect
edge effects of the proposed project on interior forest habitat. This section provides
background information on habitat fragmentation and edge effects and describes the
specific methodology applied for this project.
Background
When interior forest and/or grassland habitat areas are converted to edges as a result of
fragmentation, several types of indirect effects can occur. These indirect effects may
include increased penetration of light and wind into the forest and the establishment of
invasive plants and other competing and predatory species. Particularly for forested
habitats, changes in the microclimate (air temperature, humidity, wind, solar radiation,
soil temperature, soil moisture, etc.) tend to occur along the newly created edge.
Microclimate changes are small scale variations caused by the alteration of the forest’s
physical characteristics, including tree height, percent canopy closure and forest
structure (Reifsnyder et al., 1971; Chen and Franklin, 1997). As a result, changes in the
microclimate have the potential to affect species diversity and density within the habitat
edge area.
The creation of forest edge has the potential to increase nest predation on birds (Gates
and Gysel, 1978; Wilcove, 1985), tree mortality as a result of windthrow and exposure
(Chen et al., 1999; Essen, 1994), and the alteration of nutrient cycling (Gieger, 1965).
Populations of opportunistic and adaptable species, such as raccoons, foxes, opossums
and feral and domestic dogs and cats tend to increase in fragmented landscapes. The
resulting edge effect can allow predation and nest parasitism to penetrate further into the
forest interior. As a result, species with sensitive breeding areas can be affected. At the
same time, other species that benefit from edge habitat can experience increased
abundance from the creation of additional edge habitat.
The creation of edge habitat has the potential for non-native plant species to encroach
into the habitat area interior, potentially restricting the growth of native plant species,
limiting structural diversity and disrupting the natural succession processes. Typical
methods employed during construction to prevent the introduction of weedy and invasive
species include prompt seeding and mulching of all disturbed areas and frequent
cleaning of all equipment.
As a result of edge effects, fragmentation of larger blocks of forest has been shown to
cause a decrease in those species collectively known as forest interior dwelling species
(FIDS). These species rely on large forest tracts to breed successfully (Robbins, 1979).
Patch size has been shown to correlate to the number and type of species present within
the forest interior. The larger the patch size of the interior forest, the greater the quantity
and diversity of FIDS present. Smaller patch sizes tend to have less FIDS and more
edge dwelling species (Forman, 1986). The larger patch sizes have more diverse
microhabitats, with the necessary food sources, nesting sites, and required cover to
protect FIDS from predator species (McIntyre, 1995).
28
Methodology
The extent of habitat edge effects varies considerably between different species and
across habitat types. In addition, habitat edge effects tend to attenuate gradually with
increased distance from the edge (e.g. areas closest to the edge are affected to a
greater extent then areas farther from the edge). For analysis purposes, an edge effect
distance of 300 feet was selected for this study to identify potential interior forest habitat
areas. An edge effect distance of 300 feet is supported by the relevant literature on FIDS
(such as certain neotropical migrant birds) and has been used for other transportation
project NEPA evaluations (e.g. Intercounty Connector FEIS, Maryland).
To assess existing conditions, an edge effect zone of 300 feet was created around
existing roadways, development and other open areas (e.g. large waterbodies,
agricultural fields etc.). Forested areas outside of the existing conditions edge effect
zone were indentified as the forest interior habitat blocks. The edge effects of the
proposed project were then superimposed on the existing conditions mapping to
determine the incremental increase in edge effects and habitat fragmentation impacts.
The potential impacts of future household and employment growth on forest interior
habitat was not assessed quantitatively due to the uncertainty involved in predicting the
exact spatial arrangement of development, which is key to determining the size of the
future “edge effect zone.” Fragmentation impacts from future growth were qualitatively
considered in light of the range of tree cover impacts.
2.6 Rounding
As discussed in greater detail in Section 4.0, the assessment of indirect and cumulative
effects involves numerous assumptions that introduce uncertainty into the analysis. The
exact level of uncertainty is not possible to quantify. There is no estimate available of the
“margin of error” associated with the future household and employment forecasts made
by the MPOs or with the shifts in growth made using the gravity model. Despite the
inability to assign a specific margin of error, all results have been rounded to hundreds of
acres to reflect the uncertainty inherent in any land use change forecasting exercise.
The decision to round the results to the nearest 100 acres was made based on the
general uncertainty associated with predicting the location and density of future
household and employment growth and consideration of the varying resolutions of the
input GIS data. Many of the datasets used in the ICE assessment, such as the HUC 12
watershed boundaries and conserved lands, are at 1:24,000 scale. The tree cover and
impervious surface cover layers created for this study are also considered to be
appropriate for mapping at a 1:24,000 scale. The horizontal positional error typically
associated with datasets at a 1:24,000 scale is plus or minus 40 feet. The rounding of
the results to the nearest 100 acres takes into account this level of positional error and
the unquantifiable potential for error associated with predicting future demographic
levels.
29
3.0 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects
3.1 Household and Employment Growth
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of the gravity model assessment of shifts in the
location of household and employment growth for the study area based on the
accessibility changes associated with the Preferred Alternative. Up to 3,700 additional
households and 300 fewer jobs are anticipated in the study area as a result of the
indirect development shifts associated with the project. This is not new growth, but rather
represents households and employment that would have located elsewhere in the
Metrolina region under the No Build condition. At the regional scale household and
employment totals remain constant between the No Build and Build conditions. The
overall indirect effect of the project for the study area as a whole is relatively small in
comparison to the growth in households (42,200) and employment (33,100) expected
between 2005 and the 2035 No Build condition.
In absolute terms, the largest increase in households and employment attributed to the
proposed project is in the Catawba Creek subwatershed, while the largest percentage
change from the No Build condition to the Build condition is projected for the Beaverdam
Creek subwatershed. Note that for the subwatersheds showing a “decrease” from the No
Build to Build condition, this represents a decrease in future growth, not a decrease
relative to existing conditions. For example, the forecasts for the Upper Crowders Creek
subwatershed show 2035 employment under the Build condition as 900 jobs or 6.3
percent less than the No Build condition. However, even under the Build condition the
Upper Crowders Creek subwatershed is expected to experience growth in employment
of 6,400 (a 90 percent increase) between 2005 and 2035.
Figures 6 and 7 show household and employment growth by zone from 2005 to 2035
under the No Build condition. Several of the zones with the largest household growth
expected under the No Build condition are adjacent to Lake Wylie or the South Fork
Catawba River, a pattern consistent with recent trends and developments.
Concentrations of substantial employment growth under the No Build condition include
the area around the Bessemer City industrial park and around the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport, which is located northeast of the proposed interchange between the
Gaston East-West Connector and I-485.
Figures 8 and 9 show the change in households and employment from the No Build
condition to the Build condition based on the gravity model methodology. The project
generally increases growth relative to the No Build in the zones along the alignment in
southern Gaston County and northern York County. These areas would experience an
increase in relative accessibility that would, all other factors held constant, make these
zones more attractive for development as a result of the project. Areas along the I-85
corridor would not experience as large of an accessibility improvement and as a result
show less growth under the Build condition than under the No Build condition. The
gravity model formulation shifts households and employment towards those areas with
the greatest accessibility (travel time) improvements.
30
Figures 10 and 11 show the total change in households and employment from 2005 to
the 2035 Build condition (e.g. the forecasted growth from the 2035 Metrolina model).
Note that all the areas showing a No Build to Build condition “decrease” in Figures 8 and
9 still grow overall between 2005 and 2035 under the Build condition.
Table 3
Gravity Model Estimated Change in Households by Watershed
No Build Compared to Build
2005 2035 No Build 2035 Build
No Build to
Build
Difference
Percent
Difference
Beaverdam Creek-Catawba
River 1,800 2,700 3,100 400 14.8%
Catawba Creek 15,000 22,000 23,800 1,800 8.2%
Duharts Creek-South Fork
Catawba River 12,700 22,700 22,700 -100 -0.4%
Lake Wylie-Catawba River 2,600 6,600 6,700 200 3.0%
Lower Crowders Creek 6,600 11,200 12,500 1,300 11.6%
Mill Creek-Lake Wylie 3,100 6,800 7,200 400 5.9%
Paw Creek-Lake Wylie 7,300 11,800 11,700 0 0.0%
Upper Crowders Creek 11,300 18,800 18,500 -300 -1.6%
Study Area Total 60,300 102,500 106,200 3,700 3.6%
Note: Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 households. Differences were calculated
prior to rounding.
Table 4
Gravity Model Estimated Change in Employment by Watershed
No Build Compared to Build
2005 2035 No Build 2035 Build
No Build to
Build
Difference
Percent
Difference
Beaverdam Creek-
Catawba River 1,700 2,500 2,900 300 12.0%
Catawba Creek 10,700 12,900 13,300 400 3.1%
Duharts Creek-South Fork
Catawba River 21,400 27,500 27,400 -100 -0.4%
Lake Wylie-Catawba River 3,500 8,700 8,300 -400 -4.6%
Lower Crowders Creek 2,300 3,200 3,600 300 9.4%
Mill Creek-Lake Wylie 1,700 4,000 4,000 100 2.5%
Paw Creek-Lake Wylie 10,100 18,400 18,300 0 0.0%
Upper Crowders Creek 7,000 14,300 13,400 -900 -6.3%
Study Area Total 58,400 91,500 91,200 -300 -0.3%
Note: Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 employees. Differences were calculated
prior to rounding.
31
3.2 Land Use Change
Tables 5 and 6 summarize residential and employment-related land use change based
on the gravity model projected changes in the distribution of households and
employment within the study area. For the study area as whole, the indirect land use
effect of the project is an approximately 1.5 percent increase in the total area of
residential land and a 0.4 percent decrease in employment-related land. The largest
absolute difference in land conversion between the No Build and Build conditions is
projected for the Catawba Creek subwatershed.
Table 5
Residential Land Conversion by Watershed
No Build Compared to Build
Total
Area
(Acres)
Existing
Residential
Land
(Acres)
2005-2035
No Build
Land
Conversion
(Acres)
2005-2035
Build Land
Conversion
(Acres)
No Build
to Build
Difference
(Acres)
Percent
Change in
Total
Residential
Land, No
Build to
Build
Beaverdam Creek-
Catawba River 12,200 5,200 300 400 100 1.8%
Catawba Creek 20,700 10,500 2,300 2,900 600 4.7%
Duharts Creek-South
Fork Catawba River 25,300 9,700 3,400 3,300 0 -0.8%
Lake Wylie-Catawba
River 10,500 3,000 1,300 1,400 100 2.3%
Lower Crowders Creek 36,700 16,700 1,500 2,000 400 2.7%
Mill Creek-Lake Wylie 15,000 6,800 1,200 1,400 100 2.5%
Paw Creek-Lake Wylie 11,900 4,100 1,500 1,500 0 0.0%
Upper Crowders Creek 26,500 10,800 2,500 2,400 -100 -0.8%
Grand Total 158,800 66,900 14,100 15,300 1,200 1.5%
Note: Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres. Differences were calculated prior to
rounding.
32
Table 6
Employment Land Conversion by Watershed
No Build Compared to Build
Total
Area
(Acres)
Existing
Employment
Land (Acres)
2005-2035
No Build
Land
Conversion
(Acres)
2005-2035
Build Land
Conversion
(Acres)
No Build
to Build
Difference
(Acres)
Percent
Change in
Total
Employment
Land, No
Build to
Build
Beaverdam Creek-
Catawba River 12,200 700 200 300 100 11.1%
Catawba Creek 20,700 2,700 600 800 100 6.1%
Duharts Creek-
South Fork
Catawba River
25,300 3,600 1,700 1,700 0 0.0%
Lake Wylie-
Catawba River 10,500 1,800 1,500 1,400 -100 -3.0%
Lower Crowders
Creek 36,700 1,300 300 400 100 6.3%
Mill Creek-Lake
Wylie 15,000 300 700 700 0 0.0%
Paw Creek-Lake
Wylie 11,900 3,300 2,400 2,400 0 0.0%
Upper Crowders
Creek 26,500 3,100 2,100 1,800 -300 -5.8%
Grand Total 158,800 16,700 9,500 9,400 -100 -0.4%
Note: Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres. Differences were calculated prior to
rounding.
3.2.1 Consistency with Local Land Use Plans
Gaston County
The substantial growth projected for the southeast portion of Gaston County (including
the indirect land use effects of the proposed project) is largely consistent with local plans
for Gaston County. Gaston County’s 2002 Comprehensive Plan shows the areas
surround the Gaston East-West Connector interchanges with US 321 and NC 279 as
development target areas where future growth should be directed. In addition, bypass-
dependent development target areas shown at several other interchanges along the
corridor. Gaston County’s Unified Development Ordinance will be essential in ensuring
that form of new developments match local planning objectives for compact, mixed-use
developments that preserve open space.
Mecklenburg County
The analysis results show that the proposed project does not substantially change the
household and employment levels for the portion of Mecklenburg County within the
study area. This overall result was consistent with the expectations of Mecklenburg
33
County planners interviewed as part of this study (See Appendix A). As a result, the
potential for inconsistency with local plans for Mecklenburg County is low. The additional
growth expected with the project on the north side of the interchange with Dixie River
Road is consistent with the Dixie Berryhill Strategic Plan for the development of this area
(Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department, 2003).
York County
York County’s 2025 Comprehensive Plan calls for rural residential and agricultural land
use in the northern portions of the county within the study area, with concentrations of
commercial and industrial land use along the US 321 corridor. There is potential for the
substantial growth pressures without the proposed project (the No Build household and
employment estimates) to be inconsistent with the objective of maintaining a primarily
rural character in this area. The additional growth in this portion of York County with the
proposed project would incrementally add to this potential inconsistency. The priority
recommendations of the 2025 Comprehensive Plan are currently being implemented
with an Interim Development Ordinance while a Unified Development Ordinance is
developed. In addition to the potential for changes in requirements for new
developments under a Unified Development Ordinance, growth in northern York County
will also be strongly influenced by the provision of utilities to new developments. In
interviews conducted for this study, York County planners indicated that some utility
providers would be acquired by the county and it was uncertain whether county
ownership would increase or decrease the expansion of water and sewer service areas.
3.3 Water Resources
3.3.1 Impacts of Past and Present Actions
Overview of Development History
The ICE study area is located within the Catawba-Wateree River basin. The two
subbasins that intersect the study area are the South Fork Catawba River (HUC
03050102) and the Upper Catawba River (HUC 03050101). The water resources within
the ICE study area have a long history of changes resulting from human activities.
European settlement of portions of the study area began in the early 1800’s and
included land clearing for agriculture. Development and related impacts to water
resources likely intensified with the establishment of three textile mills in Gaston County
between 1845 and 1848—events that marked the beginning of period of industrial
growth (Gaston County, 2010). The development of Charlotte as a railroad hub in the
1850’s was also a key turning point for the area.
Construction on the dam on the Catawba River that would form Lake Wylie began in
1900 and was completed in 1904. This dam was destroyed by the 1916 flood, but rebuilt
and enlarged by 1926 (Catawba Riverkeeper, 2010). The Duke Energy hydropower
impoundments along the Catawba River have provided numerous opportunities in the
area for recreation and economic growth, but also pose unique management challenges.
By slowing the flow of water, nutrient availability increases and algae may have more
time to grow than they would in a free-flowing river system (NCDWQ, 2004). The
34
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is currently undertaking a hydropower
relicensing review of Duke Energy’s operations.5 The conditions of the new license may
change the way the lakes are operated.
Within the past 40 years, substantial improvements in water resource conditions have
resulted from a combination of the control of point sources under the Clean Water Act
and the decline of textile industry. However, rapid population growth and the associated
increases in impervious surface cover have posed new challenges to protecting surface
water quality. For example, for the Catawba River basin as a whole, urban and built up
land cover increased by 183,000 acres or 52 percent over the 15-year period from 1982
to 1997 (NCDWQ, 2004).
Existing Percent Impervious Cover
Based on 2007 conditions, 12.5 percent of the ICE study area consists of impervious
surface cover (See Table 9 and Figure 12). The calculation of percent impervious cover
by watershed (one indicator of potential stream quality) shows that the Beaverdam
Creek, Upper Crowders Creek and Lower Crowders Creek subwatersheds on the
western side of the study area consist of less than ten percent impervious surface cover
at 5.7, 6.0 and 5.7 percent, respectively. The Paw Creek and Lake Wylie-Catawba River
subwatersheds on the eastern side of the study area exhibit the highest percent
impervious cover in the study area at over 20 percent. The remaining watersheds in the
study area have a percent impervious cover within the range of 10 percent to 20 percent.
