20120285 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20100930

lip I I
IL
To Jennifer Harris NCTA
From Brad Allen and Jill Gurak PBS &J
cc Christy Shumate HNTB
Date September 30 2010
Re Work Plan for Gaston ICE Water Quality Analysis
MEMORANDUM
This memorandum lays out a near term work plan for advancing the Gaston East West Connector
(Project) Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) water quality analysis (Analysis) Central to the Analysis
is the construction of watershed models for the Existing No Build and Build land use scenarios using
the Generalized Watershed Loading Functions (GWLF) model Before proceeding with model
development PBS &J would like to solicit regulatory agency approval of the analysis approach and the
fu'ire cond+t on lard use fo ecasts Approval by the regulatory agencies on the use of the GWLF
model was received at past TEAC meetings
Analysis Approach
Before the beginning the Analysis PBS &J would like obtain approval of the study area from regulatory
agencies The study area used in the quantitative ICE includes eight 12 digit hydrologic units (HUs)
The same study area see figure below is proposed for the Analysis The 12 -digit HUs comprising the
study area would also be used as the reporting units for Analysis results For example annual rates of
nitrogen phosphorus and sediment loadings estimated for the Existing No Budd and Build scenarios
would be reported for each of the HUs PBS &J would like to ask the following two questions of the
regulatory agencies
Is it acceptable to use the quantitative ICE boundary for the water quality
analysis?
Are the 12 -digit HUs acceptable reporting units for the analysis results?
`� . t�1� s t t t3� �=�.c eft e a - rte..,. c,bi � z" MCAIJ I '
La �t &t kx
i ��
4'29 �-kw e& t, �
N

� v
Study Area 12 Digit Hydrologic Units
t�jqq M
4410 &aa L
C t 4-k4CLAJ-AZA
C3 12 Digit HU
It should be pointed out that the study area depicted above differs from the study area defined in
PBS &J s water quality analysis scope The study area in the scope was based on the FLUSA used in
the qualitative ICE At the time the FLUSA was the only study area that had been developed
However since the scope was created the quantitative ICE was completed using the smaller study
area pictured above The diffe ence between the scoped study area and the quantitative ICE study
area is approximately 50 square miles PBS &J recommends using the quantitative ICE study area for
the water quality analysis because it is the only area with necessary Existing No Budd and Budd
scenario land use datasets
With all ICE water quality analyses the chief concern is the effect of a project on the water quality of
sensitive aquatic resources The specifics of any given analysis will vary based on the resources and
water quality issues local to the study area In the case of the Gaston East West Connector the study
area includes nine waters on the North Carolina 303(d) list The impaired parameters include
• ecological /biological integrity • chlorophyll a
• fecal coliform • copper
• water supply water quality • turbidity
standards • high temperature
Typically ICE water quality analyses focus on non point source pollutant loading of nitrogen
phosphorus and sediment These pollutants are viewed as indicative of general water quality as their
loading rates increase water quality as a whole is expected to decrease With that said PBSJ would
like to present the following question to the regulatory agencies
Is focusing the water quality analysis on non point source nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediment adequate for addressing regulatory agency concerns over the
Project -s ICE-2
e t A Qtuz a W- ,y*O &aQL4 41,QU68 (LILL `t'0 dA"--
a,uv�,Q &-( -- C i c4L, A4tz*)a4x)
• Page 2

ti
To Jennifer Harris NCTA
From Brad Allen and Jill Gurak PBS &J
cc Christy Shumate HNTB
Date September 30 2010
Re Work Plan for Gaston ICE Water Quality Analysis
MEMORANDUM
This memorandum lays out a near term work plan for advancing the Gaston East West Connector
(Project) Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) water quality analysis (Analysis) Central to the Analysis
is the construction of watershed models for the Existing No Budd and Build land use scenarios using
the Generalized Watershed Loading Functions (GWLF) model Before proceeding with model
development PBS &J would like to solicit regulatory agency approval of the analysis approach and the
ful'are coedit on lard use fo ecasts Approval by the regulatory agencies on the use of the GWLF
model was received at past TEAC meetings
Analysis Approach
Before the beginning the Analysis PBS &J would like obtain approval of the study area from regulatory
agencies The study area used in the quantitative ICE includes eight 12 -digit hydrologic units (HUs)
The same study area see figure below is proposed for the Analysis The 12 digit HUs comprising the
study area would also be used as the reporting units for Analysis results For example annual rates of
nitrogen phosphorus and sediment loadings estimated for the Existing No Budd and Budd scenanos
would be reported for each of the HUs PBS &J would like to ask the following two questions of the
regulatory agencies
Is it acceptable to use the quantitative ICE boundary for the water quality
analysis?
Are the 12-digit HUs acceptable reporting units for the analysis results?
�� �1�.4- ��' �(,c.�.. iC� �= l✓�:e�1 � � c,bi � � �{ -�z,� � �I �� ��.�- �c.a., f z�c�ce�
tole
M

Non -point source pollution can be reduced by the implementation of stormwater best management
practices (BMPs). A variety of structural BMPs — riparian buffers, bioretention basins, stormwater
ponds, grass swales, etc. — can be effective at reducing non -point source pollution. However, due to
the scale of the study area and the site - specific nature of most BMPs, PBS &J proposes to consider
only riparian buffers in the Analysis. Compared to other structural BMPs, riparian buffers are
identifiable from desktop analysis. This raises another question for the regulatory agencies:
Is it acceptable to only consider the effect of riparian buffer BMPs in the
Analysis?
Future Land Use Forecast
The Louis Berger Group (Berger) has provided PBS &J with an Existing condition land use dataset of
the study area in a Geographic Information System (GIS) format. The dataset, pictured below, was
developed based on the 2001 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) and updated with 2006 aerial
photography. The dataset has a 30 -meter cell size and follows the NLCD classification scheme.
Fifteen NLCD land cover categories occur in the study area.
Existing Condition Land Use:
NLCD Classification
VA
ri
Land Use Categories
0 Barren Land(Rock /Sand /Clay)
Cultivated Crops
l Deciduous Forest
Developed, High Intensity
0 Developed, Low Intensity
Developed, Medium Intensity
Developed, Open Space
0 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
l� Evergreen Forest
Grassland /Herbaceous
Mixed Forest
Open Water
Pasture /Hay
Q Shrub /Scrub
I� Woody Wetlands
Berger did not produce GIS datasets for the No Build and Build future land use scenarios. Instead, the
study area was segregated into 344 forecasting zones defined by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) and 12-
digit HU boundaries, see figure below. The land use composition for the No Build and Build scenarios
was then forecast for each zone and summarized in a spreadsheet, thereby making the forecasting
zones the smallest unit for which future land use composition is reported.