Existing Water Quality
Table 7 provides an overview of the Draft 2010 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies within
the North Carolina portion of the study area, while Table 8 covers the 2008 303(d) list for
the South Carolina portion of the ICE study area.
Several segments of Crowders Creek and Catawba Creek are listed as impaired for
aquatic life support based on the condition of macroinvertebrate and/or fish
communities. The impairment is likely due to impacts from urban stormwater runoff and
waste water treatment systems. A fecal coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
was established for Crowders Creek in 2004 (NCDWQ, 2004).
Lake Wylie was formerly listed as impaired for nutrients and a TMDL was established in
1991. The TMDL was implemented primarily through point-source load allocations
established by the Lake Wylie Nutrient Management Plan (NCDWQ, 2004). As of the
2010 North Carolina integrated assessment, the main body of Lake Wylie within the
study area is in attainment with water quality standards. However, the South Fork
Catawba River arm is impaired for aquatic life support based on copper concentrations
and high temperature. Lake Wylie is also listed as impaired for copper in South Carolina,
and the Crowders Creek arm of Lake Wylie is impaired for recreational uses by fecal
coliform.
5 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (Project No. 2232-
522) http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/enviro/eis/2009/07-23-09.asp
35
In York County, Beaverdam Creek is listed as impaired for aquatic life support based on
turbidity and macroinvertebrate community conditions. A TMDL for fecal coliform was
established in the Beaverdam Creek watershed in 2001 (SDHEC, 2001). The primary
source of the fecal coliform impairment was identified by SDHEC as runoff from grazed
pasture land.
Table 7
Impaired Waterbodies in the North Carolina Portion of the ICE Study Area
Assessment
Unit Name Location Use(s) Impaired Cause(s) of
Impairment
11-(123.5)b
South Fork
Catawba
River Arm of
Lake Wylie
Aquatic Life Support Copper
High water temperature
11-129-(15.5)
South Fork
Catawba
River
From a point 0.4
mile upstream of
Long Creek to
Cramerton Dam and
Lake Wylie at Upper
Armstrong Bridge
Aquatic Life Support Turbidity
Low pH
11-130a Catawba
Creek
From source to
SR2446, Gaston Aquatic Life Support Ecological/biological
Integrity Benthos
11-130b Catawba
Creek
From SR2446,
Gaston to SR2439,
Gaston
Aquatic Life Support Ecological/biological
Integrity Benthos
11-130c Catawba
Creek
FromSR2439 to
Lake Wylie Aquatic Life Support Ecological/biological
Integrity FishCom
11-135-2 McGill Creek From source to
Crowders Creek Aquatic Life Support Ecological/biological
Integrity Benthos
11-135a Crowders
Creek
From source to SR
1118 Aquatic Life Support
Ecological/biological
Integrity Benthos
Ecological/biological
Integrity FishCom
11-135c Crowders
Creek
From State Route
1122 to State Route
1131
Aquatic Life Support
Ecological/biological
Integrity FishCom
Ecological/biological
Integrity Benthos
11-135d Crowders
Creek
From State Route
1131 to State Route
1108
Aquatic Life Support Ecological/biological
Integrity FishCom
11-135e Crowders
Creek
From State Route
1108 To NC 321
Aquatic Life Support Ecological/biological
integrity Benthos
11-135f Crowders
Creek
From State Route
321 to State Route
2424
Aquatic Life Support Ecological/biological
Integrity Benthos
11-135-10-1
South
Crowders
Creek
From source to
South Fork
Crowders Creek
Aquatic Life Support Low Dissolved Oxygen
Source: North Carolina 2010 303 (d) List
36
Table 8
Impaired Waterbodies in the South Carolina Portion of the ICE Study Area
Name and Location Station Use(s)
Impaired
Cause(s) of
Impairment
LAKE WYLIE AB MILL CK ARM AT END OF S-
46-557 CW-197 Aquatic Life
Support Copper
BROWN CREEK AT S-46-228 (GUINN ST), 0.3
MI WEST OF OLD NORTH MAIN STREET IN
CLOVER, SC
CW-105 Aquatic Life
Support Turbidity
BEAVERDAM CK AT S-46-152 8 MI E OF
CLOVER CW-153 Aquatic Life
Support Turbidity
BEAVERDAM CREEK AT BRIDGE ON S-46-64
3.2 MI ENE OF CLOVER
RS-
06020
Aquatic Life
Support
Biological
integrity
CROWDERS CK AT S-46-564 NE CLOVER CW-023 Aquatic Life
Support Copper
CROWDERS CREEK AT S-46-1104 CW-024 Aquatic Life
Support
Biological
integrity
LK WYLIE, CROWDERS CK ARM AT SC 49
AND SC 274 CW-027 Recreation Fecal Coliform
Source: South Carolina 2008 303 (d) List
Stormwater Management Policies
Authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program regulates pollutant discharges with the goal of protecting water
quality. The program is overseen by U.S. EPA and is generally implemented by states.
The City of Charlotte received a Phase I NPDES stormwater permit in 1993. Phase I of
NPDES applies to medium and large municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)
with populations of 100,000 or more, certain industrial sources, and construction
activities involving five or more acres of land disturbance. In 2005, the remainder of
Mecklenburg County outside the limits of Charlotte was issued a Phase II NPDES
permit. Phase II of NPDES expanded Phase I of the NPDES Storm Water Program to
additional urbanized MS4s and construction sites disturbing equal to or greater than one
but less than five acres of land.
Gaston County and York County are both designated NPDES Phase II areas and have
established local requirements for the stormwater treatment aspects of proposed
developments.
37
Riparian Area Protection Policies
Riparian buffer is a term used to describe lands adjacent to streams and comprised of
an area of native trees, shrubs, and other vegetation. Vegetative buffers are effective at
treating stormwater runoff and maintaining stream bank stability. The loss of riparian
buffers can reduce water quality, diversity of wildlife, and fish populations.
Permanent riparian buffer protection rules were enacted by North Carolina 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). 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).
The City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County have initiated stream buffer ordinances
through the Charlotte- Mecklenburg “Surface Water Improvement & Management
(S.W.I.M) program”. There are three different buffer sizes (35’, 50’, and 100’) in
Mecklenburg County depending on the size of the drainage area.
In 2009, York County adopted a riparian buffer policy applicable to the shoreline of Lake
Wylie and Catawba River, as well as perennial streams draining to the Catawba River
(York County, 2009). A 50-foot riparian buffer zone is established for Lake Wylie and
perennial streams, while a 100-foot riparian zone is established for the Catawba River.
3.3.2 Impacts from Other Actions (No Build Alternative)
As shown in Table 9, future development under the No Build Alternative is expected to
increase impervious surface cover by over 10,000 acres over existing conditions for the
study area as a whole. Approximately 90 acres of the No Build condition increase in
impervious cover is attributed to other specific transportation projects, the majority is
associated with household and employment growth. Several watersheds would exceed
thresholds that suggest the potential for stream and water quality impacts as a result of
development under the No Build Alternative. The percent impervious surface cover in
the Upper Crowders Creek subwatershed would increase from 6.0 percent to 14.3
percent. Three subwatersheds which currently have less than 25 percent impervious
cover would approach or exceed 25 percent impervious cover under the No Build
condition—Catawba Creek, Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River, and Lake Wylie-
Catawba River. The level of development projected for the study area suggests some
unavoidable degradation of water resource quality is likely in the areas with the greatest
growth. However, the impact per acre of new impervious surface is expected to be
substantially less than for past development due to new stormwater permitting
requirements. The enforcement of riparian buffer policies in the study area is also likely
38
to have a beneficial offsetting effect in counteracting some of the stormwater impacts of
future growth. Improvements to the management of point source pollutant discharges
(including wastewater treatment plants) are also expected to continue in the future.
3.3.3 Direct Impacts from the Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative would add approximately 500 acres of impervious surface
cover to the study area, with the largest increase (200 acres) in the Upper Crowders
Creek subwatershed. As discussed in the FEIS, the design of the Preferred Alternative
would incorporate stormwater treatment measures to reduce the potential for impacts to
the affected watersheds.
3.3.4 Indirect Effects from the Preferred Alternative
The changes in the distribution of households and employment resulting from the
Preferred Alternative could add 300 acres of impervious surface cover to the study area,
or a one percent increase over the No Build condition (See Table 9). The largest indirect
increases in impervious surface cover are projected for the Catawba Creek
subwatershed (300 acres) and the Lower Crowders Creek subwatershed (200 acres).
Two subwatersheds are projected to have an indirect decrease in impervious surface
cover as a result of the Preferred Alternative—Lake Wylie-Catawba River and Upper
Crowders Creek. As noted in the discussion of the No Build condition, although some
impacts would still occur, the incremental water quality impacts of these shifts in growth
would be less than past growth due to the stormwater control and riparian buffer policies
in the study area.
3.3.5 Potential for Cumulative Effects
Table 9 shows the cumulative effect of past actions (e.g. existing impervious cover),
other actions (the No Build condition) and the direct and indirect effects of the Preferred
Alternative. The combination of these effects is predicted to be a total acreage of
impervious surface cover in the study area of 31,500 or 19.8 percent. The incremental
effect of the Preferred Alternative accounts for 800 acres or about 6.8 percent of the
cumulative increase in impervious surface cover from existing conditions. One
subwatershed with impervious surface cover currently less than 10 percent would be at
or exceed 10 percent in the Build condition—Upper Crowders Creek. As noted in the
discussion of the No Build condition, although some unavoidable decreases in water
resource quality are expected, the incremental water quality impacts of future growth
would be less than past growth due to the stormwater water and riparian buffer policies
in the study area.
While impervious surface cover provides a useful metric for assessing potential
cumulative effects, it is not possible to conclude from an analysis of impervious surface
cover alone whether or not violations of water quality standards will occur at specific
downstream locations. As part of the application for a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for the proposed project, additional modeling of pollutant loadings will be
conducted in accordance with NCDENR Division of Water Quality’s policy document
entitled Cumulative Impacts and the 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated
Wetlands Program (NCDWQ, 2004). To issue a Water Quality Certification, NCDWQ is
39
40
required to determine that a project “does not result in cumulative impacts, based upon
past or reasonably anticipated future impacts that cause or will cause a violation of
downstream water quality standards.” The water quality modeling will account for the
effect of stormwater treatment practices and provide the basis for determining whether
or not violations of water quality standards would occur. If violations are predicted,
mitigation will be proposed to address the issue.
41
Ta
b
l
e
9
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
C
o
v
e
r
b
y
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
No
B
u
i
l
d
C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
B
u
i
l
d
To
t
a
l
Wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
Ar
e
a
(A
c
r
e
s
)
20
0
7
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Co
v
e
r
(A
c
r
e
s
)
20
3
5
N
o
Bu
i
l
d
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Co
v
e
r
(A
c
r
e
s
)
Bu
i
l
d
Di
r
e
c
t
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Co
v
e
r
(A
c
r
e
s
)
Bu
i
l
d
In
d
i
r
e
c
t
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Co
v
e
r
(A
c
r
e
s
)
Bu
i
l
d
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Co
v
e
r
(A
c
r
e
s
)
*
20
0
7
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Co
v
e
r
2035 No Build Percent
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Cover 2035 Build Percent Impervious Cover*
Be
a
v
e
r
d
a
m
C
r
e
e
k
12
,
2
0
0
70
0
1,
0
0
0
0
10
0
1,
1
0
0
5.
7
%
8.2% 9.0%
Ca
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
20
,
7
0
0
3,
7
0
0
4,
8
0
0
10
0
30
0
5,
2
0
0
17
.
9
%
23.2% 25.1%
Du
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
So
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
Ca
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
25
,
3
0
0
4,
6
0
0
6,
9
0
0
10
0
0
6,
9
0
0
18
.
2
%
27.3% 27.3%
La
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
Ca
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
10
,
5
0
0
2,
2
0
0
3,
6
0
0
10
0
-1
0
0
3,
7
0
0
21
.
0
%
34.3% 35.2%
Lo
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
36
,
7
0
0
2,
1
0
0
2,
8
0
0
10
0
20
0
3,
1
0
0
5.
7
%
7.6% 8.4%
Mi
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
Wy
l
i
e
15
,
0
0
0
1,
6
0
0
2,
4
0
0
0
10
0
2,
5
0
0
10
.
7
%
16.0% 16.7%
Pa
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
Wy
l
i
e
11
,
9
0
0
3,
3
0
0
5,
4
0
0
0
0
5,
4
0
0
27
.
7
%
45.4% 45.4%
Up
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
26
,
5
0
0
1,
6
0
0
3,
8
0
0
20
0
-2
0
0
3,
7
0
0
6.
0
%
14.3% 14.0%
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
T
o
t
a
l
15
8
,
8
0
0
19
,
8
0
0
30
,
7
0
0
50
0
30
0
31
,
5
0
0
12
.
5
%
19.3% 19.8%
*C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
o
f
p
a
s
t
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
)
,
t
h
e
i
m
pa
c
t
s
o
f
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
f
o
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
a
c
ti
o
n
s
b
y
o
t
h
e
r
s
(
f
u
t
u
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
hold and
em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
g
r
o
w
t
h
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
)
,
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
surface cover
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
No
t
e
:
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
1
0
0
a
c
r
e
s
.
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
w
e
r
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
3.4 Wildlife Habitat
3.4.1 Impacts of Past and Present Actions
The quantity and quality of upland wildlife habitats in the study area have been impacted
by past development. For the Catawba River basin as a whole, forest cover decreased
by 104,000 acres or 10.1 percent between 1982 and 1997 (NCDWQ, 2004). Including
urban trees, approximately 59.4% of the study area is covered by tree cover as of 2007
(See Table 12 and Figure 13). At a watershed level, the highest percentage of tree cover
occurs in the Upper and Lower Crowders Creek subwatersheds (65.7 and 64.9 percent,
respectively), while the lowest percentage occurs in the heavily developed Paw Creek-
Lake Wylie subwatershed (37.8 percent).
Figure 13 illustrates the forest interior habitat patches, defined based on the 300-foot
edge effect zone explained in Section 2.5.3. Table 10 shows that the majority of the
forest interior habitat patches in the study area are small and that there are only 9
interior habitat patches greater than 500 acres in size. The largest habitat patches are
located in and around Crowders Mountain State Park. Some of the large habitat patches
in this area actually extend beyond the boundaries of the study area. As expected, there
are no large interior habitat patches remaining in the most heavily developed portions of
the study area, such as Gastonia.
Table 10
Study Area Forest Interior Habitat Patches
Count of Forest Interior Habitats by Patch
Size (Acres) Total
Acres
Forest
Interior
Habitat
(Acres)
Percent
Forest
Interior
Habitat
Less than
20
20 to
100
101
to
200
201-
500
Greater
than
500
Mean
Interior
Patch Size*
158,802 26,967 17.0% 12,011 139 41 22 9 37.1
*Excluding interior patches of less than one acre.
3.4.2 Impacts from Other Actions (No Build Alternative)
Under the No Build Alternative 8,500 to 20,500 acres of tree cover could be lost as a
result of the future development, reducing the total percent forest cover in the study area
to 54.0 to 46.5 percent.6 The loss of tree cover under the No Build Alternative would
reduce the quality and quantity of upland wildlife habitat in the study area and increase
habitat fragmentation, although the degree of fragmentation cannot be reasonably
quantified (See Section 2.5.3). As discussed in Section 5.0, the planning strategies to
minimize potential impacts to wildlife habitat include encouraging higher density
development in appropriate locations and preserving contiguous habitat blocks that
provide the highest quality habitat.
6 For an explanation of how the “low” and “high” tree cover impact estimates were developed, refer to
Section 2.5.3.
42
3.4.3 Direct Impacts from the Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative would directly impact 1,000 acres of tree cover, 300 acres of
which would occur in the Upper Crowders Creek subwatershed. The Preferred
Alternative would directly impact 290 acres of forested interior habitat and result in
indirect edge effects potentially reducing the quality of an additional 480 acres of forest
interior habitat within 300 feet of the right-of-way. Table 11 and Figures 14 through 20
provide detailed information on the impacts of the Preferred Alternative on forest interior
habitat patches of 20 or more acres in size. The figures illustrate the high degree of
existing fragmentation in the Gaston East-West Connector corridor. The project would
incrementally increase this fragmentation.