The No Build and Build land use datasets are not spatially explicit. In other words, areas converted to
developed land uses are not assigned to a discrete location, but are accounted for at the coarser scale
of the forecast zone. This approach creates uncertainty in the derivation of watershed model
parameters calculated by the intersection of multiple physical conditions. For instance, curve numbers
(CN) used by GWLF to simulate runoff processes are defined by the relationship of land use and soil
type. By not locating projected development at a specific point in a watershed, the land use -soil
relationship cannot be determined. While this poses some difficulties, PBS &J recommends the
following approach as a solution to the issue:
• Page 3

Apply the average parameter values (CN RUSLE coefficients etc ) of the Existing
scenario land uses in a given forecast zone to the corresponding land use in the future
scenarios Since the location of the land use types in the forecast zones is known for the
Existing scenario there is a degree of confidence that the spatially dependent model
parameters can be accurately derived for this scenario and would therefore provide the
best possible estimate for the future scenario model parameters In practice this
approach would work as follows The CN value calculated for Developed High Intensity
land use for a given forecast zone in the Existing scenario watershed model would be
used for Developed High Intensity land use in the No Build and Build scenario models In
effect forecast zone land use composition would be the only parameter that changes
between the Existing No Build and Build models
Land Use Forecasting Zones
PBS &J has two questions related to the land use processing it would like the regulatory agencies to
address
Is the resolution of the forecast zone scale for which No Budd and Budd land use
forecasts are reported adequate for the water quality analysis?
If so is approach recommended above for processing the forecast data of the
future land use scenarios acceptable?
(CC Lzcd 11)-AZ" t,Ax-th -�eA ct4t -( (?A (�-e a 'rO5
t cep �, i U-u 0 k tTA z if
0 Page 4
rc
it ,��
Iff I I %

d
f�
E
N
W
V
to
CL
E .a
= O
'a .a
M `
� N a
*� E
U
A
d �
M
U Z
r
C
d
a>
C
fC
U
} L
Vas' m '4d
c >
� m d V^ t
o
0
0
0
m
0
0
Ln
0
0
O
M
I-
V
tin L) N
d m (L
(D
r
cf
r
V
M
M
co
to
V
Cb
m
LO
Ccol
IN-1 Ago t
a v LL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
co L o o
>
Co
07
q
O
r
N
LO
m
O
O
M
Ln
co
N
O
LO
(D
OM d U_ U
V'
V
Cl)
Ln
'IT
r
LO
C'
k u £ �-
7eg
w5 L a^
(ti N W
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
O 0
o
0
0
0
0
0
y
O t> L>
OkLt O
CO
LO
M
r
M
t�
CC)
I-
V
N a tu- U"
LMn
co
co O
LO
C(DD
co
M
(0
LOn
y��
4 `u
O
fl_ p Q
o
r-
o
Ln
O CD
o
LO
0 CD
o
r.
0
N
°o
r
°o
Q
Ln
CO
M
N
(D
N
ti
U O >
0
{eta N V-
0
N
0
r-
O
O
0
0
N
O
0
O
V'
T LL
CD
O�
X- d (� y ;�-
O
o
O
O
O
O
o
O
4. qC � L.f
.a t0? N
O
O
r
O
r
O
N
O
N
O
r
O
O
M
CO
O
dam U 1
�0
-i+ t' }d 14"'I
Z B 'tv y
LO), i >1 L
O
m
O
OM
(D
O
Cl
O
O
0)
O
ON
O
Cl)
Cl
M
V Q
N m
Ln
(T
Cl)
N
O
N
ti
SLL
`ek
�
a sow Ol ,
;y 9 4+ eL —
o d
O
O
O
O
C:)
O
O
Oro
O
O
O
O
O
>4�
t}p Ly® U
N7 0 VfQ
O
Ln
(.O
r
N
Ln
O
O
O
co
O
M
ro
O
Ln
�
qT
f-
Cl)
�
LL_
r
r
N
r
(.iJ
�y
t N
CD
CD
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
N
r-
co
Ln
�
O
O
Lf)
co
kQ
N
r
O
N
LO
N
O
r
CD
M
Ln
r
r
r
(D
N
Lo
r
.
T
ytl�'Y
U
O
O
g,
y
} t a�`,g
p
O
t:f U
>>
>
U
N
U
U
Q
�S i
L�
N
L Y
G)�
Y
(1) N
L%
Zi �
Y
Q CD
3� y
k
m
U
0 LL
Co CC
J U
CL �:
f) U
(n
Cl)
Ln
v
C
O
U
c �
7 O
O �
a�
O
QQ
� O
io >
N
U -0
03 (3)
U N
� m
c') i>s
(1) E
C U -
C �
� � N
(U CZ
a
U E
U (ll
N O
O U
C O N
O
Q � �
N �
>
O C =
O �
OO
O -
O � N
C
O O
O
� N t
U � O
� O C
> O
L1S -
> L C6
Z � N
� c
(umL75
0 0 0
Z Z LL
r-
IT

N
E
W
U
«s
a
O m O
J
O
d �
N C L
r' (n
fC
O
T .0
d �
>m
0
UZ
m
d
F
C
C
t6
L
U
�. q
)t L,
32
i 3 0U 'i
M "�,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s2 a
W)t' y�''
M-
co
co
N
O
O
O
CO
M
M
M
-
(D
V
O
V
M
3!7 Q1
N
Lo
Lo
Lo
co
(D
V)
N
(D
Ln
LL
Cv
Zg"at Ned
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
In `p 10
M
Lo
O
O
Nr
co
(D
O
V
N'm a U
LO
Ln
LO
V'
(D
L(')
N
(D
Ln
f` c U) 4)
4V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p `>
a
M
Lo
O
m
I-
co
ti
V
N a LL U
LM
LOn
(OD
LLn
((D
LO
L i
((D
LO
k N d
L0 V
4 =oa
u...
o0
o
ti
C)
o
v
0
0
0
O
0
co
IM p 0
LOO
(D
=
�
�
N
o
M
M
�
00
ajk Uoo
4,1
U k -0` a+1
ci
._ t,," V
O
O
C)
O
O
O
O
C)
O
O
O
O
O
OD
Uo .
'Ak
=
V
°O
kd y
0 c
-Q
O
O
c-
O
O
O
O
N
O
o
N
O
O
o
O
O
Cl)
o
t ftf N
m &-
Okla"a+
i y
to 3 01) >AL-
o
"
0
-
O
000
O
N
O
Or-
O
00
O
OCD
O
O
O
000
pms� U Q
(D
v
N
00
co
c d- >`
°0
00
00
o
a
o
0
0
0
LO
r
V
0
00
M
d
M
N U Q
(D
N
U!)
c-
CO
M
N
M
V
r
'tt
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
0
N
0
r-
O
M
O
LO
O
ti
O
O
O
m
O
Ln
00
co
�a
N
O
Ln
O
(D
In
(D
Q)
Y
O >
co
0
Cl)
Ln
>
0
to
- t
O
J
�
U
Y
U
Ln (iS
j
U
N
U_
N
Q
>
CZ
cz
M
0
Y >
Fr
-
CZ
CL�
d
�U
Y
Co
U
L
-j
JU
p)
Cl)
Ln
N
C
O
U
cn
c �
0
0 0
n
o �
0
Cl- >
N
m
� 0
C U
(6 V) C') U �
U
CZ
E
� m -
U
c m
c a)
U U
> C d
o
N � E
np >
O
> O U
O
U
in O
(D O L
OCl)
O 2 -0
In Ca C
0 c c�
N L O
cz O O
� N
Q) : O
C
0—
(TS
t C C
U O O
C
m > Lo
Z N
cf) C
O 7 (lS
N
Z Cc LL

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
45

a
Existinginter Interior s
Direct Impacts
-'New
Remaining m
IDt
Block (acres)`
(acres)
Conversions toy
Interior Habitat ,
�
u g
, Ede acres
Blocks acres
2076
N
2154
23
47
<1
304
O
620
95
158
<1
61
21
P
347
61
161
103
722
Q
1122
187
191
<1
21
28 1
R
519 1
243
461
29
131 2
2865
S
1240
85
168
346
641
<1
T
323
1 8
58
<1
246
59
U
929
128
212
53
70 1
V
3086
139
248
1999
11 6
502
W
211 5
181
466
<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
t 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

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*
43
Remaining
IDt
'Existing Interior Habitat
Dire`cOmpacts
Conversions to
` Interior Habitat
1� Block (acres)
�
; (acres(acres)',
'��
a
� Blocks acres
4 � � �f
��� �
BEd
A
206
0
36
169
B
223
04
61
158
C
769
0
39
73
D
293
05
15
273
632
E
3367
183
332
222
623
F
1125
272
205
24
1
<1
G
8476
291
61 2
<1
1858
5705
H
184
99
65
21
1
292
7
73
149
586
J
986
153
21 9
<1
24
K
253
44
91
118
2743
L
3705
185
271
506
<1
16
M
1507
188
262
18
99
923
43

34 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
Total
Acres
Forest
Interior
Habitat
}
Percent
Forest {
Interior
'Count of Forest Interior Habitats by Patch
Sizes Acres �d
Mean
interior,
� �
Less than �
20 to
101
201,
Greater
A
,�
>
(Acores)
1
Habitat
20
} 100 t
to,,,
`500
than �
Patch Size
x
r
200
600
158 802
26 967
1700/
12 011
139
41
22
9
371
Excluding interior patches of less than one acre
342 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 s 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
8 For an explanation of how the low and high tree cover impact estimates were developed refer to
Section 2 5 3
42

CD
L
L
A �
L M
O r
U ,O
a) u
Q
cn O
�U
O=
>
W
0.0
F:Z
d
O1
C
f�
L
U
N
O
-p U
C
03 U
O �
L V7
N U)
0
O O
L >
O O
Z3 O_
O N
L (z
O �
> U 0)
L C C
C U
O O
U
O
O O
O r
Q O
C a
cZ
� U �
O p Z3
Q U
co U
C _ U
� O O
p � U
Y 0) C
0
ID U)
L L Q)
07
p U O
O
D
C O Q �
O � �
C c
U (D
O L
Q' O
C
C (z a)
O 70
O L O
O
U
C
d� O
O O Q
O L 2 O
L
cn
C O 5
O
5 C�
O .�
E O C
O
U E O z
d
3 C O L
CO V`> I
O
co
N
I-
O
00
to O', O
0
U')
N
rl-
N
LO
M
00
O
r
LO
V
V
r
m
r
N Ek
Z O fpwa
d -
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 L`>
G)" O
N
N
Cl)
M
M
O
O
(D
V
�
M
v
M
rn
� p m d QV
N
c
N
M
r
r
r
C O
0
0
0
o
o
°O
o
O u L >3
N ) Q. V
LO
O
ti
C',
00
O
r
LO
r�
O
r--
O
N
CL
r
r
N
r
N
r
,y
'pry
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C)
ar >> d
»� O I- O L.
O
r
O
N
O
C)
O
r-
O
r
O
t ()
O
'-
O
ti
LO
t f
f ya �
'41 , y
t
0/ 0 O 010
L` >
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
L
zm,� r-It O V
O
r
O
co
O
r
O
N
O
r
O
N
O
co
cmQ.UQ
u O L N
V V O) f d d
` C>
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O�V
mO=�QUQ
r
r
r
r
N
LD
UEO
O O 7 U)
' Z m t 41
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
t�N
M y O tt�
O
CO
O
(D
co O
cr
00
O
m� U Q
r
V
CD
Cl)
N
N
�
M
M
1 s e
�^
O �'o N"
1 51 �,r�
4
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
+Y. NW,,- O V
O
N
O
M
(.O
4 fl..0 Q".
Cl)
V
N
N
r
M
r
,y
� atv
a
O
``` $
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
O
O
O
O
,4--
d Q �a s mp
N
O
Lr)
O
(D
LO
QOj
r
CD
00
LO
1
IA'A ^t
>_
>
06
0
r
U
N
U
� Y
O CC
O
CC
Y
(Z
J
J
C Y
e
co
-2
LL m
>j
1 0)
ttf
>
N
O
U
Q U
U
0
d
U)
�vkf
m
N
O
-p U
C
03 U
O �
L V7
N U)
0
O O
L >
O O
Z3 O_
O N
L (z
O �
> U 0)
L C C
C U
O O
U
O
O O
O r
Q O
C a
cZ
� U �
O p Z3
Q U
co U
C _ U
� O O
p � U
Y 0) C
0
ID U)
L L Q)
07
p U O
O
D
C O Q �
O � �
C c
U (D
O L
Q' O
C
C (z a)
O 70
O L O
O
U
C
d� O
O O Q
O L 2 O
L
cn
C O 5
O
5 C�
O .�
E O C
O
U E O z
d

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
40

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

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, '
4
Name
' A �
Location
1 � � V �
Use(s)impaired
I Causes) of
Unit
§
,
Impairment
South Fork
11 (123 5)b
Catawba
Aquatic Life Support
Copper
River Arm of
High water temperature
Lake Wylie
From a point 0 4
South Fork
mile upstream of
11 129 (15 5)
Catawba
Long Creek to
Aquatic Life Support
Turbidity
River
Cramerton Dam and
Low pH
Lake Wylie at Upper
Armstrong Bridge
11 130a
Catawba
From source to
Aquatic Life Support
Ecological /biological
Creek
SR2446 Gaston
Integrity Benthos
11 130b
Catawba
From SR2446
Gaston to SR2439
Aquatic Life Support
Ecological /biological
Creek
Gaston
Integrity Benthos
11 130c
Catawba
FromSR2439 to
Aquatic Life Support
Ecological /biological
Creek
Lake Wylie
Integrity FishCom
11 1352
McGill Creek
From source to
Aquatic Life Support
Ecological /biological
Crowders Creek
Integrity Benthos
Ecological /biological
Crowders
From source to SR
Integrity Benthos
11 135a
Creek
1118
Aquatic Life Support
Ecological /biological
Integrity FishCom
Ecological /biological
Crowders
From State Route
Integrity FishCom
11 135c
Creek
1122 to State Route
Aquatic Life Support
1131
Ecological /biological
Integrity Benthos
Crowders
From State Route
Aquatic Life Support
Ecological /biological
11 135d
Creek
1131 to State Route
Integrity FishCom
1108
11 135e
Crowders
From State Route
Aquatic Life Support
Ecological /biological
Creek
1108 To NC 321
integrity Benthos
Crowders
-
From State Route
Aquatic Life Support
Ecological/biological
11 135f
Creek
321 to State Route
Integrity Benthos
2424
South
From source to
11 135 10 1
Crowders
South Fork
Aquatic Life Support
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Creek
Crowders Creek
Source North Carolina 2010 303 (d) List
36

Table 8
Impaired Waterbodies in the South Carolina Portion of the ICE Study Area
Source South Carolina 2U08 3U3 (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
r
3 Name and Locations _
Station..,,,
Use(s)
ri
Impaired
Cause(s) of
Impairment
"I �'
LAKE WYLIE AB MILL CK ARM AT END OF S
CW 197
Aquatic Life
Copper
p
46 557
Support
BROWN CREEK AT S 46 228 (GUINN ST) 0 3
Aquatic Life
MI WEST OF OLD NORTH MAIN STREET IN
CW 105
Support
Turbidity
CLOVER SC
BEAVERDAM CK AT S 46 152 8 MI E OF
CW 153
Aquatic Life
Turbidity
CLOVER
Support
BEAVERDAM CREEK AT BRIDGE ON S 46 64
RS
Aquatic Life
Biological
3 2 MI ENE OF CLOVER
06020
Support
integrity
CROWDERS CK AT S 46 564 NE CLOVER
CW 023
Aquatic Life
Support
Copper
Aquatic Life
Biological
CROWDERS CREEK AT S 46 1104
CW 024
Support
integrity
LK WYLIE CROWDERS CK ARM AT SC 49
CW 027
Recreation
Fecal Coliform
AND SC 274
Source South Carolina 2U08 3U3 (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

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
33 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 s 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
Ex►st►nq Water Qualt