The habitat fragmentation impacts of the Preferred Alternative would inhibit the
movement of some wildlife species across the roadway and potentially increase wildlife
road mortality. As discussed in the FEIS, a wildlife passage structure will be studied at
the crossing of Stream S156 (located between Forbes Road to the west and Robinson
Road to the east) during final design of the Preferred Alternative.
Table 11
Forest Interior Habitat Patch Impact Analysis*
ID† Existing Interior Habitat
Block (acres)
Direct Impacts
(acres)
New
Conversions to
Edge (acres)
Remaining
Interior Habitat
Block(s) (acres)
A 20.6 0 3.6 16.9
B 22.3 0.4 6.1 15.8
C 76.9 0 3.9 73
D 29.3 0.5 1.5 27.3
E 336.7 18.3 33.2 63.2
222
F 112.5 27.2 20.5 62.3
2.4
G 847.6 29.1 61.2
1
<1
<1
185.8
570.5
H 18.4 9.9 6.5 2.1
I 29.2 7 7.3 14.9
J 98.6 15.3 21.9
58.6
<1
2.4
K 25.3 4.4 9.1 11.8
L 370.5 18.5 27.1 274.3
50.6
M 150.7 18.8 26.2
<1
1.6
1.8
9.9
92.3
43
ID† Existing Interior Habitat
Block (acres)
Direct Impacts
(acres)
New Remaining
Conversions to Interior Habitat
Edge (acres) Block(s) (acres)
N 215.4 2.3 4.7 207.6
<1
O 62.0 9.5 15.8
30.4
<1
6.1
P 34.7 6.1 16.1 2.1
10.3
Q 112.2 18.7 19.1
72.2
<1
2.1
R 519.1 24.3 46.1
28.1
2.9
131.2
286.5
S 124.0 8.5 16.8 34.6
64.1
T 32.3 1.8 5.8
<1
<1
24.6
U 92.9 12.8 21.2 5.9
53
V 308.6 13.9 24.8 70.1
199.9
W 211.5 18.1 46.6
11.6
50.2
<1
85
*For interior habitat patches of approximately 20 acres in size or larger only. Impacts to smaller
patches were calculated and included in the total edge effect statistics in the text.
† Refer to Figures 14 through 20.
3.4.4 Indirect Effects from the Preferred Alternative
Depending on the specific locations chosen for future development, the changes in the
development patterns associated with the Preferred Alternative could increase tree
cover loss by 100 to 1,400 acres. The greatest potential for indirect effects on forest
cover is within the Catawba Creek subwatershed.
3.4.5 Potential for Cumulative Effects
Tables 12 and 13 show the cumulative effect of past actions (e.g. existing tree cover),
other actions (the No Build condition) and the direct and indirect effects of the Preferred
Alternative. The combination of these effects is predicted to be a total acreage of tree
cover in the study area of 84,800 to 71,400 acres. This represents a cumulative loss of
forest cover of 9,500 to 22,900 acres or a percent decrease of 10 to 24 percent. The
actual impacts will depend on the specific location of each new development, although
the actual number will likely be closer to the low estimate. The incremental effect of the
Preferred Alternative accounts for 1,100 to 2,400 acres of the cumulative loss of forest
44
45
cover from existing conditions. As discussed in Section 5.0, the planning strategies to
minimize potential impacts to wildlife habitat include encouraging higher density
development in appropriate locations and preserving contiguous habitat blocks that
provide the highest quality habitat.
Ta
b
l
e
12
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
T
r
e
e
C
o
v
e
r
b
y
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
(
L
o
w
I
m
p
a
c
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
)
No
B
u
i
l
d
C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
B
u
i
l
d
To
t
a
l
Ac
r
e
s
20
0
7
Fo
r
e
s
t
Co
v
e
r
(A
c
r
e
)
20
3
5
N
o
Bu
i
l
d
Fo
r
e
s
t
Co
v
e
r
(A
c
r
e
s
)
Bu
i
l
d
D
i
r
e
c
t
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
Fo
r
e
s
t
C
o
v
e
r
(A
c
r
e
s
)
Bu
i
l
d
I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
Fo
r
e
s
t
C
o
v
e
r
(A
c
r
e
s
)
Bu
i
l
d
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
Co
v
e
r
(
A
c
r
e
s
)
20
0
7
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Fo
r
e
s
t
Co
v
e
r
2035 No Build Percent Forest Cover 2035 Build Percent Forest Cover
Be
a
v
e
r
d
a
m
C
r
e
e
k
12
,
2
0
0
6,
5
0
0
6,
5
0
0
0
0
6,
5
0
0
53
.
3
%
53.3% 53.3%
Ca
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
20
,
7
0
0
12
,
1
0
0
11
,
5
0
0
-1
0
0
-3
0
0
11
,
0
0
0
58
.
5
%
55.6% 53.1%
Du
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
Fo
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
25
,
3
0
0
15
,
4
0
0
12
,
8
0
0
-1
0
0
0
12
,
7
0
0
60
.
9
%
50.6% 50.2%
La
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
Ri
v
e
r
10
,
5
0
0
6,
0
0
0
4,
2
0
0
-2
0
0
10
0
4,
1
0
0
57
.
1
%
40.0% 39.0%
Lo
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
36
,
7
0
0
23
,
8
0
0
23
,
7
0
0
-2
0
0
-1
0
0
23
,
4
0
0
64
.
9
%
64.6% 63.8%
Mi
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
15
,
0
0
0
8,
8
0
0
8,
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0
8,
0
0
0
58
.
7
%
53.3% 53.3%
Pa
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
Wy
l
i
e
11
,
9
0
0
4,
5
0
0
3,
1
0
0
0
0
3,
1
0
0
37
.
8
%
26.1% 26.1%
Up
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
26
,
5
0
0
17
,
4
0
0
16
,
0
0
0
-3
0
0
30
0
16
,
0
0
0
65
.
7
%
60.4% 60.4%
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
T
o
t
a
l
15
8
,
8
0
0
94
,
3
0
0
85
,
8
0
0
-1
,
0
0
0
-1
0
0
84
,
8
0
0
59
.
4
%
54.0% 53.4%
No
t
e
s
:
N
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
l
o
s
s
o
f
fo
r
e
s
t
c
o
v
e
r
,
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
g
a
i
n
.
Re
s
u
l
t
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
1
0
0
a
c
r
e
s
.
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
w
e
r
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
Fo
r
a
n
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
o
w
t
h
e
“
l
o
w
”
a
n
d
“
h
i
g
h
”
t
r
e
e
c
o
v
e
r
i
m
p
a
ct
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
w
e
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
,
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
.
5
.
3
.
46
47
Ta
b
l
e
13
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
T
r
e
e
C
o
v
e
r
b
y
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
(
H
i
g
h
I
m
p
a
c
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
)
No
B
u
i
l
d
C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
B
u
i
l
d
To
t
a
l
Ac
r
e
s
20
0
7
Fo
r
e
s
t
Co
v
e
r
(A
c
r
e
)
20
3
5
N
o
Bu
i
l
d
Fo
r
e
s
t
Co
v
e
r
(A
c
r
e
s
)
Bu
i
l
d
D
i
r
e
c
t
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
Fo
r
e
s
t
C
o
v
e
r
(A
c
r
e
s
)
Bu
i
l
d
I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
Fo
r
e
s
t
C
o
v
e
r
(A
c
r
e
s
)
Bu
i
l
d
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
Co
v
e
r
(
A
c
r
e
s
)
20
0
7
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Fo
r
e
s
t
Co
v
e
r
2035 No Build Percent Forest Cover 2035 Build Percent Forest Cover
Be
a
v
e
r
d
a
m
C
r
e
e
k
12
,
2
0
0
6,
5
0
0
5,
9
0
0
0
-2
0
0
5,
7
0
0
53
.
3
%
48.4% 46.7%
Ca
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
20
,
7
0
0
12
,
1
0
0
9,
3
0
0
-1
0
0
-7
0
0
8,
5
0
0
58
.
5
%
44.9% 41.1%
Du
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
Fo
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
25
,
3
0
0
15
,
4
0
0
10
,
6
0
0
-1
0
0
0
10
,
4
0
0
60
.
9
%
41.9% 41.1%
La
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
Ri
v
e
r
10
,
5
0
0
6,
0
0
0
3,
7
0
0
-2
0
0
0
3,
5
0
0
57
.
1
%
35.2% 33.3%
Lo
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
36
,
7
0
0
23
,
8
0
0
22
,
0
0
0
-2
0
0
-4
0
0
21
,
4
0
0
64
.
9
%
59.9% 58.3%
Mi
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
15
,
0
0
0
8,
8
0
0
6,
9
0
0
-1
0
0
-2
0
0
6,
7
0
0
58
.
7
%
46.0% 44.7%
Pa
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
Wy
l
i
e
11
,
9
0
0
4,
5
0
0
2,
2
0
0
0
0
2,
2
0
0
37
.
8
%
18.5% 18.5%
Up
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
26
,
5
0
0
17
,
4
0
0
13
,
3
0
0
-3
0
0
10
0
13
,
1
0
0
65
.
7
%
50.2% 49.4%
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
T
o
t
a
l
15
8
,
8
0
0
94
,
3
0
0
73
,
8
0
0
-1
,
0
0
0
-1
,
4
0
0
71
,
4
0
0
59
.
4
%
46.5% 45.0%
No
t
e
s
:
N
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
l
o
s
s
o
f
f
o
re
s
t
c
o
v
e
r
,
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
g
a
i
n
.
No
t
e
:
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
1
0
0
a
c
r
e
s
.
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
w
e
r
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
Fo
r
a
n
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
o
w
t
h
e
“
l
o
w
”
a
n
d
“
h
i
g
h
”
t
r
e
e
c
o
v
e
r
i
m
p
a
ct
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
w
e
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
,
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
.
5
.
3
.
4.0 Evaluate Analysis Results
The objective of Step 7 of the ICE assessment process is to consider the assumptions
and associated uncertainty used in the analysis. This section discusses the uncertainty
associated with the ICE assessment in general, as well as a discussion of the effect of
removing the Bud Wilson Road interchange from the design of the Preferred Alternative.
As with any attempt to forecast future growth or development, there are limitations to the
accuracy and certainty of the results of these analyses. Most of these analyses rely on
the land use forecasts described in earlier sections. These land use forecasts were
developed using recommended methods as described in the NCDOT ICE Guidance.
Specifically, the land use forecasts rely on the planning organizations in the study area,
and, therefore, the results are only as accurate as those forecasts. The quantities of
projected development also rely on assumptions about development density, as
explained in earlier sections of this report, and these assumptions are another limitation
on the accuracy of the analysis. Thus, the process of developing the Build condition
forecasts induces uncertainty. The exact level of uncertainty resulting from these
forecasts is not possible to quantify.
In addition to assumptions about the quantities of future development, the analysis also
requires assumptions about the distribution of future development to individual TAZs.
The purpose of producing the quantified scenarios is to gain an understanding of the
incremental effects of the proposed action (i.e., indirect effects) as well as the overall
cumulative effects to the environment. Consequently, assumptions made about the
distribution of land use follow a logical construct but are not necessarily accurate. In
other words, the analysis is a product of assumptions that allow reasonable estimates
and comparisons to be made, but in so doing, the actual projected distribution of
development is generalized according to those assumptions and does not replicate the
unknown individual private land use decisions of the future.
4.1 Bud Wilson Road Interchange
An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR 2423) was included in the description of the
Gaston East-West Connector at the time of the DEIS. The Bud Wilson Road interchange
was also included in the travel demand modeling conducted for the project. As noted in
Section 2.4.2, zone-to-zone travel time information from this modeling was the basis of
the gravity model assessment of the potential for shifts in the location of households and
employment. However, subsequent to the publication of the DEIS, refinements to the
design of the Preferred Alternative led to a decision to eliminate the interchange
proposed at Bud Wilson Road.
The Bud Wilson Road interchange would have been located in relatively close proximity
to another interchange (Robinson Road 1.2 miles to the west), thus the effect on
localized transportation access would be minimal. In addition, the ICE assessment
results show on overall pattern of increased growth in southern Gaston County and
northern York County with the project. The removal of the Bud Wilson Road interchange
would not change this basic pattern of the growth forecasts because numerous other
interchanges remain part of the design of the Preferred Alternative. The land around Bud
48
Wilson Road has the potential to become more attractive to development with the
completion of the project, even without an interchange in this location because Bud
Wilson Road can easily be accessed from other roads that do connect to the Gaston
East-West Connector. The Bud Wilson Road area can be accessed via Union Road (NC
274), as well as Robinson Road (by taking Sparrow Dairy Road). Therefore, it can be
concluded that the elimination of the Bud Wilson Road interchange does not have the
potential to substantially alter the results of the ICE assessment.
5.0 Mitigation
The basic requirement to consider mitigation measures is established in the CEQ NEPA
regulations (40 CFR 1502.16 (h)). Compensatory mitigation for the direct impacts of the
Preferred Alternative to regulated resources (e.g. wetlands and streams) is discussed in
the FEIS. With respect to mitigation for indirect and cumulative effects related to land
use change, both the NCDOT ICE Guidance and FHWA Interim Guidance note that it is
necessary to identify mitigation actions beyond the control of the transportation
agencies. While such mitigation cannot be committed to be implemented as part of the
project, the purpose of identifying the mitigation is to inform the affected local
jurisdictions and other reviewers of the EIS. Mitigation for the indirect and cumulative
effects on land use, water resources and tree cover identified by this study could be
reduced in magnitude through implementation and enforcement of the following planning
strategies. As noted in the text below, many of these strategies are already beginning to
be implemented in the study area.
Zoning/Comprehensive Planning to support higher density development in
planned growth areas and to discourage growth in environmentally sensitive
areas. Gaston County has adopted a Unified Development Ordinance that
provides new flexibility for higher density development, including Traditional
Neighborhood Development (TND) and a streamlined development process.
York County is in the process of developing a Unified Development Ordinance.
Open Space Planning is also an important part of protecting key wildlife habitat
areas. York County completed an Open Space Plan in 2009.
Growth Management through restrictions on the expansion of infrastructure.
Water and sewer service should be strictly tied to areas designated for growth in
local land use plans. There is some evidence of consideration of this type of
policy in parts of Gaston County. For example, Gaston County’s “Existing
Initiatives Map” identifies areas where sewer service should not be extended,
including a portion of the South Fork Crowders Creek watershed.
Riparian buffers. Existing riparian buffer policies applicable to the study area
are discussed in Section 3.3.1. These policies are a key aspect of water
resources protection.
Stream Restoration. Many urban streams have been straightened, channelized,
piped and buried, and/or stripped of native vegetation. Stream restoration
policies would directly improve habitat and water quality by addressing erosion
and sedimentation issues.
49
Land Acquisition/Conservation Easements. Conservation easement
programs, such as the Gaston Conservation District Land Preservation Program
are another strategy for preserving high quality wildlife habitat that can be
implemented by the private or public sector. The mapping of interior forest
patches conducted for this study provides information that could be used to
prioritize areas for conservation planning and land acquisition investments.
6.0 Conclusion
The land use forecasting conducted for this study shows that the potential for indirect
land use effects is greatest in southern Gaston County and northern York County. These
areas would experience the largest increase in accessibility with the project. The results
are consistent with Gaston County’s land use plan, but may be inconsistent with York
County’s plan for rural residential and agricultural uses in the northern portion of the
county. Local land use regulations will be key in shaping the location and form of
development in the study area.
In terms of environmental impacts, over 10.900 acres of impervious surface is expected
to be added to the study area by 2035 without the proposed project. Between 8,500 and
20,500 acres of tree cover could be lost under the No Build condition. The proposed
project would directly and indirectly affect the environment. The total incremental effect
of the project on impervious surface cover (direct plus indirect) is an addition of 800
acres to the growth in impervious surface cover under the No Build condition. The total
incremental effect of the project on tree cover is estimated to be a loss of 1,100 to 2,400
acres over the No Build condition. Numerous planning strategies are available to reduce
the impacts of future growth on water resources and wildlife habitat, including
zoning/comprehensive planning, growth management, riparian buffers, stream
restoration and land acquisition.
7.0 References
Boarnet, Marlon G. and Andrew F. 2000. Haughwout, Do Highways Matter? Evidence
and Policy Implications of Highways Influence on Metropolitan Development. The
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Catawba Riverkeeper. 2010. History of the Catawba-Wateree River.
http://www.catawbariverkeeper.org/about-the-catawba/history-of-the-catawba-wateree-
river
Chen, J., and J.F. Franklin. 1997. Growing season microclimate variability within an old
growth Douglas-fir forest. Climate Research 8:21-34.
Chen, J., S.C. Saunders, T.R. Crow, R.J. Naiman, K.D. Brosofske, G.D. Mroz, B.L.
Brookshire, and J.F. Franklin. 1999. Microclimate in forest ecosystem and landscape
ecology. Bioscience 49:288-297.
50
Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic
Systems.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1998. Considering Cumulative Effects under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Essen, P-A. 1994. Tree mortality patterns after experimental fragmentation of an old-
growth conifer forest. Biological Conservation 68:19-28.
Forman, 1986. Landscape Ecology.
Gates, J.E., and L.W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest predation and fledgling success in field-
forest ecotones. Ecology 59:871-883.
Geiger, R. 1965. The Climate Near the Ground. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Federal Highway Administration. 2003. Interim Guidance: Questions and Answers
Regarding the Consideration of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts in the NEPA Process.
Handy, Susan. 2005. Smart Growth and the Transportation Land Use Connection: What
Does the Research Tell Us? International Regional Science Review. 28: 146-167.
Hanson, Susan. 1995. The Geography of Urban Transportation.
Hirschman, I., and M. Henderson. 1990. Methodology for Assessing Local Land Use
Impacts of Highways. In Transportation Research Record 1274.
Gaston County. 2010. Gaston County History.
http://www.co.gaston.nc.us/countyprofile.htm
Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2010. 2035 Long Range
Transportation Plan.
Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2005. 2030 Long Range
Transportation Plan.
Krueckeburg, D. and A. Silvers. 1974. Urban Planning Analysis: Methods and Models.
Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2009. Gaston East-West Connector Indirect and Cumulative
Effects Assessment.
McIntrye, Nancy E. 1995. Effects of forest patch size on avian diversity.
Landscape Ecology. Vol. 10 no. 2.
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2005. 2030 Long Range
Transportation Plan.
51
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2010. 2035 Long Range
Transportation Plan.
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 2004. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 2004. Cumulative Impacts and the 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated
Wetland Permit Program.
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 2004. Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for Crowders Creek North
Carolina and South Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 2010. 2010 Integrated Report Category 5-303(d) List.
North Carolina Department of Transportation/ Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. 2001. Guidance on Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment of
Transportation Projects in North Carolina.
Reifsnyder GM, Furnival GM, Horowitz JL. 1971. Spatial and Temporal Distribution of
Solar Radiation Beneath Forest Canopies. Agricultural Meteorology 9: 21–37.
Robbins, C.S. 1979. Effects Of Forest Fragmentation On Bird Populations: R.M.
DeGraaf and K.E. Evans, eds. Management Of North Central And Northeastern
Forests For Nongame Birds. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report.
Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study. 2010. 2035 Long-Range Transportation
Plan.
Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Tech. Rep.
55.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 2001. Total Maximum
Daily Load Development for Beaverdam Creek: Station CW-153 Fecal Coliform Bacteria.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 2008. 2008 Integrated
Report Part I: Listing of Impaired Waters.
Transportation Research Board. 1999. NCHRP Report 423A: Land Use Impacts of
Transportation – A Guidebook.
Transportation Research Board. 2001. NCHRP Report 456: Guidebook for Assessing
the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects.
Transportation Research Board. 1998. NCHRP Report 403: Estimating the Indirect
Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects.
52
Wilcove, D. S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory
songbirds. Ecology 66:1211-1214.
York County. 2009. York County Buffer Ordinance.
53
CLOVER
Charlotte
Gastonia
Belmont
Pineville
Lowell
Cramerton
Dallas
BessemerCity
Ranlo
MountHolly
McAdenville
SpencerMountain
Stanley
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
030501011503
BeaverdamCreek-CatawbaRiver
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
CROWDERSMOUNTAINSTATEPARK 85
77
485
85
29
74
321
274
49
273
279
557
55
49 274
7
161
27
YorkCounty,SouthCarolina
GastonCounty,NorthCarolina
MecklenburgCounty,
NorthCarolina
Cleveland
County
01234560.5
Miles
QuantitativeICEStudyAreaBoundary
2009QualitativeICEStudyArea
PreferredAlternative
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
BeaverdamCreek-CatawbaRiver
CatawbaCreek
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
LowerCrowdersCreek
MillCreek-LakeWylie
PawCreek-LakeWylie
UpperCrowdersCreek
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
ComparisonofQualitativeand
QuantitativeICEStudyAreas
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure1
July2010
CLOVER
Charlotte
Gastonia
Belmont
Pineville
Lowell
Cramerton
Dallas
BessemerCity
Ranlo
MountHolly
McAdenville
SpencerMountain
Stanley
3257
3276
3266 3268
3275
3261
2188
2083
2088
3262
3275
2175
2087
2155
2181 2179
2177
2178
2091
2180
2145
2086
2060
2146
2176
2236
2089
10961
2186
2075
2073
2190
3276
2182
2061
2081
2079
2084
3270
2090
10954
10963
2183
10967
2046
10589
2105
3269
3269
2027
2072
2100
2047
2071
2031
10955
2026
2175
2082
2139
10591
2147
2033
2149
10601
10965
2187
2157
2154
2085
2154
2152
2080
2069
2062
3262
10602
10964
2034
2016
2050
2067
2153
2063
2151
2048
2068
2085
2045
2138
2024
10636
2036
2078
10592
2064
2035 2096
2181
2028
10588
2010
2093
2092
2025
2239
2070
2077
3268
2040
2185
2013
2152
3267
10639
2104
10604
10645
2190
4136
10646
2066
2012
10971
10607
10606
2170
2178
4106
2175
2097
2030
2150
10671
4116
4115
2136
10641
10643 10661
2037 10642 1067310672
10970
2043
2156
10606
10603
10644
2148
2038
10605
2078
10649
10630
10647
10620
21842003
CROWDERSMOUNTAINSTATEPARK
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
030501011503
BeaverdamCreek-CatawbaRiver
85
77
485
85
29
74
321
274
49
273
279
557
55
49 274
7
161
27
YorkCounty,SouthCarolina
GastonCounty,NorthCarolina
MecklenburgCounty,
NorthCarolina
Cleveland
County
PreferredAlternative
MetrolinaModelTAZsIntersectingStudyArea(262)
ModifiedZoneBoundariestoFollow
SubwatershedBoundaries(344)-VariousColors
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
TAZandSubwatershedBoundaries
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure2
July2010
024681
Miles
CLOVER
Charlotte
Gastonia
Belmont
Pineville
Lowell
Cramerton
Dallas
BessemerCity
Ranlo
MountHolly
McAdenville
SpencerMountain
Stanley
CROWDERSMOUNTAINSTATEPARK
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
030501011503
BeaverdamCreek-CatawbaRiver
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
85
77
485
85
29
74
321
274
49
273
279
557
55
49 274
7
161
27
YorkCounty,SouthCarolina
GastonCounty,NorthCarolina
MecklenburgCounty,
NorthCarolina
Cleveland
County NC274(UnionRd)
NC279(SouthNewHopeRd.)
Titman/CramertonRd.
US29/74SouthFork
CatawbaRiverBridge
Belmont-MountHollyCentralLoop
LittleRockRd.Extension
Fred.D.AlexanderBlvd.
FreedomDrive(NC27)
LinwoodRd.
Charlotte-Douglas
InternationalAirport
ThirdRunwayandIntermodal
FreightFacility
WestBlvd.Extension
DixieRiverRd./NC160Connector
PoleBranchRd.
MyrtleSchoolRd.
QuantitativeICEStudyAreaBoundary
PreferredAlternative
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
NoBuildTransportationProjects
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure3
July2010
024681
Miles
NorthCarolinaNorthCarolina
SouthCarolinaSouthCarolina
YorkCounty
UnionCounty AnsonCounty
RowanCounty
BurkeCounty
StanlyCounty
IredellCounty
MecklenburgCounty
ClevelandCounty
CatawbaCounty
GastonCounty
CherokeeCounty
DavidsonCounty
CabarrusCounty
LincolnCounty
RandolphCounty
MontgomeryCountyRutherfordCounty
UnionCounty
CaldwellCounty
ChesterfieldCountyLancasterCountyChesterCounty
AlexanderCounty
SpartanburgCounty
RichmondCounty
DavieCounty
McDowellCounty
MarlboroCounty
0102030405
Miles
QuantitativeICEStudyArea
PreferredAlternative
MetrolinaModelRegion
CountyBoundaries
StateBoundaries
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
MetrolinaTravelDemandModelRegion
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure4
July2010
CLOVER
Charlotte
Gastonia
Belmont
Pineville
Lowell
Cramerton
Dallas
BessemerCity
Ranlo MountHolly
McAdenville
SpencerMountain
Stanley
CROWDERSMOUNTAINSTATEPARK
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
030501011503
BeaverdamCreek-CatawbaRiver
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
85
77
485
85
29
74
321
274
49
273
279
557
55
49 274
7
161
27
YorkCounty,SouthCarolina
GastonCounty,NorthCarolina
MecklenburgCounty,
NorthCarolina
Cleveland
County
PreferredAlternative
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
Residential
Commercial/Industrial/Government(Employment-Related)
OtherLand(IncludesUndeveloped,Agriculture)
01234560.5
Miles
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
Parcel-BasedLandUseClassification
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure5
July2010
CLOVER
Charlotte
Gastonia
Belmont
Pineville
Lowell
Cramerton
Dallas
BessemerCity
Ranlo
MountHolly
McAdenville
SpencerMountain
Stanley
162
305
255 451
244
366
229
244
205
135
257
161
1318
29
168
203 241
267
72
892
186
110
65
276
209
294
0
396
352
310
64
456
1276
5
174
128
512
403
297
46
5
82
123
1
292
421
106
149
70
72
11
42
68
74
64
277
2
428
60
323
217
5
392
1380
383
324
455
1375
310
272
92
0
962
287
2
2
371
80
1
32
87
20
1042
76
325
221
313
144
136
228
50
67
157
57
78
9
12
50
726
400
243
42
3
-135
148
233
661
45
28
101
69
229
231
71
268
161
1711
76
0
155
814
68
136
310
681
20
15
95
580 80
135
260
198
155
397 721
172
192
333
648
19
51 31
7
71
24
39
169 87
4110
165
90
497
178
44
16
22
32
19
365
64
144
127
405
169
44
9 63
229
8
13
142
179
2
45
-59
43
48
0 275
0
119
27
11
16
83
118
115
13
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
030501011503
BeaverdamCreek-CatawbaRiver
85
77
485
85
29
74
321
274
49
273
279
557
55
49 274
7
161
27
YorkCounty,SouthCarolina
GastonCounty,NorthCarolina
MecklenburgCounty,
NorthCarolina
Cleveland
County
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
AbsoluteChangeinHouseholds
2005to2035NoBuildCondition
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure6
July2010
PreferredAlternative
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
AbsoluteChangeinHouseholds2005to2035
1-100
101-300
301-500
501-800
-135-0
801-1,711
Note:Notallzonesarelabeledduetospaceconstraints.
Foratableofdetailedresultsforallzones,referto
AppendixB.
CLOVER
Charlotte
Gastonia
Belmont
Pineville
Lowell
Cramerton
Dallas
BessemerCity
Ranlo
MountHolly
McAdenville
SpencerMountain
Stanley
0
2
75
23
4
0
1
0
315 196
0
123
0
5
0
4
4
0
61
68
369
1
1
4
4
2
181
3
62
0
0
0
0
-35
18
3
159
3
40
0
211
175
0 195
316
16
25
271
178
105
4
0
309
-14
19
4
6
144
54
454
219
88
83
0 15
45
3146
124
-10
1
70 206
31
17
4443
89
200
3
195
2091
238
1
70
38
13
-8
446
229
62
384
80
1
0 19
1077
37
3
94
138
1981
8
265
10
441
19
1
-2
28
443
42
13
126
240
1337
580
-10
-20
36
109 -6
238
139
-2
321
-18
39
906
28
1834
88
17
14
104
243 69
415
153 142
438
4
435
72
284
-18
843
-15
282
-15
184
-48
39
2
25
487-12
73
100
-9
-10
55
29
22
152
107
17
-26138
15
0
-19
274
14
-4
388
208
272
268
-8
505
113
5
213
24
171
-14
284
150
1027149
123
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
030501011503
BeaverdamCreek-CatawbaRiver
85
77
485
85
29
74
321
274
49
273
279
557
55
49 274
7
161
27
YorkCounty,SouthCarolina
GastonCounty,NorthCarolina
MecklenburgCounty,
NorthCarolina
Cleveland
County
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
AbsoluteChangeinEmployment
2005to2035NoBuildCondition
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure7
July2010
PreferredAlternative
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
AbsoluteChangeinEmployment2005to2035
1-100
101-300
301-500
501-1,000
-48-0
1,001-3,146
Note:Notallzonesarelabeledduetospaceconstraints.
Foratableofdetailedresultsforallzones,referto
AppendixB.
CLOVER
Charlotte
Gastonia
Belmont
Pineville
Lowell
Cramerton
Dallas
BessemerCity
Ranlo
MountHolly
McAdenville
SpencerMountain
Stanley
15
88
63
119
287
2
0
-19
-45
35
192
8
59
11
602
5
4
-5
109
0
-16
84
1
226
115
-18
6
-35
130
191
29
62
-89
581
149
-72
24
42
30
99
161
163
-1
-5
197
30
-44
86
-13
84
98
68
-29
-54
13
0
291
8
-3
36
150
0
-9
-30
-62
14
0
-15
-12
35
19
27
-10
-5
19
-5
46
-184
-64
0
10
-7
0
32
0
-4
-22
-52
5
-17
44
0
-3
-4
2
0
54
0
20 -2
22
-9
5
-4
-8
126
77
25 -45
-2081
37
46
95
-294
-31
6
-14
-10
0
-8
-38
2
1
0
12
60
27
0
-59
49
-21
28
-6
-22
-10
11
0
-6
-12
12
-20
-29
7
-99
-7
-4 17
-9
-12
-2
34
-21
-39
-2
-9
-3
-47
-3
-2
24
-33
-2
-48
-29
-16
-15
0
116
-3
0
-16
-8
31
126
-32
-5
37
0
-5
-1
0
-1
-21
-18
-1
-1
0
0
0
-32
-1
-3
-1
-1
-2
-37
-4
-1
-23
-2
-36
0
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
030501011503
BeaverdamCreek-CatawbaRiver
85
77
485
85
29
74
321
274
49
273
279
557
55
49 274
7
161
27
YorkCounty,SouthCarolina
GastonCounty,NorthCarolina
MecklenburgCounty,
NorthCarolina
Cleveland
County
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
AbsoluteChangeinHouseholds
2035NoBuildtoBuild
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure8
July2010
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
PreferredAlternative
AbsoluteChangeinHouseholdsNoBuildtoBuild
-149--50
-49-50
51-150
151-250
-294--150
251-602
Note:Notallzonesarelabeledduetospaceconstraints.
Foratableofdetailedresultsforallzones,referto
AppendixB.
CLOVER
Charlotte
Gastonia
Belmont
Pineville
Lowell
Cramerton
Dallas
BessemerCity
Ranlo
MountHolly
McAdenville
SpencerMountain
Stanley
8
0
0
12
2
33
0
0
118
0
105
4
0
76
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
29
18
193
0
0
1
5
0
0
30
9
55
0
1
-1
-9
0
0
0
0
-21
0
134
2
4
11
-19
9
0
7
32
-19
12
115
6
0
1170
-10
7
12
18
0
-1
158
1
8
07
-5
4
170
16
-1
50
-46
49
0
0
5
2
9
0
3
-539
28
13
75
0
-3
-60
-22
-9
0
96
-2 0
1
0
41
-57 0
-4
1 5
112
2
0
1
-6
-4
0
6
-54
-5
0
0
76
-1
-2
-11
0
0
3
2
-9
11
15
-7
-58
0
4
1
-235
14
1
-10
1
-43
3
25
-7
7
0
3
-87
-3
-91
-1
-2
-495
-18
0
-2
-1
-13
23
-37
75
-33
0
-49
-1
0
-6
-9
1
-31
-5
1
1
-4
0
-39
-28
-2
1
-2
-12
0
1
-23
0
-4
-49
3
3
2
2
-12
0
-39
-31
3
0
0
-5
-22
-12
-28-2
-32
0
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
030501011503
BeaverdamCreek-CatawbaRiver
85
77
485
85
29
74
321
274
49
273
279
557
55
49 274
7
161
27
YorkCounty,SouthCarolina
GastonCounty,NorthCarolina
MecklenburgCounty,
NorthCarolina
Cleveland
County
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
AbsoluteChangeinEmployment
2035NoBuildtoBuild
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure9
July2010
PreferredAlternative
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
AbsoluteChangeinEmploymentNoBuildtoBuild
-224--125
-124-25
-539--225
176-193
26-100
101-175
Note:Notallzonesarelabeledduetospaceconstraints.