Table 7 provides an overview of the Draft 2010 3O3(d) list of impaired waterbodies within
the North Carolina portion of the study area while Table 8 covers the 2008 3O3(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 /in dustries /hydropower /enviro /cis /2009/07 23 09 asp
35

32 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
Note Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres Differences were calculated prior to
rounding
32
N
k
Percent
Total
Existing
2005 2035 4
No Build r
X2005 2035
R- 1V
*,"No Build
nge in
�� � �X ��
Total
Av ��
}
Area
Residential
Land k
Build Land
to Build
N Resident►al
i
, Acres
(
Land
p
,>
Conversion
Conversions
-
Difference
'
Land No
'
s
; � � � � �
.4
&
(Acres)
¢ �
Acres
( ) ,',,it
,�C(Acres)
q4
(Acres)
i
Budd to
�k
Build
Beaverdam Creek
12 200
5200
300
400
100
1 80/
Catawba River
Catawba Creek
20 700
10 500
2 300
2 900
600
47/
Duharts Creek South
25 300
9 700
3 400
3 300
0
08/
Fork Catawba River
Lake Wylie Catawba
10 500
3 000
1 300
1 400
100
23/
River
Lower Crowders Creek
36 700
16 700
1 500
2000
400
27/
Mill Creek Lake Wylie
15 000
6 800
1 200
1 400
100
25/
Paw Creek Lake Wylie
11 900
4 100
1 500
1 500
0
00/
Upper Crowders Creek
26 500
10 800
2 500
2 400
100
08/
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
Note Results have been rounded to the nearest iuu acres uinerences weiC —110 1-0 N
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
p
M �
A �'
r , ",
£�
eftrcent
Change in r-
a
g
F
2005 2035
No Build
2005 2035
No Bu dd �
J�to4Build
Total r
4
uArea
Total s
Existing �
" Lands
,
Budd Land €
�'
- Employment
Employmment
t
°Land
Conversion
Conversion
-�
Difference ,
��
Land? No
a(Acres)t
(Acres)
s Y,
Acres )
� (Acres)
q
A
4( Gres}
Buitd to x
�W
Budd
Beaverdam Creek
12 200
700
200
300
100
11 1 /
Catawba River
Catawba Creek
20 700
2 700
600
800
100
61/
Duharts Creek
South Fork
25 300
3 600
1 700
1 700
0
00o/
Catawba River
Lake Wylie
10 500
1 800
1 500
1 400
100
30/
Catawba River
Lower Crowders
36 700
1 300
300
400
100
63/
Creek
Mill Creek Lake
15 000
300
700
700
0
00o/
Wylie
Paw Creek Lake
11 900
3 300
2 400
2 400
0
00/o
Wylie
Upper Crowders
26 500
3 100
2 100
1 800
300
58/
Creek
Grand Total
158 800
16 700
9 500
9 400
100
04/
Note Results have been rounded to the nearest iuu acres uinerences weiC —110 1-0 N
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

30 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects
31 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 fobs 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 1 485
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 185
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
Note Results have been rounded to the nearest 1 UU households Uitterences were calculated
prior to rounding
Table 4
Gravity Model Estimated Change in Employment by Watershed
No Build Compared to Build
vl, Al -4 4 tai �-, �- ,
{
� * � � �P
1 � ��
t
" �' I ��
r
No Build topercent�
Percent
� r
12005 j�
2035 No Budd
2035'Budd�
i6uild f
wDifference
r
� AA,
� 4,
4, 4u 4
Difference
p ,
,
1 700
, ,
2 900
300
120%
Beaverdam Creek Catawba
1 800
2 700
3 100
400
148%
River
10 700
12 900
13 300
400
31%
Catawba Creek
15 000
22 000
23 800
1 800
82%
Duharts Creek South Fork
12 700
22 700
22 700
100
04%
Catawba River
3 500
8 700
8 300
400
46%
Lake Wylie Catawba River
2 600
6 600
6 700
200
30%
Lower Crowders Creek
6 600
11 200
12 500
1 300
11 6%
Mill Creek Lake Wylie
3 100
6 800
7200
400
59%
Paw Creek Lake Wylie
7 300
11 800
11 700
0
00%
Upper Crowders Creek
11 300
18 800
18 500
300
16%
Study Area Total
60 300
102 500
106 200
3 700
36%
Note Results have been rounded to the nearest 1 UU households Uitterences were calculated
prior to rounding
Table 4
Gravity Model Estimated Change in Employment by Watershed
No Build Compared to Build
vl, Al -4 4 tai �-, �- ,
{
� * � � �P
1 � ��
t
" �' I ��
r
No Budd to`
k
Percent
„ JA,, , } 4
; 2005,-,,
02035 No Build
�,
� 2035 Build
x
kh
� fBudd � ro
q�
f � � �
Difference )t
�r g
Mh
a -�,
x s
- Difference
F
Beaverdam Creek
1 700
2 500
2 900
300
120%
Catawba River
Catawba Creek
10 700
12 900
13 300
400
31%
Duharts Creek South Fork
21 400
27 500
27 400
100
04%
Catawba River
Lake Wylie Catawba River
3 500
8 700
8 300
400
46%
Lower Crowders Creek
2 300
3200
3 600
300
94%
Mill Creek Lake Wylie
1 700
4 000
4 000
100
25%
Paw Creek Lake Wylie
10 100
18 400
18 300
0
00%
Upper Crowders Creek
7 000
14 300
13 400
900
63%
Study Area Total
58 400
91 500
91 200
300
03%
Note Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 employees Differences were calculated
prior to rounding
31

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
26 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

Wildlife Habitat Edqe 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 J
invasive plants and other competing and predatory species Particularly for forested
habitats changes in the microclimate (air temperature humidity wind solar radiation J
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
i

2 5 3 Wildlife Habitat
Existina 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 dust 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

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
gas 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) i
26

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
mayor 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

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 nght 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 7
■ Rivers streams and lakes based on the USGS National Hydrography Dataset
Cand 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
iSouth Carolina and a 100 foot buffer on perennial tributaries of the Catawba
(River in York County) I
■ 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 Mayor 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)
25 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

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 Protect 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 32 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 /Industriaifinstitutional
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 dust the residential portion of the site would likely
be higher
23

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 V, explicitly for each subregion Values for V, can be derived implicitly once
baseline A, values have been calculated because values for total regional growth (G,)
and growth in each zone (G) are known in the baseline condition and reflect
consideration of zone development attractiveness and potential Once baseline V,
values have been derived it becomes possible to calculate growth in a zone for
scenarios where accessibility changes by holding the V, 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

VI = (Li 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 (A) for a given TAZ j is calculated as follows
A, =I Ei/T,,a
Where
E, = employment in each TAZ i
T,j = 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)
A, = I ((Hi +E,)/T,,a)
Where
E, = employment in each TAZ i
H, = households in each TAZ i
T,] = 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

■ Land availability and pnce 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 parcels 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
fobs 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
G, = G, V,A,/T—V,A,
Where
Gi = household (or employment) growth in each TAZ
Gt = total household (or employment) growth expected for the region as a whole (in this
case the Metrolina model region)
20

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

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
in3

conditions The data sources and methodology used in developing the household and
employment forecasts are described in Section 2 4 1 Known mayor development
proposals were incorporated by the MPOs and local government planners at the time the
household and employment forecasts were made
24 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 q
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

"GUAMPO 1
Pro ect IDS
Name- t
w r C4( 4� *w '4,
� �t - Description
Distance
(Miles )*'l
' Existing
Facile ,q
J". r ?�
Year
Numberl NCDOT
°
29174
Widen existing four lane bridge
t *,
(Miles)
Facdity7
Year r
, �,,,
�
,,�STIP Number
South Forks
'South
on Wilkinson Blvd to six lanes
Four Lane
14
C Catawba-j
and widen existing four lane
1 2
2025
U 3411
[River Bridge
cross section to six lanes from
066
Bridge
2015
(-No 82-)
Market St to Alberta St
West Blvd
Construct new four lane divided
Two Lane
3312
Belmont
facility from Wilkinson Blvd to
066
Road (by
2025
11b
Mount Holly
the proposed Gastonia Mt Holly
434
NA
2035
Central Loop
Connector or to the Belmont Mt
3157/
Holly Loop Link if the Gastonia
U 5116
Little Rock Road
MT Holly Connector is not built
055
N/A
2015
*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
v " 5
Nam
Distance
f
Existing
Numberl NCDOT
°
,
t� �
s Description
t �
t *,
(Miles)
Facdity7
Year r
, �,,,
�
,,�STIP Number
3311/
West Blvd
New road (2 lanes)
U 3411
Extension
from Steele Creek Rd
066
N/A
2015
to 1 485
West Blvd
Widening (4 lanes)
Two Lane
3312
Extension
from Steele Creek Rd
066
Road (by
2025
to 1 485
2015
Relocation (4 lanes)
3157/
from Flintrock Rd to
U 5116
Little Rock Road
Freedom Dr
055
N/A
2015
NC 27
New road (4 lanes)
22
Fred D Alexander
from Freedom Dr (NC
1 88
N/A
2015
Boulevard
27) to Brookshire Blvd
NC 16
Freedom Drive (NC
Widening (4 lanes)
Two Lane
3003
27 )
Edgewood Rd to
1 5
Road
2015
Toddville Rd
Dixie River Rd /NC
New road (2 lanes)
502
160 Connector
NC 160 to Dixie River
1 3
N/A
2015
Rd
*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

23 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 q u anti tative_ 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
STI P
Table 1
Transportation Projects Included in No Build Condition
Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
e GUAMPO
r
v Desc�i tion j
Distance
Existm� �
9
Y,
4,`i
Year4 -�
Pro ect ID
°Name
;� MW
Miles *
Facile �
o x � f�
Widen existing two lane road to
Titman/
three lane and construct new
2015
U 5103
Cramerton
three lane connector from NC
26
Two Lane Road
Road
279 (S New Hope Rd ) to US
29/74 Wilkinson Blvd
Myrtle School
Widen two lane road to three
1 8
Two Lane Road
U 3425
lanes from US 29/74 (Franklin
2015
Road
Blvd to Hudson Blvd
Widen existing facility to three
U 2713
Linwood
lanes with some relocation from
22
Two Lane Road
2025
Road
Crowder s Creek Rd to US
29/74 Franklin Blvd
NC 279 (S
Widen existing two lane road to
Two Lane
7
four lane divided from Titman
38
Road
2025
Hope Road)
Road to Union New Hope Road
Widen the existing two lane
NC 274
facility to five lanes and
8
(Union
construct a new four lane
25
Two Lane
2025
Road)
divided realignment from
Road
Robinson Rd to Beaty Rd
15

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 bey
spread relatively evenly within each TAZ This assumption is appropriate in the absence
Hof- 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
22 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
23 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 1 2 Mecklenburg County
In Mecklenburg County the study area was expanded to include the entire Paw Creek
Lake Wylie subwatershed (030501 01 1 404) 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 1 485 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 Connectors interchange with 1 485 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 (030501 01 1 504)
Mill Creek Lake Wylie (030501 01 1 505)
Beaverdam Creek (030501 01 1 503)
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

compliance with the Federal Standard for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries
The study area consists of the following HUC 12 subwatersheds
Upper Crowders Creek (030501011501)
Lower Crowders Creek (030501 01 1 504)
Catawba Creek (030501 01 1 502)
Mill Creek Lake Wylie (030501 01 1 505)
Duharts Creek South Fork Catawba River (030501020605)
Lake Wylie Catawba River (030501 01 1 406)
Paw Creek Lake Wylie (030501 01 1 404)
Beaverdam Creek (030501 01 1 503)
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 a 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 1 85 corridor was removed The transportation modeling conducted for the project
with the Metrolina Travel Demana 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 1 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 nres usda gov/ products /datasets /watershed /index htmi
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
15 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
21 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 Centers 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

14 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 — Descnbe 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

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 Boundanes 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

12 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 §15088)
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 §15088)
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 m 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 Intenm Guidance Questions and Answers Regarding the
Consideration of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts m the NEPA Process cumulative
impacts include the total of all impacts to a particular resource that have occurred are

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 1 85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to 1 485 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 (1 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 1 85 in Gaston County to 1
485 in Mecklenburg County including new bridge crossings over the South Fork and
Catawba Rivers In addition to the freeway to freeway interchanges at 1 85 and 1 485
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 1 485) have been reduced

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 Intenm Guidance Questions
and Answers Regarding the Consideration of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts m the
NEPA Process note that it is necessary to identify-mitigation actions beyond the control
cof- 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
Oollowing planning strategies) As noted in the text below many of these strategies are
already beginning to be implemented in the study area
[ Z_onmg /Comprehensive _Plan nin' to support higher density development in,
planned growth areas and to discourage growth in environmentally sensitive
Q-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 ManagementCthrough 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