Foratableofdetailedresultsforallzones,referto
AppendixB.
CLOVER
Charlotte
Gastonia
Belmont
Pineville
Lowell
Cramerton
Dallas
BessemerCity
Ranlo
MountHolly
McAdenville
SpencerMountain
Stanley
177
424
343 738
307
558
210
199
314
170
483
8276
1920
24
152
333 300
458
168
95
437
174
457
121
307
549
238
94
9
540
1473
1425
5
130
130
662
403
284
41
5
65
101
185
1
263
367
130
191
91
69
87
65
247
2
366
92
308
205
5
1191
478
1671
467
422
463
378
87
262
0
668
223
4
2
384
1141
1
54
114
66
15
71
361
226
312
270
176
43
45
161
81
94
74
105
46
120
681
380
253
69
3
-121
139
239
630
73
36
57
219
136
193
134
50
209
181
1711
68
0
232
839
79
126
356
776
77
14
15
98
568 85
133
251
178
126
409 717
232
184
382
549
13
35 24
6
95
20
30
130 85
15
3
177
90
450
294
45
16
20
23
112
80
16
317
95
270
389
154
42
8 61
263
7
86 110
10
184
78
2
9
37
-57
50
8
43
0 225
78
0
101
26
15
60
8
77
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
030501011503
BeaverdamCreek-CatawbaRiver
85
77
485
85
29
74
321
274
49
273
279
557
55
49 274
7
161
27
YorkCounty,SouthCarolina
GastonCounty,NorthCarolina
MecklenburgCounty,
NorthCarolina
Cleveland
County
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
AbsoluteChangeinHouseholds
2005to2035BuildCondition
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure10
July2010
PreferredAlternative
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
AbsoluteChangeinHouseholds2005to2035
1-100
101-300
301-500
501-800
-121-0
801-1,920
Note:Notallzonesarelabeledduetospaceconstraints.
Foratableofdetailedresultsforallzones,referto
AppendixB.
CLOVER
Charlotte
Gastonia
Belmont
Pineville
Lowell
Cramerton
Dallas
BessemerCity
Ranlo
MountHolly
McAdenville
SpencerMountain
Stanley
0
2
87
31
6
0
1
0
420 314
0
156
0
7
0
4
4
0
90
86
562
1
1
5
3
2
257
3
52
0
0
0
0
-56
22
3
293
3
52
0
290
0 312
241
297
20
37
429
159
160
5
479
-15
24
4
9
8
176
63
408
230
78
0 16
44
2607
142
-10
1
184
35
26
4604
96
250
3
244
2082
11 181
1
8
60
45
474
242
163
58
330
88
1
0 19
1017
44
111
5
86
89
234
2093
8
267
430
30
2
-2
117
28
440
67
16
1102
246
522
-91
-16
-24
27
185 -7
195
139
-4
234
11
-18
62
-10
910
21
1339
19
258 75
402
167 147
447
4
398
79
60
251
-17
843
-14
233
-15
177
-50
-11
43
2
19
487-12
64
163
105
58
36
113
17
91
115
13 8
-27
13
0
-18
225
10
-3
389 196
233
237
-11
-7
508
4
213
19
159
-14
256
118
27149
126
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
030501011503
BeaverdamCreek-CatawbaRiver
85
77
485
85
29
74
321
274
49
273
279
557
55
49 274
7
161
27
YorkCounty,SouthCarolina
GastonCounty,NorthCarolina
MecklenburgCounty,
NorthCarolina
Cleveland
County
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
AbsoluteChangeinEmployment
2005to2035BuildCondition
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure11
July2010
PreferredAlternative
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
AbsoluteChangeinEmployment2005to2035
1-100
101-300
301-500
501-1,000
-91-0
1,001-2,607
Note:Notallzonesarelabeledduetospaceconstraints.
Foratableofdetailedresultsforallzones,referto
AppendixB.
CLOVER
Charlotte
Gastonia
Belmont
Pineville
Lowell
Cramerton
Dallas
BessemerCity
Ranlo MountHolly
McAdenville
SpencerMountain
Stanley
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver 030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
030501011503
BeaverdamCreek-CatawbaRiver
85
77
485
85
29
74
321
274
49
273
279
557
55
49 274
7
161
27
YorkCounty,SouthCarolina
GastonCounty,NorthCarolina
MecklenburgCounty,
NorthCarolina
Cleveland
County PreferredAlternative
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
2007ImperviousSurfaceCover
BeaverdamCreekImperviousSurfaceCover(Acres)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
20072035NoBuild2035Build
LowerCrowdersCreekImperviousSurfaceCover(Acres)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
20072035NoBuild2035Build
UpperCrowdersCreekImperviousSurfaceCover(Acres)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
20072035NoBuild2035Build
CatawbaCreekImperviousSurfaceCover(Acres)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
20072035NoBuild2035Build
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiverImperviousSurface
Cover(Acres)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
20072035NoBuild2035Build
PawCreek-LakeWylieImperviousSurfaceCover(Acres)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
20072035NoBuild2035Build
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiverImperviousSurfaceCover(Acres)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
20072035NoBuild2035Build
MillCreek-LakeWylieImperviousSurfaceCover(Acres)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
20072035NoBuild2035Build
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
ImperviousSurfaceCover
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure12
July2010
CLOVER
Charlotte
Gastonia
Belmont
Pineville
Lowell
Cramerton
Dallas
BessemerCity
Ranlo MountHolly
McAdenville
SpencerMountain
Stanley
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver 030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
030501011503
BeaverdamCreek-CatawbaRiver
85
77
485
85
29
74
321
274
49
273
279
557
55
49 274
7
161
27
YorkCounty,SouthCarolina
GastonCounty,NorthCarolina
MecklenburgCounty,
NorthCarolina
Cleveland
County
PreferredAlternative
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
2007TreeCover
ForestInteriorHabitat(Greaterthan300feetfromedges)
1to20
21to100
101to200
201to500
501to1000
Greaterthan1,000
01234560.5
Miles
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
TreeCoverandForestInterior
HabitatPatches
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure13
July2010
85
29 74
E
C
D
B
A
222Acres
73Acres
63.2Acres
27.3Acres
16.9Acres
15.8Acres
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
PreferredAlternativeRight-of-Way
DirectImpacts
IndirectEdgeEffects
RemainingForestInteriorHabitat
ConservedLand/Parks
Floodplains
NWIWetlands
WaterFeatures
StudyAreaBoundary
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
01,0002,0003,0004,000500
Feet
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
ForestInteriorPatchesA,B,C,DandE
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure14
July2010
LinwoodRd.
G
F
570.5Acres
185.8Acres
62.3Acres
2.4Acres
1Acres
0Acres
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
PreferredAlternativeRight-of-Way
DirectImpacts
IndirectEdgeEffects
RemainingForestInteriorHabitat
ConservedLand/Parks
Floodplains
NWIWetlands
WaterFeatures
StudyAreaBoundary
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
01,0002,0003,0004,000500
Feet
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
ForestInteriorPatchesFandG
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure15
July2010
321
RobinsonRd.
L
G
J
M
I
K
H
274.3Acres
92.3Acres
570.5Acres 185.8Acres
58.6Acres 50.6Acres
14.9Acres
11.8Acres
2.4Acres
2.1Acres
1.6Acres
9.9Acres
0.4Acres
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
PreferredAlternativeRight-of-Way
DirectImpacts
IndirectEdgeEffects
RemainingForestInteriorHabitat
ConservedLand/Parks
Floodplains
NWIWetlands
WaterFeatures
StudyAreaBoundary
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
01,0002,0003,0004,000500
Feet
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
ForestInteriorPatchesI,J,KandL
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure16
July2010
RobinsonRd.
274
L
N
M
O
P
K
J
J
Q
274.3Acres
207.6Acres
92.3Acres
50.6Acres
30.4Acres
11.8Acres
9.9Acres
10.3Acres
6.1Acres
2.1Acres
1.8Acres
1.6Acres 0.9Acres
0.4Acres
0.3Acres
0.1Acres
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011501
UpperCrowdersCreek
PreferredAlternativeRight-of-Way
DirectImpacts
IndirectEdgeEffects
RemainingForestInteriorHabitat
ConservedLand/Parks
Floodplains
NWIWetlands
WaterFeatures
StudyAreaBoundary
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
01,0002,0003,0004,000500
Feet
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
ForestInteriorPatchesM,NandO
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure17
July2010
279
274
R
S
Q
O
P 131.2 Acres
286.5Acres
72.2Acres
64.1Acres
34.6Acres
30.4Acres
28.1Acres
10.3Acres
6.1Acres
2.9Acres
2.1Acres
2.1Acres
0.2Acres
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011505
MillCreek-LakeWylie
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
030501011504
LowerCrowdersCreek
PreferredAlternativeRight-of-Way
DirectImpacts
IndirectEdgeEffects
RemainingForestInteriorHabitat
ConservedLand/Parks
Floodplains
NWIWetlands
WaterFeatures
StudyAreaBoundary
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
01,0002,0003,0004,000500
Feet
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
ForestInteriorPatchesP,QandR
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure18
July2010
279
R
S
UT
286.5Acres
64.1Acres
53Acres
34.6Acres
131.2Acres
24.6Acres
5.9Acres
131.2Acres
0Acres
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
030501011502
CatawbaCreek
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
PreferredAlternativeRight-of-Way
DirectImpacts
IndirectEdgeEffects
RemainingForestInteriorHabitat
ConservedLand/Parks
Floodplains
NWIWetlands
WaterFeatures
StudyAreaBoundary
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
01,0002,0003,0004,000500
Feet
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
ForestInteriorPatchesS,TandU
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure19
July2010
485
DixieRiverRd.
V
W
199.9Acres
85Acres
70.1Acres
50.2Acres
11.6Acres
0.1Acres
030501011406
LakeWylie-CatawbaRiver
030501011404
PawCreek-LakeWylie
030501020605
DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver
PreferredAlternativeRight-of-Way
DirectImpacts
IndirectEdgeEffects
RemainingForestInteriorHabitat
ConservedLand/Parks
Floodplains
NWIWetlands
WaterFeatures
StudyAreaBoundary
StudyAreaHUC12Subwatersheds
01,0002,0003,0004,000500
Feet
GastonEast-WestConnector
IndirectandCumulativeEffectsStudy
ForestInteriorPatchesVandW
TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.
Figure 20
July2010
Appendix A
Interviews
MEMORANDUM
The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 199 Water Street, 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10038
Tel: (212) 612-7900 Fax: (212) 363-4341
Date: June 24, 2010
To: Project File
From: Leo Tidd
Re: Gaston East-West Connector Indirect and Cumulative Effects Study
Subject: Summary of the June 22, 2010 Teleconference with the Rock Hill - Fort Mill
Area Transportation Study (RFATS) and the York County Department of
Planning and Development
Attendees:
• Steve Allen, Planning Services Manager, York County Department of Planning
and Development
• David Hooper, Transportation Planner, RFATS
• Curtis Bridges, Long Range Planner, City of Rock Hill Planning Services
Department
• Chuck Chorak, Senior Planner, City of Rock Hill Development Services
Department (formerly with RFATS).
• Jill Gurak, PBS&J
• Leo Tidd, Louis Berger Group
• Larry Pesesky, Louis Berger Group
The objective of the teleconference was to confirm whether or not the 2035 Metrolina
model TAZ-level forecasts should represent the No Build condition in York County and to
provide a reasonableness check for the land use forecasting results based on the local
area knowledge of the participants. Berger provided the participants with a description of
the household and employment forecasting methodology and maps of the preliminary
results in advance of the meeting.
In the discussion of the No Build condition, Mr. Chorak indicated that he participated in
the original demographic forecasting for the York County portion of the 2025 Metrolina
travel demand model. These original forecasts have been updated with the various
updates to the model, including a reduction in the forecasts for the 2035 model based on
current economic conditions. Mr. Chorak stated that Gaston East-West Connector (or
Garden Parkway) was assumed to be completed in the allocation of future growth to
specific zones in York County. Household and employment growth was added to areas
in northern York County under the assumption that these areas would become more
attractive for development as a result of the project. This means that the potential
1
2
indirect land use effect of the project is already embedded within the 2035 Metrolina
model forecasts. As a result, Berger proposed that the 2035 Metrolina model forecasts
be used as the Build condition for the indirect and cumulative effects assessment. A No
Build scenario with slightly lower growth in northern York County would be estimated
using the gravity model approach. All the participants concurred that it was appropriate
to use the 2035 forecasts as the Build condition and that the indirect effect of the project
was reflected in these forecasts.
The group discussed the growth-inducing potential of the Gaston East-West Connector
project more generally and agreed that factors other than transportation access were
more important in determining the location and magnitude of future development. Mr.
Allen noted that the availability of utilities was very important in determining how much
development could be accommodated in York County. It is uncertain whether the
acquisition of some utility providers by York County will increase or decrease the
expansion of water and sewer service areas in northern York County. It was noted that
York County’s comprehensive plan indicates a desire for northern York County to remain
rural and agricultural in character.
Although the land use forecasting results were to be revised to account for the 2035
forecasts as the Build condition, the group reviewed and discussed the incremental
effect of the project based on the preliminary results that assumed the 2035 forecasts
represented the No Build condition. RFATS and York County representatives stated that
the incremental effect projected with the gravity model approach appeared higher than
they would expect. The two areas in particular where indirect growth effects appeared
too high were around Clover (TAZ 3261) and adjacent to Lake Wylie (TAZ 3268).
York County commented that the 2035 Metrolina model household forecast for TAZ
3276 appeared too high given the rural residential pattern of development expected in
that area. The group concluded that the 2035 Metrolina model household forecast for
TAZ 3275 was lower than expected because a recent development proposal in that TAZ
was not know at the time the updated forecasts were prepared. York County and
RFATS also provided suggestions on improving the readability of the mapping .
MEMORANDUM
The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 199 Water Street, 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10038
Tel: (212) 612-7900 Fax: (212) 363-4341
Date: July 1, 2010
To: Project File
From: Leo Tidd
Re: Gaston East-West Connector Indirect and Cumulative Effects Study
Subject: Summary of the June 25, 2010 Teleconference with the Gaston Urban Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) and the Gaston County
Department of Planning and Development Services
Attendees:
• Hank Graham, Principal Transportation Planner, GUAMPO
• Willie King Jr., Senior Planner, Gaston County
• David Williams, Planning Director, Gaston County
• Jeff Dayton, NCTA
• Jill Gurak, PBS&J
• Leo Tidd, Louis Berger Group
• Larry Pesesky, Louis Berger Group
The objective of the teleconference was to confirm whether or not the 2035 Metrolina
model TAZ-level forecasts should represent the No Build condition in Gaston County
and to provide a reasonableness check for the land use forecasting results based on the
local area knowledge of the participants. Berger provided the participants with a
description of the household and employment forecasting methodology and maps of the
preliminary results in advance of the meeting.
The participants noted that transportation access was not considered the most important
factor in future development patterns and that the majority of development is expected to
occur regardless of whether or not the Gaston East-West Connector is constructed.
However, the participants did agree that the 2035 Metrolina model forecasts should be
used as the Build condition because the indirect effect of the project was reflected in the
household and employment forecasts. The No Build condition would have somewhat
less growth in southern Gaston County than the forecasts. Mr. Graham noted that a five
percent difference in households in the study area between the No Build and Build
conditions seemed reasonable.
Mr. Graham stated that GUAMPO has evaluated the reasonableness of the 2035
household and employment forecasts in light of the economic recession. They have
1
2
concluded that the forecasts remain reasonable for now, but may need to be
reconsidered in a few years depending on economic trends.
Mr. Graham provided an overview of infrastructure projects in addition to the Gaston
East-West connector that were specifically considered in making the TAZ-level
household and employment forecasts. The forecasts for southern Gaston County
assume that water and sewer service capacity will be expanded in the future, so the
availability of utilities is not a constraint on growth in this area. The planning effort for a
countywide water and sewer authority was discussed. Other projects considered in the
land use forecasting conducted by GUAMPO include the proposed Gastonia Multimodal
Center, passenger rail service between Gastonia and Charlotte, and the employment
growth associated with the intermodal freight facility at the Charlotte Douglas
International Airport.
MEMORANDUM
The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 199 Water Street, 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10038
Tel: (212) 612-7900 Fax: (212) 363-4341
Date: July 2, 2010
To: Project File
From: Leo Tidd
Re: Gaston East-West Connector Indirect and Cumulative Effects Study
Subject: Summary of the July 2, 2010 Teleconference with the Mecklenburg-Union
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) and the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Planning Department
Attendees:
• Bob Cook, MUMPO
• Kent Main, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department
• Jeff Dayton, NCTA
• Leo Tidd, Louis Berger Group
• Larry Pesesky, Louis Berger Group
The objective of the teleconference was to confirm whether or not the 2035 Metrolina
model TAZ-level forecasts should represent the No Build condition in Mecklenburg
County and to provide a reasonableness check for the land use forecasting results
based on the local area knowledge of the participants. Berger provided the participants
with a description of the household and employment forecasting methodology and maps
of the preliminary results in advance of the meeting.
Mr. Cook stated that the Gaston East-West connector and associated land use effects
were considered by MUMPO in making the 2035 forecasts for the Metrolina model. The
participants agreed that the 2035 Metrolina model forecasts should be used as the Build
condition because the indirect effect of the project was reflected in the household and
employment forecasts. Mr. Cook noted that the forecasting approach is consistent
between the various MPOs in the study area.
The participants noted that the preliminary indirect effects analysis results for the
Mecklenburg County portion of the study area show little change between the No Build
and Build condition and the direction of the change is downward (e.g. lower household
and employment levels in western Mecklenburg County in the Build condition compared
to the No Build). Berger explained that the gravity model approach redistributes growth
based on accessibility to employment centers. The gravity model results show southern
Gaston County and northern York County receiving the largest increase in accessibility
1
2
East-West Connector would not substantially affect
nd use in Mecklenburg County.
from the project, and as a result the majority of the indirect land use effects are
concentrated in these areas. Mecklenburg County has a well established transportation
network and would not experience as large a change in accessibility. As a result, the
gravity model approach shifts a small portion of the growth projected for Mecklenburg
County and other areas in the Metrolina model to southern Gaston and northern York
counties. The participants agreed the results appeared reasonable and consistent with
their expectation that the Gaston
la
Appendix B
Household and Employment Forecasts
This appendix provides the 2005 and 2035 (No Build and Build) household and
employment estimates for the ICE study area. A key to the field names used in the data
table is provided below. The household and employment results presented in the table
are unrounded.
Field Name Explanation
TAZ Metrolina model Traffic Analysis Zone ID.
TAZ_Acres
Calculated acreage of the Metrolina model
TAZ. The portion of the TAZ within the
study area may be less than this total—see
the Sub Zone Acres field.
State 37= North Carolina
45= South Carolina
County
45= Cleveland
71= Gaston
91= York
119= Mecklenburg
HUC12 Hydrologic Unit Code 12 watershed name
Sub Zone ID
See Section 2.1.5 of the report for the
explanation of how the Metrolina model
TAZs were split into smaller zones based
on watershed boundaries.
Sub Zone_Acres
Calculated acreage of sub zone. Note that
zones displayed as “zero” indicate zones
with an area of less than 0.5 acres.
HH_2005 2005 Households
NB_HH_2035 2035 No Build Households
B_HH_2035 2035 Build Households
EMP_2005 2005 Employment
NB_EMP_2035 2035 No Build Employment
B_EMP_2035 2035 Build Employment
TA
Z
T
A
Z
_
A
c
r
e
s
S
t
a
t
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
HU
C
1
2
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
I
D
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
_
A
c
r
e
s
H
H
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
E
M
P
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
20
0
1
1
4
9
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
5
1
1
6
3
7
5
0
4
7
2
2
2
4
2
4
20
0
2
8
4
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
5
2
2
0
3
3
2
3
2
7
2
7
20
0
3
9
9
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
5
0
9
9
8
2
9
0
8
9
6
3
2
7
8
1
7
8
1
20
0
4
8
5
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
4
9
7
9
3
6
4
1
4
1
1
,
7
2
8
1
,
7
5
5
1
,
7
5
5
20
0
6
2
5
4
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
5
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
20
0
7
1
2
5
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
8
8
6
4
5
5
7
7
7
20
0
8
3
5
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
8
7
3
5
9
1
0
1
0
1
8
8
2
2
0
2
2
0
20
0
9
4
4
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
8
6
4
4
1
1
9
9
2
1
1
2
4
5
2
4
5
20
1
0
4
8
9
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
4
4
1
4
1
6
1
6
1
6
3
6
3
9
3
9
20
1
0
4
8
9
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
4
5
4
7
6
5
4
7
5
5
9
5
5
6
1
,
2
6
5
1
,
3
6
9
1
,
3
5
1
20
1
1
1
4
8
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
4
8
1
4
8
2
9
4
3
1
8
3
1
5
2
6
6
2
7
8
2
7
7
20
1
2
3
6
6
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
0
5
3
6
6
6
4
5
7
2
1
7
1
3
1
,
2
1
8
1
,
4
0
2
1
,
3
9
5
20
1
3
4
3
4
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
2
0
6
8
1
5
1
5
1
5
6
7
7
20
1
3
4
3
4
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
0
7
4
2
6
8
2
6
8
3
1
8
3
1
3
4
7
3
7
5
3
7
5
20
1
4
1
1
2
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
1
0
1
1
2
2
9
0
4
9
2
4
9
2
4
4
4
6
4
6
20
1
5
1
4
9
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
2
0
8
3
7
8
8
2
2
2
20
1
5
1
4
9
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
0
9
1
4
6
3
4
9
3
7
6
3
7
5
9
5
9
9
9
9
20
1
6
6
5
0
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
5
8
6
3
6
1
,
0
4
8
1
,
2
8
1
1
,
2
8
7
3
5
6
4
4
5
4
5
2
20
1
6
6
5
0
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
5
9
1
4
2
3
2
8
2
8
8
1
0
1
0
20
1
7
6
7
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
1
1
6
0
7
4
9
2
9
0
2
4
2
2
8
8
2
8
7
20
1
8
2
4
0
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
2
1
2
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
20
1
8
2
4
0
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
1
3
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
20
1
9
1
3
0
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
1
5
3
1
5
9
7
4
7
1
4
4
4
6
4
6
20
2
2
1
8
7
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
2
1
4
1
2
1
7
2
2
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
20
2
3
2
2
8
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
6
4
1
7
6
2
1
3
2
5
8
2
5
0
2
1
1
2
2
6
2
2
4
20
2
3
2
2
8
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
6
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
20
2
4
5
6
6
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
6
0
5
5
5
8
0
7
8
8
3
8
7
8
5
2
4
6
6
3
6
6
3
20
2
4
5
6
6
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
6
1
1
1
1
6
1
8
1
8
1
1
1
3
1
3
20
2
5
4
4
8
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
6
2
4
4
8
5
5
3
7
5
1
7
3
1
4
3
7
8
5
2
8
3
9
20
2
6
8
0
8
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
0
6
8
0
8
2
6
3
5
7
6
5
7
5
3
3
2
5
6
1
5
7
4
20
2
7
9
2
9
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
0
5
9
2
9
8
0
6
1
,
1
3
0
1
,
2
2
8
1
5
0
1
5
4
1
5
5
20
2
8
5
4
3
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
5
6
5
0
7
6
0
5
9
1
5
9
6
1
5
8
1
6
1
8
6
2
5
20
2
8
5
4
3
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
5
7
3
5
4
2
6
4
6
7
4
1
4
3
4
4
20
2
9
2
3
1
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
2
0
2
5
7
8
8
1
0
1
1
1
1
20
2
9
2
3
1
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
2
0
3
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
20
2
9
2
3
1
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
0
4
2
2
5
3
3
4
3
7
8
3
7
9
4
9
5
5
3
4
5
3
8
20
3
0
3
1
9
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
3
0
3
1
9
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
5
2
3
1
8
2
6
0
3
5
5
3
7
2
1
0
9
1
1
2
1
1
3
20
3
0
3
1
9
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
5
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
20
3
1
8
4
7
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
4
9
2
3
2
2
3
1
3
2
8
1
0
1
0
20
3
1
8
4
7
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
5
0
8
2
4
7
9
4
1
,
1
1
9
1
,
1
5
5
2
9
1
3
4
5
3
5
4
20
3
2
1
2
1
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
0
0
1
2
1
2
9
3
3
1
0
3
1
0
2
5
6
2
6
6
2
6
7
20
3
3
7
7
3
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
4
8
7
7
3
9
5
8
1
,
1
1
5
1
,
1
1
9
3
5
4
3
6
9
3
7
0
20
3
4
6
4
1
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
9
8
4
6
7
7
0
0
0
20
3
4
6
4
1
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
9
9
6
3
7
9
9
7
1
,
1
4
5
1
,
1
3
6
7
9
8
2
8
2
20
3
5
5
2
0
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
9
5
5
2
0
3
4
8
1
,
1
6
2
1
,
1
8
7
9
9
1
7
9
1
8
7
20
3
6
5
5
6
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
4
2
5
3
0
5
4
7
5
9
7
5
9
0
7
7
5
8
3
7
8
3
3
20
3
6
5
5
6
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
4
3
2
6
2
6
2
8
2
8
3
7
4
0
4
0
20
3
7
2
8
2
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
4
6
2
6
7
1
5
8
1
8
9
1
8
2
5
4
3
6
8
1
6
5
8
20
3
7
2
8
2
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
4
7
1
5
9
1
0
1
0
3
1
3
9
3
8
20
3
8
3
1
6
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
8
4
2
2
3
6
5
5
6
8
7
6
7
8
4
2
7
4
5
2
4
4
6
20
3
8
3
1
6
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
8
5
9
0
2
6
4
2
7
7
2
7
3
1
7
2
1
8
2
1
8
0
20
3
9
1
1
8
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
3
4
1
1
1
8
1
4
6
1
5
0
1
4
9
4
4
1
4
6
5
4
6
0
20
4
0
4
4
8
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
3
4
0
4
3
9
6
7
2
5
9
2
5
1
4
,
7
7
9
5
,
2
1
7
5
,
2
2
6
20
4
1
1
8
2
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
8
3
1
8
2
3
0
3
0
3
0
1
,
2
3
0
1
,
4
4
3
1
,
4
4
3
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
7
TA
Z
T
A
Z
_
A
c
r
e
s
S
t
a
t
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
HU
C
1
2
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
I
D
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
_
A
c
r
e
s
H
H
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
E
M
P
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
20
4
2
8
1
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
8
2
8
1
0
0
0
1
,
0
1
5
1
,
0
4
5
1
,
0
4
5
20
4
3
2
5
3
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
3
4
2
2
5
3
2
2
7
2
6
6
2
5
7
2
4
5
5
1
9
4
7
0
20
4
4
3
3
2
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
3
3
8
3
3
2
1
1
9
1
3
9
1
3
3
2
,
3
4
2
2
,
4
7
5
2
,
4
4
4
20
4
5
5
6
1
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
8
1
5
6
1
8
3
4
9
2
1
9
0
0
2
6
3
2
7
6
2
7
4
20
4
6
9
8
5
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
9
3
1
2
1
5
1
9
1
9
2
8
8
20
4
6
9
8
5
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
9
4
9
7
3
1
,
2
3
4
1
,
5
5
7
1
,
5
4
2
1
9
3
6
3
7
6
5
3
20
4
7
8
8
0
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
4
0
8
8
0
8
7
6
1
,
1
6
3
1
,
0
9
9
6
4
6
8
6
7
20
4
7
8
8
0
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
20
4
8
5
7
0
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
8
0
5
7
0
5
1
0
7
7
8
7
1
9
3
4
4
4
1
4
4
0
4
20
4
9
1
4
1
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
3
4
4
1
4
1
9
8
1
8
1
1
5
8
1
5
8
3
0
8
2
7
6
20
5
0
6
1
4
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
9
3
6
1
4
3
0
8
4
0
9
3
9
5
3
9
6
5
2
2
5
1
3
20
5
1
2
1
9
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
9
2
2
1
2
2
0
5
5
4
9
5
4
6
4
0
8
4
6
3
4
6
6
20
5
2
5
1
2
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
9
1
1
0
1
1
1
4
1
4
7
1
1
1
1
20
5
3
3
0
3
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
9
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
20
5
4
5
8
2
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
8
9
1
1
1
4
1
6
1
5
1
0
1
0
1
0
20
5
7
4
8
9
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
5
8
2
3
6
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
5
5
1
6
4
1
0
1
5
1
5
0
0
0
20
5
9
1
4
8
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
1
7
6
5
6
9
9
0
0
0
20
6
0
1
,
6
3
0
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
1
8
1
,
6
1
6
1
7
0
2
8
0
2
9
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
20
6
1
1
,
2
0
3
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
5
6
1
,
1
4
5
1
2
8
4
2
0
3
9
1
9
2
9
6
9
6
20
6
2
6
7
6
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
5
7
6
6
6
2
2
2
4
6
5
4
7
5
8
3
9
4
3
20
6
3
5
9
1
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
5
8
5
9
1
1
4
3
3
7
4
3
3
6
1
7
9
7
5
9
7
0
1
20
6
4
5
2
7
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
9
4
5
2
7
4
4
7
5
1
4
4
9
2
2
3
7
5
5
8
4
7
1
20
6
5
2
8
5
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
3
3
7
2
8
5
1
4
8
2
0
2
1
8
4
1
8
8
1
9
9
1
9
6
20
6
6
3
7
8
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
7
9
3
7
8
2
4
5
4
1
4
3
7
5
3
,
5
3
2
3
,
8
1
4
3
,
7
6
5
20
6
7
6
0
5
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
3
9
6
0
5
6
6
3
8
9
2
8
8
2
3
3
4
5
7
4
5
8
0
20
6
8
5
7
9
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
8
8
5
6
9
1
9
0
3
5
1
3
7
1
9
7
1
3
5
1
4
2
20
6
8
5
7
9
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
8
9
1
1
4
7
7
2
3
3
20
6
9
6
9
6
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
9
1
6
7
3
3
7
0
1
,
0
9
6
1
,
0
5
1
4
1
1
6
7
6
6
7
8
20
6
9
6
9
6
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
9
2
2
3
1
3
3
8
3
6
1
4
2
3
2
3
20
7
0
4
5
3
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
4
2
7
3
1
0
1
0
2
4
4
20
7
0
4
5
3
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
4
3
4
4
6
2
2
6
6
2
3
6
3
5
1
1
0
2
6
3
2
7
7
20
7
1
8
6
7
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
4
1
8
6
7
7
9
8
1
,
1
6
9
1
,
1
8
2
4
7
4
9
4
9
20
7
2
9
4
5
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
4
4
2
2
1
6
2
3
2
5
6
6
6
20
7
2
9
4
5
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
4
5
9
2
4
6
7
5
9
8
5
1
,
0
5
3
2
5
4
2
7
3
2
7
8
20
7
3
1
,
2
3
3
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
9
5
6
4
6
7
1
1
1
20
7
3
1
,
2
3
3
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
9
6
1
,
2
2
7
8
1
2
1
,
3
2
4
1
,
4
7
4
2
1
8
2
5
8
2
7
0
20
7
4
3
0
4
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
4
6