cm- Riparian buffers l 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
raStream Restorations 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
c' —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
9

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) Therlargest indirect increases in impervious surface cover are projected
-for the Catawba Creek subwatershed (300 acres) and the Lower Crowders Creek
ssubwatershed (200 acres)
,The combination of past actions) (e g existing impervious cover) Cother actions (the No
Build condition) Fand the _direct and indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative is
1-pfbdicted to be a total acreage of impervious surface cover in -the study area of 31 500
nor 19 8 percent CThe 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
gmpacts of future growth would be less than past growth due to the stormwater treatment
rand 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 CAs 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
T_he 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
CCreek subwatershedl
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
representsFacumulative 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

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_di stance _of 300 feet is supported by the-relevant
�
literat ru e_on FIDS (such-as certain- neotropical migrant birds) and has been used fob
other — transportation project_ NEP-A evaluations -(e g - Intercounty _Connector FEIS
'Maryland) -) — __J
To- assess- existing-conditions an_edge effect zone of 300 feet was _created- around
Cexisting roadways _ development -and,-other--open areas—(e g large waterbodies'
Cagricultural fields etc ) 2 [Forested areas outside of the existing conditions edge effect
ozone were rndentified as the forest interior habitat blocks The edge effects of _the3
[proposed project were then superimposed on the existing conditions mapping to)
Ldetermine the incremental increase in edge effects and habitat fragmentation impacts- J
ES 3 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects
ES 3 1 Land Use Change
0
Up to 3 700 additional households and 300 - fewer -jobs are anticipated in -the study area3
cas a result of the indirect development shifts associated with the project-) ( his is not newt
(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 they
(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'
Lmake -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
CIO terms of land conversion the indirect land use effect of the project is an approximately)
C1 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/
Ccondition 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(

�t
�J4
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
ccondition 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 commeraalAndustrial) 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

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
Cstudy area boundaries were altered to encompass the entirety of Hydrologic Unit Code
`(HUC) 12 digit subwatersheds (See Figure-11) The study area consists of the following
HUC 12 subwatersheds
n Upper Crowders Creek (030501 01 1 501)
■ Lower Crowders Creek (030501 01 1 504)
Catawba Creek (030501 01 1 502)
■ Mill Creek Lake Wylie (030501 01 1 505)
Duharts Creek South Fork Catawba River (030501020605)
■' Lake Wylie Catawba River (030501011406)
■ Paw Creek Lake Wylie (030501011404)
Beaverdam Creek (030501 01 1 503)
The future analysis year for the quantitative ICE assessment is 2035 to coincide with the
02035 long range transportation plans for the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning _J COrganization ( 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) L-The analysis year for the 2009 qualitative ICE
assessment w_ as 203_0 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 atgravty model analysis was conducted using travel
time information from the April 13 2006 version of the Metrolina travel demand model
rGravity modes are used often in transportation and travel modeling They are based o-q)
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

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 acontrolled access toll road extending
from 1 85 west _of Gastonia in Gaston County to 1 485 near the C_ harlotte Douglas j
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
cstep procewfor 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 ?
r-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 thisjquantitative assessment is focused on steps six through eight
c (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 J
the - Preferred Alternative 2) provide a detailed analysis of the potential cumulative land
c 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)

List of Appendices
Appendix A Interviews
Appendix B Household and Employment Forecasts
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

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
33 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 34 Indirect Effects from the Preferred Alternative
39
3 3 5 Potential for Cumulative Effects
39
34
Wildlife Habitat
42
3 4 1 Impacts of Past and Present Actions
42
342 Impacts from Other Actions (No Build Alternative)
42
343 Direct Impacts from the Preferred Alternative
43
344 Indirect Effects from the Preferred Alternative
44
3 4 5 Potential for Cumulative Effects
44
4 0
Evaluate Analysis Results
48
41
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 of Co i tents
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
12 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
21 Study Area Boundaries
11
21 1 Gaston County
12
2 1 2 Mecklenburg County
13
21 3 Cleveland County
13
2 1 4 York County
13
21 5 Relating Traffic Analysis Zones to Watershed Boundaries
13
2 1 6 Assessment of Study Area Boundary Based on Qualitative Analysis
Results
14
22 Analysis Year
14
23 Future No Build Condition Projects
14
23 1 Other Transportation Projects
15
232 Household and Employment Growth
16
24 Land Use Forecasting
17
2 4 1 Household and Employment Forecasts
17
242 Regional Accessibility Analysis
18
243 Existing Conditions Land Use
22
244 Future Land Use Change Projections
23
25 Environmental Resources for Analysis
24
2 5 1 Farmland
25
252 Water Resources
25
253 Wildlife Habitat
27
26 Rounding
29
3 0 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects
30
31 Household and Employment Growth
30
32 Land Use Change
32
3 2 1 Consistency with Local Land Use Plans
33
33 Water Resources
34

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
s
Prepared by
THE Louis Berger Group INC
www louisberger com

N
M
O
N
c
w
m
N
O
N
�N
0 0
N
O CO
V
N
�
O
w
M
C
m
2
N
O
N
O
M
N
O p�
rn rn
�
O
N
a
�
w
O
u
N
M
o
N
S
(D
•- N
c0
� M
M
V�
N
r 0
t0
N M�
r rn
O
�
�
N e
N O�
2
�
m
M
O
m
Z
O
O
N
2
t
S
Q
r
wo(r.�
rnN�tnoNV�mo�
mmoa�
N
!n
N
d
N
d
d d>
m
N m
d
t9 (Q
j
S
U Y
0
U
N
Y Y
d
U U
d
U U
a
U
d d
Y
U
U
U U
U
U U
J
J
J J
J J
J
a19.a
C
rn Q�
Q> Q�
rn rn
rn rn
rn rn
rn rn
rn rn
O
U
m
M M
M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
N
pNj M
N N
O�
a W
0� O
rn O
r
Q
N W
rn rn
N N
N N
O M
V�
rn r
N
Q
H
N
M 'V
w (p
N N
(D (0
w r
w 0
r CO
N m
rn 0
t r
(D
r N
r d0
N N
Q
m rn
m
rn rn
m rn
m rn
m o
0 0

M
O
N
N
CL
N
N
Q N
r
N N
m N
Q m
r tO0
O r
m r
y to
N N
M m
m Q.