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
20
7
4
3
0
4
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
4
7
2
8
6
9
1
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
2
1
20
7
5
1
,
2
9
5
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
9
9
1
,
2
5
4
3
8
7
1
,
7
6
7
2
,
0
5
8
3
2
1
4
6
5
4
9
7
20
7
5
1
,
2
9
5
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
0
0
4
1
1
3
5
7
6
7
1
1
1
5
1
6
20
7
6
2
5
9
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
0
3
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
20
7
6
2
5
9
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
0
4
2
5
8
1
6
8
2
3
9
2
6
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
20
7
7
4
6
9
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
5
4
4
4
5
4
6
0
6
3
2
6
9
2
1
7
9
1
8
5
1
8
7
20
7
7
4
6
9
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
5
5
2
4
2
5
3
5
3
8
1
0
1
0
1
0
20
7
8
7
4
7
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
0
1
5
3
0
2
8
8
4
4
3
5
2
0
1
1
7
1
2
1
1
2
2
20
7
8
7
4
7
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
0
2
2
1
8
1
1
8
1
8
2
2
1
3
4
8
4
9
5
0
20
7
9
1
,
1
2
7
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
7
1
1
,
1
2
7
2
2
0
3
2
6
3
5
0
1
4
1
4
1
4
20
8
0
6
8
2
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
7
2
6
8
2
1
0
0
1
6
4
1
6
5
6
2
6
5
6
5
20
8
1
1
,
1
2
8
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
7
3
1
,
1
2
8
4
0
2
8
2
3
7
6
9
9
3
9
7
9
7
20
8
2
8
0
5
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
7
4
8
0
5
1
8
7
3
2
3
3
0
1
6
1
6
4
6
4
20
8
3
3
,
0
8
0
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
4
0
2
,
8
0
9
4
9
2
7
3
6
6
9
1
4
4
4
6
4
6
20
8
3
3
,
0
8
0
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
4
1
2
7
1
4
7
7
1
6
7
4
4
4
20
8
4
1
,
1
2
4
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
7
0
1
,
1
2
4
6
9
3
8
4
2
8
8
4
1
2
3
1
3
9
1
4
3
20
8
5
1
,
2
7
5
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
6
5
7
1
0
1
2
9
1
7
1
1
9
8
8
1
8
9
5
6
1
,
0
5
2
Pa
g
e
2
o
f
7
TA
Z
T
A
Z
_
A
c
r
e
s
S
t
a
t
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
HU
C
1
2
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
I
D
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
_
A
c
r
e
s
H
H
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
E
M
P
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
20
8
5
1
,
2
7
5
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
6
6
5
6
5
1
0
3
1
3
5
1
5
7
6
5
1
7
6
0
8
3
6
20
8
6
1
,
6
2
1
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
6
7
1
,
6
2
1
7
9
2
1
,
0
8
6
1
,
2
4
9
6
1
1
1
1
6
6
20
8
7
1
,
9
5
9
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
9
7
1
,
9
1
6
7
7
2
9
3
3
1
,
0
4
8
1
3
1
1
3
5
1
3
7
20
8
7
1
,
9
5
9
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
9
8
4
3
1
7
2
1
2
4
3
3
3
20
8
8
2
,
4
7
1
3
7
7
1
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
9
3
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
20
8
8
2
,
4
7
1
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
9
4
2
,
4
7
0
3
6
5
1
,
6
8
3
2
,
2
8
5
2
5
4
4
3
5
5
1
1
20
8
9
1
,
4
0
4
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
3
9
3
5
1
1
2
2
2
4
5
6
6
20
8
9
1
,
4
0
4
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
4
0
1
,
3
6
9
4
1
9
8
7
5
9
5
9
2
1
2
2
3
0
2
3
4
20
9
0
1
,
1
2
4
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
3
7
1
,
1
1
4
2
1
9
1
,
2
6
1
1
,
3
6
0
1
9
0
3
1
4
3
3
2
20
9
0
1
,
1
2
4
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
3
8
1
0
2
1
2
1
3
2
3
3
20
9
1
1
,
7
2
5
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
8
7
1
,
7
1
8
5
3
7
1
,
8
1
3
1
,
9
6
2
8
8
2
9
9
3
2
9
20
9
2
4
5
5
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
9
0
4
5
5
1
3
5
2
7
0
2
6
8
1
0
1
1
0
5
1
0
5
20
9
3
4
6
6
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
3
8
4
6
6
2
0
6
7
8
6
7
7
4
5
8
3
0
1
3
1
6
20
9
4
1
,
1
7
5
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
8
5
3
1
3
3
0
1
1
20
9
4
1
,
1
7
5
3
7
7
1
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
8
6
2
1
2
2
0
1
1
20
9
5
4
0
9
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
3
6
7
9
1
0
1
0
7
1
0
1
0
20
9
6
5
2
5
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
3
7
5
1
3
6
1
5
7
5
1
7
4
1
2
2
1
2
4
0
2
4
0
20
9
7
3
6
0
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
7
7
3
2
3
3
6
7
4
9
4
4
6
5
2
7
7
2
9
1
2
8
8
20
9
9
2
5
2
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
8
9
9
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
7
8
8
9
1
4
9
8
1
,
4
6
0
1
,
1
6
6
7
1
1
9
4
9
8
9
2
21
0
3
8
2
5
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
9
6
4
0
3
0
5
3
4
8
2
4
1
1
0
9
6
21
0
4
5
8
8
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
9
5
4
0
8
1
9
1
2
6
0
2
4
8
6
2
2
9
0
6
8
7
3
21
0
5
1
,
0
0
5
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
5
9
9
7
1
8
3
1
1
,
0
4
8
1
,
0
3
6
3
7
3
8
3
8
21
0
7
7
7
5
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
2
0
1
4
1
2
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
21
0
8
6
6
1
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
6
0
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
21
1
2
1
,
8
4
3
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
6
8
4
2
5
5
0
1
1
21
1
3
7
7
7
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
1
9
1
0
4
5
5
7
8
8
21
2
8
1
,
1
9
7
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
3
4
9
5
0
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
1
0
9
1
1
1
2
1
2
6
2
5
21
3
5
3
7
0
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
6
6
4
2
2
2
7
8
8
21
3
6
2
9
7
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
6
3
2
7
9
3
3
1
4
7
3
4
4
1
4
2
5
4
9
7
4
8
5
21
3
7
2
2
1
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
7
5
2
2
1
7
7
1
7
8
1
5
7
8
4
3
5
6
3
1
7
21
3
8
5
9
9
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
0
8
5
6
1
7
6
9
6
9
1
5
4
3
7
8
1
7
3
8
21
3
9
8
0
4
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
7
7
8
0
4
1
6
8
3
9
6
3
4
4
9
7
1
,
4
3
4
1
,
1
9
9
21
4
0
1
,
3
8
1
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
0
9
2
3
7
1
4
1
3
6
1
1
1
0
21
4
2
1
,
7
0
4
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
1
1
3
8
2
5
3
7
3
5
2
6
3
3
3
2
21
4
3
2
,
0
2
4
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
4
4
1
,
1
5
8
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
0
0
0
21
4
5
1
,
6
6
0
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
7
8
1
,
6
2
7
3
0
7
5
1
6
4
8
1
4
1
2
1
9
2
0
0
21
4
6
1
,
4
9
3
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
7
6
1
,
4
9
3
5
7
3
9
6
9
8
8
0
3
5
6
3
,
5
0
2
2
,
9
6
3
21
4
7
7
9
4
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
4
4
7
9
4
2
0
2
2
8
4
2
6
7
1
3
7
5
2
1
4
6
7
21
4
8
2
2
7
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
2
0
1
2
2
7
4
2
5
3
6
6
3
6
8
1
8
8
1
9
6
1
9
6
21
4
9
7
8
9
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
9
6
1
7
3
9
3
6
3
6
1
7
1
8
1
8
21
4
9
7
8
9
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
9
7
7
7
2
1
,
7
5
6
1
,
6
2
1
1
,
6
3
5
7
5
4
7
9
9
7
9
8
21
5
0
3
1
4
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
0
7
3
1
4
2
0
5
3
7
4
3
5
9
7
0
7
3
7
3
21
5
1
5
7
4
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
6
4
5
7
4
4
5
1
2
5
1
7
9
4
4
4
21
5
2
1
,
1
3
3
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
3
1
4
2
5
3
7
8
2
1
1
0
2
2
6
4
8
9
21
5
2
1
,
1
3
3
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
3
2
7
0
8
6
3
1
3
7
1
8
3
3
8
1
0
8
1
4
9
21
5
3
6
2
5
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
6
8
6
0
4
9
0
1
8
2
2
2
6
1
1
1
21
5
3
6
2
5
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
6
9
2
1
3
6
8
0
0
0
21
5
4
1
,
4
1
9
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
3
6
6
9
6
1
4
4
2
1
2
2
3
1
7
7
7
21
5
4
1
,
4
1
9
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
3
7
7
2
4
1
4
9
2
2
1
2
4
0
8
8
8
21
5
5
1
,
8
2
6
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
3
8
1
3
2
3
3
0
0
0
21
5
5
1
,
8
2
6
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
3
9
1
,
8
1
3
3
1
2
4
8
0
4
6
4
1
5
1
5
1
5
21
5
6
2
4
3
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
3
3
2
4
3
1
5
2
4
3
0
1
2
2
1
2
5
1
2
7
Pa
g
e
3
o
f
7
TA
Z
T
A
Z
_
A
c
r
e
s
S
t
a
t
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
HU
C
1
2
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
I
D
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
_
A
c
r
e
s
H
H
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
E
M
P
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
21
5
7
7
3
1
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
4
2
7
2
2
7
9
1
,
7
9
0
1
,
7
9
0
0
0
0
21
5
7
7
3
1
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
4
3
9
1
2
4
2
4
0
0
0
21
7
0
3
,
0
8
7
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
6
7
3
4
6
8
6
1
5
4
1
6
5
6
7
7
21
7
5
3
,
3
6
7
3
7
7
1
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
2
9
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
21
7
5
3
,
3
6
7
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
3
0
1
,
1
3
4
1
6
2
3
0
6
4
3
2
6
7
1
5
5
2
3
0
21
7
5
3
,
3
6
7
3
7
7
1
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
3
1
2
,
0
3
2
2
9
0
5
4
7
7
7
3
1
2
0
2
7
9
4
1
3
21
7
6
1
,
5
0
6
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
3
5
1
,
4
9
2
3
6
2
7
1
4
9
1
1
7
8
3
8
7
5
5
7
21
7
6
1
,
5
0
6
3
7
7
1
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
3
6
1
0
2
5
6
1
3
4
21
7
7
1
,
7
7
5
3
7
7
1
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
3
2
7
1
2
3
0
1
1
21
7
7
1
,
7
7
5
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
3
3
1
,
7
5
0
3
6
0
6
2
7
8
1
8
3
5
2
1
0
3
2
5
21
7
7
1
,
7
7
5
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
1
3
4
1
8
4
7
9
0
2
3
21
7
8
2
,
3
1
8
3
7
7
1
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
8
8
3
4
4
4
7
2
2
5
3
4
1
1
3
5
2
7
5
21
7
8
2
,
3
1
8
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
8
9
2
5
3
3
4
1
6
6
2
0
3
9
3
8
4
5
21
7
8
2
,
3
1
8
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
9
0
1
,
7
2
1
2
3
5
1
,
1
2
7
1
,
7
0
8
6
3
2
5
8
3
7
5
21
7
9
1
,
7
8
5
3
7
7
1
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
7
9
1
,
7
8
5
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
9
2
1
,
7
8
5
2
8
5
5
2
6
5
8
5
2
5
2
6
2
6
21
8
0
1
,
7
0
6
3
7
7
1
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
5
9
5
7
9
1
9
2
5
1
1
1
1
6
21
8
0
1
,
7
0
6
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
6
0
1
,
6
4
8
2
7
4
5
5
0
7
1
1
1
8
2
8
9
4
4
7
21
8
1
2
,
3
7
2
3
7
7
1
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
5
6
1
,
8
0
1
3
0
4
5
0
7
6
3
7
5
6
2
1
0
21
8
1
2
,
3
7
2
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
5
7
5
0
9
8
6
1
4
3
1
8
0
1
6
6
0
21
8
1
2
,
3
7
2
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
5
8
6
2
1
0
1
8
2
2
2
1
0
21
8
2
1
,
1
6
2
3
7
7
1
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
6
1
7
1
2
0
0
0
0
21
8
2
1
,
1
6
2
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
6
2
1
,
1
5
4
1
5
5
2
7
8
3
4
0
1
9
1
9
1
9
21
8
2
1
,
1
6
2
3
7
7
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
6
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
8
3
1
,
0
1
0
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
3
4
2
7
1
3
4
1
1
1
21
8
3
1
,
0
1
0
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
3
5
9
8
3
5
2
1
1
6
1
4
6
2
6
2
7
2
7
21
8
4
1
6
0
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
3
3
9
1
6
0
1
1
9
1
4
6
1
4
1
2
0
2
4
8
6
4
5
8
21
8
5
4
3
6
3
7
7
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
3
4
3
4
3
6
2
3
4
8
8
2
7
8
3
6
3
4
9
8
4
6
1
21
8
6
1
,
4
2
4
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
6
1
,
2
7
4
7
9
2
5
3
2
0
9
0
0
0
21
8
7
7
3
0
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
4
7
3
0
1
0
7
1
7
7
2
1
2
0
0
0
21
8
8
2
,
8
8
0
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
5
2
,
8
8
0
1
9
8
4
2
7
4
0
8
4
4
4
21
9
0
1
,
8
4
2
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
6
4
0
1
1
9
2
4
2
4
1
1
1
21
9
0
1
,
8
4
2
3
7
7
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
7
1
,
2
2
0
5
7
8
6
8
1
2
2
2
21
9
1
1
,
9
8
2
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
1
4
8
6
1
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
22
3
6
1
,
5
6
6
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
8
1
,
4
8
4
1
1
3
4
2
3
3
5
1
1
0
7
2
6
2
22
3
8
2
1
7
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
7
9
2
0
3
1
8
7
3
0
5
2
7
3
5
5
7
7
7
2
22
3
9
4
4
8
3
7
7
1
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
4
5
4
4
8
1
0
8
2
6
3
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
0
32
5
7
5
,
6
1
2
4
5
9
1
B
e
a
v
e
r
d
a
m
C
r
e
e
k
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
5
7
5
,
6
1
2
4
5
9
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
4
5
,
4
6
5
3
2
6
4
8
8
5
0
3
1
4
4
2
1
9
2
3
1
32
5
8
1
5
,
6
0
5
4
5
9
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
2
7
0
1
1
0
0
0
32
6
0
5
,
1
4
1
4
5
9
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
5
1
5
1
2
2
0
0
0
32
6
1
8
,
9
7
2
4
5
9
1
B
e
a
v
e
r
d
a
m
C
r
e
e
k
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
1
3
,
0
2
0
8
3
5
1
,
2
0
1
1
,
3
9
3
9
2
5
1
,
2
9
4
1
,
4
8
7
32
6
2
2
,
8
8
0
4
5
9
1
B
e
a
v
e
r
d
a
m
C
r
e
e
k
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
2
6
5
0
1
3
4
1
9
4
2
2
6
9
2
6
3
5
32
6
2
2
,
8
8
0
4
5
9
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
3
2
,
2
1
7
4
5
6
6
6
1
7
7
0
2
9
9
0
1
1
9
32
6
6
4
,
8
0
3
4
5
9
1
B
e
a
v
e
r
d
a
m
C
r
e
e
k
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
3
4
,
7
1
7
4
0
7
6
6
2
7
5
0
4
1
8
7
3
3
8
3
8
32
6
6
4
,
8
0
3
4
5
9
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
2
4
8
5
7
1
2
1
4
8
1
3
1
5
32
6
7
8
,
0
5
2
4
5
9
1
B
e
a
v
e
r
d
a
m
C
r
e
e
k
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
1
1
8
2
4
4
1
2
2
32
6
7
8
,
0
5
2
4
5
9
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
2
2
4
1
6
5
1
7
9
8
7
2
9
4
2
4
5
32
6
8
5
,
1
6
3
4
5
9
1
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
5
2
4
,
7
0
2
1
,
0
2
6
1
,
4
7
7
1
,
7
6
4
1
,
0
3
1
1
,
2
2
7
1
,
3
4
5
32
6
8
5
,
1
6
3
4
5
9
1
D
u
h
a
r
t
s
C
r
e
e
k
-
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
5
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
6
8
5
,
1
6
3
4
5
9
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
5
4
1
8
4
6
7
4
5
5
32
6
8
5
,
1
6
3
4
5
9
1
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
C
r
e
e
k
5
5
4
4
2
9
7
1
3
9
1
6
6
9
7
1
1
6
1
2
7
32
6
9
1
,
8
8
5
4
5
9
1
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
5
0
9
5
3
6
9
6
1
,
0
8
8
1
,
1
7
4
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
8
3
32
6
9
1
,
8
8
5
4
5
9
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
5
1
9
3
2
6
8
1
1
,
0
6
4
1
,
1
4
8
2
2
8
4
2
3
4
7
2
32
7
0
6
,
7
8
7
4
5
9
1
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
4
8
5
1
1
1
0
0
0
Pa
g
e
4
o
f
7
TA
Z
T
A
Z
_
A
c
r
e
s
S
t
a
t
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
HU
C
1
2
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
I
D
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
_
A
c
r
e
s
H
H
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
E
M
P
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
32
7
0
6
,
7
8
7
4
5
9
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
4
9
1
,
1
1
9
1
4
4
2
0
9
2
3
9
1
2
3
7
4
9
32
7
5
5
,
9
1
5
4
5
9
1
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
5
1
0
1
2
2
1
1
1
32
7
5
5
,
9
1
5
4
5
9
1
B
e
a
v
e
r
d
a
m
C
r
e
e
k
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
6
3
,
7
1
7
3
7
5
6
1
9
6
8
2
3
3
4
4
5
7
4
9
0
32
7
5
5
,
9
1
5
4
5
9
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
2
7
2
,
0
4
8
2
0
6
3
4
1
3
7
6
1
8
4
2
5
2
2
7
0
32
7
6
6
,
0
6
3
4
5
9
1
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
8
1
,
1
6
1
1
4
8
2
2
0
2
4
9
4
9
1
1
32
7
6
6
,
0
6
3
4
5
9
1
B
e
a
v
e
r
d
a
m
C
r
e
e
k
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
9
4
4
6
8
9
0
0
0
32
7
6
6
,
0
6
3
4
5
9
1
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
3
0
4
,
8
5
7
6
1
9
9
2
4
1
,
0
4
3
1
7
4
0
4
8
41
0
6
3
3
9
3
7
4
5
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
8
2
3
3
4
2
5
2
3
6
2
3
2
9
5
7
8
5
7
8
41
0
7
1
8
0
3
7
4
5
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
1
5
4
1
2
2
1
5
4
41
0
8
1
8
3
3
7
4
5
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
8
0
1
8
3
1
5
2
2
6
4
2
3
0
8
4
1
0
1
9
7
41
0
9
1
5
7
3
7
4
5
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
4
7
1
5
7
1
4
7
2
6
2
2
2
5
4
7
6
1
5
7
41
1
0
1
2
2
3
7
4
5
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
8
1
1
2
1
1
4
0
2
5
3
2
1
7
1
5
6
1
5
2
1
5
3
41
1
1
2
9
1
3
7
4
5
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
8
3
6
4
6
5
3
4
4
41
1
5
3
2
0
3
7
4
5
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
4
6
2
8
7
3
4
6
3
9
7
3
8
1
1
4
3
2
5
0
2
2
2
41
1
6
3
1
1
3
7
4
5
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
9
2
8
9
1
5
4
1
7
3
1
6
7
3
1
8
4
7
0
4
3
1
41
1
7
5
9
1
3
7
4
5
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
2
0
1
4
6
6
6
1
6
2
2
2
1
41
2
3
1
,
8
0
1
3
7
4
5
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
3
5
1
,
8
1
0
3
7
4
5
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
9
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
41
3
6
1
,
6
6
5
3
7
4
5
U
p
p
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
7
3
8
2
2
4
9
5
7
4
1
6
0
1
9
6
1
8
7
41
3
6
1
,
6
6
5
3
7
4
5
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
8
6
2
4
1
5
1
2
2
6
3
1
3
0
41
3
7
3
,
3
1
7
3
7
4
5
L
o
w
e
r
C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
2
4
0
1
1
0
0
0
10
5
7
7
4
3
0
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
5
8
1
4
8
2
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
6
4
7
1
1
1
3
2
2
10
5
8
4
6
4
9
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
5
8
7
7
0
3
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
2
1
3
0
6
4
1
3
6
3
4
3
8
3
8
10
5
8
8
7
6
6
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
7
3
6
3
4
3
7
1
1
,
0
3
2
1
,
0
0
1
1
,
4
6
2
1
,
9
0
5
1
,
9
0
2
10
5
8
9
1
,
2
1
9
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
7
6
1
,
2
1
6
6
2
5
9
2
2
9
0
9
1
3
1
2
,
2
2
2
2
,
2
1
3
10
5
9
0
2
0
7
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
2
3
2
0
7
7
5
1
4
9
1
4
2
2
10
5
9
1
1
,
0
1
5
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
2
2
1
,
0
0
4
1
0
9
5
3
7
4
7
5
1
3
9
3
4
5
3
2
3
10
5
9
2
6
8
6
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
2
6
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
10
5
9
2
6
8
6
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
2
7
6
6
2
6
3
7
4
7
1
1
7
8
2
,
0
1
2
1
,
5
1
7
10
5
9
3
1
7
6
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
2
4
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
10
5
9
3
1
7
6
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
2
5
1
7
2
3
4
6
5
3
1
1
2
0
10
5
9
9
2
6
1
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
6
5
1
0
0
0
2
2
2
10
6
0
0
2
,
4
6
0
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
6
6
1
1
0
0
0
0
6
1
2
9
0
7
8
8
2
10
6
0
0
2
,
4
6
0
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
6
7
1
0
0
0
5
8
8
10
6
0
1
9
4
7
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
2
8
9
2
8
1
4
5
6
0
0
6
0
8
3
9
1
2
,
3
7
2
2
,
4
8
4
10
6
0
1
9
4
7
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
2
2
9
1
6
2
8
8
7
3
2
3
3
10
6
0
2
8
1
3
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
3
1
8
1
3
2
1
8
4
3
9
4
4
4
3
1
1
7
5
7
7
8
5
10
6
0
3
3
0
9
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
6
8
2
9
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
7
4
1
2
6
1
2
4
10
6
0
4
5
1
4
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
8
0
9
0
1
3
1
5
1
0
0
10
6
0
4
5
1
4
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
8
1
5
0
4
2
1
7
0
2
7
9
7
3
2
1
2
8
10
6
0
5
2
7
9
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
3
0
2
7
9
5
9
2
3
8
2
4
3
6
5
5
5
5
4
10
6
0
6
7
4
6
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
8
2
4
3
8
4
0
3
7
3
4
2
2
1
5
7
5
10
6
0
6
7
4
6
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
8
3
3
0
2
2
8
2
5
7
2
9
1
1
1
5
4
10
6
0
7
6
8
7
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
8
4
4
4
6
2
5
7
4
6
7
4
2
3
1
1
7
3
1
7
8
10
6
0
8
3
3
5
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
3
4
4
1
7
6
0
2
2
10
6
1
4
4
6
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
1
6
4
1
1
1
7
6
6
10
6
2
0
2
0
5
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
6
9
2
0
5
0
6
3
6
1
3
9
5
4
4
5
4
7
10
6
2
1
2
2
1
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
8
3
7
3
4
3
7
3
0
5
2
7
4
10
6
2
2
1
0
3
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
7
1
1
0
3
3
1
2
1
1
6
2
3
6
7
4
6
7
5
10
6
2
3
2
2
0
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
0
3
2
2
0
1
1
1
4
1
4
6
9
5
0
5
1
10
6
2
4
9
6
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
1
7
9
0
0
2
2
1
2
2
8
4
8
7
10
6
2
5
8
7
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
0
4
8
7
6
1
9
1
8
4
3
1
3
1
5
10
6
2
6
7
5
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
0
2
7
5
0
4
4
1
0
1
7
5
7
6
Pa
g
e
5
o
f
7
TA
Z
T
A
Z
_
A
c
r
e
s
S
t
a
t
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
HU
C
1
2
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
I
D
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
_
A
c
r
e
s
H
H
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
E
M
P
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
10
6
2
8
1
3
0
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
7
2
1
3
0
1
1
6
1
2
3
1
2
2
5
1
1
1
8
1
0
8
10
6
2
9
1
9
2
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
0
7
1
8
9
6
6
7
9
7
6
7
4
1
8
7
1
6
5
10
6
3
0
2
2
5
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
7
0
2
2
5
1
1
4
1
3
0
1
3
0
9
6
4
8
4
4
8
5
10
6
3
1
2
5
1
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
6
3
2
2
3
3
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
5
3
2
7
2
2
5
4
7
1
1
4
4
1
3
5
10
6
3
3
2
2
9
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
7
4
7
4
2
1
1
5
5
1
3
5
4
9
6
6
6
4
10
6
3
4
4
5
5
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
9
7
3
5
1
0
7
4
6
2
1
1
2
4
2
2
10
6
3
6
7
3
0
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
2
8
6
7
0
7
1
2
1
,
1
1
2
1
,
0
9
2
2
9
7
7
3
8
7
2
7
10
6
3
7
1
0
3
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
3
2
1
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
1
4
1
1
1
1
10
6
3
8
3
7
6
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
2
7
1
4
3
6
4
6
4
5
6
5
8
6
8
5
10
6
3
9
5
1
2
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
2
0
5
1
2
5
5
0
5
5
0
6
3
1
2
2
3
2
2
3
1
3
2
10
6
4
0
1
9
4
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
1
8
6
5
1
9
2
3
2
3
2
2
4
3
2
2
3
1
6
10
6
4
1
3
4
8
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
2
9
3
4
8
3
3
7
5
0
2
5
1
4
1
7
7
1
7
5
1
7
5
10
6
4
2
3
3
8
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
9
9
3
3
0
2
4
0
6
0
5
5
5
7
1
1
8
1
0
3
1
0
4
10
6
4
3
3
4
7
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
0
9
3
4
7
3
0
2
7
9
9
7
5
2
4
5
2
7
2
8
10
6
4
4
2
8
9
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
2
1
2
8
9
4
6
7
4
6
9
4
6
9
6
9
5
7
5
7
10
6
4
5
5
1
3
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
0
8
5
0
3
1
5
4
2
3
2
2
2
8
2
5
6
1
,
1
6
2
1
,
1
6
6
10
6
4
6
4
7
5
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
1
9
4
7
5
2
3
0
2
8
0
2
7
6
3
1
1
4
0
5
4
0
0
10
6
4
7
2
2
4
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
0
6
2
2
4
1
2
4
1
4
6
1
4
4
2
4
1
4
4
9
4
3
7
10
6
4
8
3
0
9
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
0
5
3
0
9
1
0
0
1
8
0
1
8
5
6
3
1
3
2
1
3
8
10
6
4
9
2
3
2
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
8
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
2
7
4
2
4
8
2
4
7
10
6
5
0
1
0
4
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
2
2
1
0
4
2
1
5
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
3
1
8
1
8
10
6
5
1
2
1
8
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
1
0
8
7
1
3
2
1
7
5
1
7
4
6
9
3
1
3
3
1
5
10
6
5
2
1
9
8
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
0
0
6
0
1
2
1
2
2
7
7
10
6
5
4
2
,
0
7
1
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
6
1
1
7
3
1
3
1
1
4
7
7
10
6
5
6
4
6
5
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
9
8
4
1
3
3
4
5
5
10
6
5
8
5
9
2
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
6
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
10
6
6
1
3
4
8
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
3
1
3
3
5
1
3
6
1
3
8
1
3
8
1
,
3
7
1
1
,
8
5
8
1
,
8
5
8
10
6
6
2
2
4
4
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
3
5
2
4
4
5
4
7
6
3
4
6
3
2
1
7
0
5
2
2
5
2
5
10
6
6
3
1
4
2
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
3
4
1
4
2
3
3
4
3
5
0
3
4
9
3
7
2
3
2
3
10
6
6
5
1
3
5
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
3
6
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
9
1
5
1
5
10
6
6
6
1
5
1
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
3
3
1
3
5
4
1
6
4
2
7
4
2
6
2
0
6
1
8
5
1
8
6
10
6
7
0
1
6
7
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
2
6
5
0
0
0
1
5
1
4
1
4
10
6
7
1
3
8
3
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
3
0
3
8
3
3
2
6
3
2
7
3
2
7
1
,
0
3
1
1
,
8
7
4
1
,
8
7
4
10
6
7
2
3
4
2
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
2
4
3
2
4
4
3
4
8
4
8
7
7
2
7
8
9
7
9
1
10
6
7
3
3
3
6
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
2
5
3
2
6
3
1
9
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
9
10
6
7
5
4
0
6
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
1
4
6
6
9
1
6
1
7
1
2
8
1
2
9
1
2
9
10
6
7
6
3
0
2
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
1
2
5
2
2
2
4
5
5
10
6
7
7
3
1
3
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
1
3
1
5
2
3
2
8
2
8
3
1
5
1
6
10
6
8
0
3
0
8
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
1
1
4
2
3
3
2
2
2
10
7
0
2
2
4
8
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
9
4
3
7
5
2
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
7
1
2
3
4
4
2
5
5
10
9
4
4
4
1
7
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
7
2
1
9
8
8
8
8
6
1
1
0
1
1
0
10
9
5
2
4
7
8
3
7
1
1
9
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
6
9
9
5
1
7
1
6
3
9
9
10
9
5
3
4
7
1
3
7
1
1
9
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
1
6
8
1
1
1
1
0
0
5
5
10
9
5
4
1
,
2
5
0
3
7
1
1
9
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
1
9
1
,
2
3
7
1
3
6
1
,
5
1
1
1
,
3
2
7
5
0
5
0
4
4
5
8
10
9
5
5
1
,
2
2
4
3
7
1
1
9
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
8
4
1
,
0
1
7
7
2
3
4
9
3
1
9
3
2
1
,
1
0
9
1
,
0
4
9
10
9
5
6
7
1
6
3
7
1
1
9
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
1
7
1
6
2
1
7
1
5
2
9
8
10
9
5
7
8
9
9
3
7
1
1
9
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
1
8
1
1
3
8
7
0
2
2
10
9
6
0
1
,
0
4
9
3
7
1
1
9
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
2
1
5
7
3
0
1
3
8
1
2
7
2
6
7
2
6
9
10
9
6
0
1
,
0
4
9
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
2
2
5
3
1
2
1
1
2
6
6
10
9
6
1
1
,
7
9
5
3
7
1
1
9
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
2
3
1
6
7
9
9
1
1
1
4
1
4
10
9
6
1
1
,
7
9
5
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
2
4
1
,
6
9
7
7
9
0
9
7
6
9
5
8
1
,
2
0
3
1
,
5
1
9
1
,
5
0
0
10
9
6
2
2
6
4
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
7
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
9
6
3
1
,
2
9
5
3
7
1
1
9
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
8
5
1
,
2
3
2
1
6
8
2
9
6
2
9
8
9
0
3
0
9
3
2
0
Pa
g
e
6
o
f
7
TA
Z
T
A
Z
_
A
c
r
e
s
S
t
a
t
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
HU
C
1
2
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
I
D
S
u
b
Z
o
n
e
_
A
c
r
e
s
H
H
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
H
H
_
2
0
3
5
E
M
P
_
2
0
0
5
N
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
B
_
E
M
P
_
2
0
3
5
10
9
6
3
1
,
2
9
5
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
8
6
6
1
1
1
0
2
2
10
9
6
4
8
1
3
3
7
1
1
9
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
2
0
8
0
7
1
8
5
2
3
1
2
2
6
8
7
1
7
0
1
6
5
10
9
6
5
9
6
2
3
7
1
1
9
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
2
7
4
4
2
1
5
1
5
1
0
0
10
9
6
5
9
6
2
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
2
8
9
1
8
4
6
3
1
8
3
0
8
1
0
0
0
10
9
6
6
2
9
0
3
7
1
1
9
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
8
7
2
9
0
0
2
4
4
2
0
10
9
6
7
1
,
2
4
1
3
7
1
1
9
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
1
2
5
1
,
2
2
7
2
1
0
6
1
3
6
1
3
2
8
1
4
1
3
10
9
6
7
1
,
2
4
1
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
2
6
1
4
2
7
7
0
0
0
10
9
6
8
1
6
8
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
7
5
1
6
8
5
9
1
0
7
1
0
2
1
8
1
8
9
1
7
7
10
9
6
9
1
0
9
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
7
7
1
0
9
1
3
7
1
6
4
1
6
1
9
1
2
10
9
7
0
3
2
0
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
7
9
3
2
0
7
4
1
2
3
9
6
1
9
4
4
10
9
7
1
4
4
9
3
7
1
1
9
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
-
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
R
i
v
e
r
1
7
8
4
4
9
5
6
3
1
6
3
0
7
4
2
2
4
2
4
11
0
5
6
1
6
0
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
3
0
1
8
1
4
6
1
1
1
1
0
9
1
3
9
3
4
5
3
4
8
11
0
5
7
9
7
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
7
3
9
7
3
5
1
2
7
1
2
5
2
6
4
3
8
7
3
9
0
11
0
5
8
7
1
3
7
1
1
9
P
a
w
C
r
e
e
k
-
L
a
k
e
W
y
l
i
e
2
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
1
5
8
,
8
0
2
6
0
,
2
5
5
1
0
2
,
4
9
9
1
0
6
,
1
9
8
5
8
,
4
0
2
9
1
,
5
1
9
9
1
,
2
0
4
Pa
g
e
7
o
f
7