r
m m
m
O
m
m
p
O
W
m
N
M
O
N
a m
r P
m m
Q
O
m Q
m N
N r,
M
m M
m N
N N
N r
M r
O N
r
N
lCl m
O Q
N N
M Q
m M
r
N
O
WQ
r
N
M
P Q
N
M
N
r
In
N
m
Z
O
O
N O
N
O
N
M
th-
2 N
r M
v
O N
N N
M O
rn O
p N
N
Q M
M Q
N
r N
N N
m W
m N
m Q
r Q
to O
m r
N Q
� r
N
�..,
M
N N
M M
m m
m
m
N O
r m
N Q
Q r
M
m
N N
M O
Q W
m O
N m
M
N r
r
N
m
m I[l
W
m
N
�
m
N
N r
Q N
N —
� M
N .-
� m
m M
Q
M
M
M
m
N
m
O
N
M
rn 0
N
m Q
p
m O
M N
N m
m N
0 m
0 0
N N
N M
m Q
M M
0 m
r
r m
Q m
m
r
m
r
N
O
m
m
Z
N
O
O m
N
Q
M
p m
N 0
N m
O
r
m M
O N
P O
r Q
m N
O Q
O O
O O
N N
O M
P
m O
m
rn m
N
M
r O
m
m
=
r
N
M
N
M
Q
N
N
N
I'M,
r
2
a
M
m N
0 N
r
Q
M Q
m O
r N
0 M
O
m
r M
m
N
r m
r,
M N
M M
M
N
a
f/1
O_
m
C N
10,
r 0
Ul N
M M
P r
r rn
W N
N M
r O
N N
CO m
N
m m
m O
CO
N 0
m m
O
N M
O N
N O
N
O
O m
W N
m m
N
M M
Q m
M M
M m
M N
O P
M N
to P
N
N M
r N
N
r r
rn m
m
m
r co
N
N N
M Q
N N
O
r m
N N
M N
N N
N N
M M
M M
M M
N M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M N
N N
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
f
a
m
m
m
YY
(V
Y Y
0] l0
Y Y
(0 (0
Y
I0
Y Y
0J
Y Y
t6
Y Y
tO l0
Y Y
t0 t0
y
(0 (O
-
f0 0J
-
y
tO tO
y
t0 tO
Y
t0 t0
Y Y
t0
d d
Y Y
[O t0
d
Y Y
t0 t0
d
Y Y
0)
Y
l0 (0
N
Y Y
I0
d
Y Y
l0
N
Y;
n n
y Y
y
Y
a
II
i
VN J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
t0 m
J J
�0 (0
N
J J
N N
J J
N
J J
N
J Ill
N
J R
M t0
I0 J
Y Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y
U U
Y
U
Y U
U
U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U L)
U U
U U
U U
U
U
U
3 3
3 3
3 3
w m
3 3
3 m
3 3
3 3
3 m
m 3
3 3
w 0
3 m
3 3
m 3
3 m
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
--
- -
---
—
—
IO
a
a a
IO
a a
0) IO
a a
IO t0
a a
IO
a a
W l0
a a
c0 f0
a a
0)
d a
10
m a
IO l0
a a
t0
a
l0 (0
l0
IO
IO
(0
(0
I0
x
a
a a
a a
a a
a a
a a
a a
Cl. a
a a
a a
J J
J
J
J
" m
rn rn
m rn
rn m
m m
m m
m m
rn rn
m rn
m m
m m
rn m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m rn
m rn
rn rn
rn rn
m m
m m
m m
m m
m rn
rn m
m rn
m m
0
U
m
r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r-
ti
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
01
a M
m N
N M
m N
N N
O M
co O
m N
r
Q W
m Q
CO r
M Q
m M
m
N P
r N
m N
O M
P CO
O
0p
m
N N
m m
W Q
P Q
N N
Q M
N
Ifl m
M N
DJ Q
m m
M O
N M
O
CO m
O Q
N r
N
-0
r r
O N
m m
`-' m
m m
p Qp
N to
m m
N
(QO N
N«
N
N N
N P
1� .-
M N
'- M
M M
N N
Q N
M N
N
p
N
Q N
M
N
m
N
a
r
CO
N N
m 0
N M
N
M M
M Q
M M
m r
co co
m m
M co
0
Q Q
N M
Q Q
Q LL'l
m r
P
m rn
0
LL']
N Q
m m
N
M N
001—
r
N
M N
m r
O N
M Q
N M
Q V]
m r
to N
O O
m m
m m
N M
m m
Q F m
m
m
0
m m
0 0
m m
0
m m
0 0
m m
0 0
m m
0
m m
m m
m m
m m
0
m m
0 0
0 0
0 0
rn
0 0
m m
0 0
m m
0 0
m m
0 0
m m
0 0

M
0
N
O
Wr
N
N
O W
N n
V
N W
N
n
W
EL
p
O
? N
O
Q
W If
V N
N
O O
r
N
N
w
m
n
M
O
N
m 0
N
n O
a N
N
0 0
Q�
0 0
N O
N
N ppj
N
N
N
p O
N N
r
W
N M
r W
N
O
M
V n
V
N
r
w
N
N
Q
N
m
Z
N
O
O
N
M C
I
_
a=
LU
w
o
N
Q>
O
C
N
n W
W W
O •-
r
-0-0,
O
O
r O
r
n 0
0 0
0 W
V
O>
M N
V N
_
IT
N
M
N
N N
m
M
O
N
2
p N
m V
pN W
N W
N W
W n
W O�
r W
O
N
•- O
O
O
n
N O
n •-
Q O
CIO
W W
r
N M
N,
r
W M
N
=
N
W MN
mm
N
N N
M
m
Z
N
O
0
W
r
0 0
O
M O
0 0
V' N
_
O
N N
O
M
O W
C
N
V
M O
V W
001
N V
0 0
W
N
N
n V
2
2
d
U
M
a W
• -
n N
r
W W
O
W
�- M
N N
W
V C
r 0
p Q
M M
W r
N O
0
O
N
W M
N
r
O
�-
W �p
N
M W
M
V
O) O
W W
r M
N C
N W
O 1
M V
V V
N
O N
N N
M O
0 N
N
O r
O W
n
T
C
N
r O
W M
N
�
N
M W
W
N
W
O`
W N
n
N
0) n
W r
W OI
O N
O
r
M W
W O
O
r W
M
N W
V V
W r
M
N r
W M
r N
N W
N N
r V
N N
n n
N W
W r
W W
W O>
N N
W
M W
O
W W
M W
W W
M
W M
r 0
O
O
p
N
p
n
N
Y Y
N
@
K
cc �
K d'
2 cr
� -
_>`
-
- K
- 2-
- -
Q'
U
U
m
U U
U U
N N
U U
d
U U
U U
U U
@ O
U U
U a
n a
a D
a a
a
a
a n
n
n
a
'
Y;
a
Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y
N
jp
U N
Y U`
N
J
jp J
jp ry
J jp
J
J J
J
J J�
@ @
J
@ @
J J
@
J J
@
J J
@
J J
@
J
Y
N
Y Y
N
Y
N
Y Y
N
Y Y
d@
Y
U
U
U
U U
U
U U
_
U
U U
U U
U U
U U
(/
;
@
@
@
@
J
ry J
@
ai
N
0]
O
J
» >
»
»»»>
J
Y
J@
J
---a-
@
J J
@ @
J J
m
@@
J J
d @
J
p
Y
a@
J
m
Y Y
J J
@
a Y
J
Y
a@
J
@
a a
@
a Y
a s
@
Y a
J
@ @
a a
a a
a a
a
m rn
rn rn
m rn
m v
a v
v v
c v
v v
a v
v v
v
U
a:
W
d
V
n
n n
p
W W
r r
M m
W
r
o
M p
W r
n
N W
W m
p M
r N
O
W
C W
r r
N O
N
p W
W
W r
W �-
r W
� N
V U'
m O>
O
W M
n n
r <{
N r
V W
r W
m
M
O N
N N
O N
� N
p W
r
N
W n
n n
W W
W M�
�'
N M
M n
•--
M�
N N
Q
f
O n
n n
W W
W W
r W
M O
•- n
W r
M n
W W
r
O
N a,
mN M
M DO
7 O C
N M
a V'
n W
pW r
W !
O
N M
n
VO '
W
N
a
r r
r r
r I
r C
C
1
N N
N n
N n
C
N
C O
f
O C
O N
W
O O
W O
O W
W W
O
W W
W W
W
W'
O O
W
O W O
0 O C
W
W 0
W
W
0
FN
N
M M
N N
M
N N
M M
N
M V
V
Q
dV
O

N
M
O
N
CL O
O r
O
M
M r
N
Q
N
N M
N N
N
n O
N (D
r
Q O
0 0
0
0 r
n .n
N 0
0 Q
N
N N
N O
N
O
iP
N
r M
N
N
Q N
M
r Q
M
N
Q
N
V
Q
N
W
Q
Q
W
n
0
N
CL
O
O
O
O
N DJ
Q> O
O Q
N
N n
n
0
O O
N N
O M
N
Q N
O N
M
N O
W
Z
z
0
0
N
a
r
O
p CO
N
N
M
M
N �
O]
N
p O
O Q
N
N
N '-
Q
O Q
O
W
lllt-,
It
T!
1111111-
M
N O)
Q N
N
M
O]
M
O
N N
n
O N
O
t0
M m
N w
_
r
M Q
M
pMj M
O O
Q
(0 Q
m
m
H
O
-1
r
O M
.E ( (D
- Q
N M
Oi N
r r
n N
Q p
N CD
M M
N N
N M
O (O
N
O N
�- N
p Q
N 6�
N
(D N
N Q
^
m Q
0 (D
p N
M O
Q
O •'
m
Z
0
N
N tN0
m (ND
N
cD Q
Q m
M O
ro 0)
r O
m
N
O
� m
M�
N
O m
j
M �
0
0 N
M
O
M M
N O
r N
p
O Q
m
N
CO
Q Q
t0
tp
d
Q
y N
C n
p
M
V
nJ M
N N
M D7
p
O
N
Q M
M N
r
N
N
CO n
N
CO
Q O
N N
O N
O
N (O
N
n �
r
N
M 0
N (D
(O r
M N
0 pp
M
N
N
N N
DJ Q
M N
�p
n N
N
N O
O
A
N N
N r
(p O
� m
N M
N
N
N
N
O
Q
n N
Q
N
N
N Q
V' V
V OJ
Cn
a
❑
m
o N
N Q
a
M n
Q (D
QI O
� M
N
M M
[2
M M`�
O] Co
01 QI
Q> N
(O N
n Op
N N
N
(D N
M Q
�D M
N m
M��
M
p
Q N
�
(O n
Q [O
.-
Cn N
n Q
M Q
� N
N
�
M M
Q
N N
M Q
N O
CO
d
@
@
@
@
@
m
af
@
cC
K Of
K
Cr
@
°
UUU
76
UaUa
76
Of
U
U4
m
U m
U
mUUUUC_i
7�6
c.7000UC�v`U
@UUU
UU
d
Y
Y
y
N
`
N@
N
@ @U
@@
MUM
@
U
O LL@
LL
LL
@ y°
@
U
LL
@ LL
U y
U y
@
U
@
@ U
y N
U N
LL
d
LL
d`
�
ry d
U
@`
U U
p� U
U
p� Y
N
LL
(,J Y@
@
Y
@
U
J
@
U-5
@
U y
S a
a y
a
a
9
V V
V
m
m
@
@
� d
@
U@
@
U
U
@
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
UUU
U
U U
U U
U
U
U=
U U
U U
3 U
U 3
U
3 y
3
3 3@
3
@@
3
3
E E;
E
w E
U
;
V
3 U
J
Y@
o
@
p
o
a 9
D
cG
2
2i
U
J U)
U
U
J
J
J U
J
J J
J❑
p`� J
J J
>?
J d
J ry
J
J
U
J
C
M
@
@
L
t0
L
@
L
@
@
L
L
L
ui
Q] co
in
m
@
J
o n
r n
r
r
r�
r n
n i=
r I�
n t�
t�
n
r- n
n
n
n
rn rn
m m
rn
rn m
rn rn
rn m
m m
rn m
rn rn
U
a
Ann
-mm
n
M
n n
M M
n r
M M
r r
M M
r n
M M
n n
M M
n r
M M
r r
M M
r r
M M
r n
M M
r n
M M
n n
C",),
r r
M
r r
M M
n n
M M
n r
M M
r r
M M
n n
M M
N N
Q Q
N
Q Q
NNN
Q Q
N
Q Q
N N
Q Q
N N
Q Q
v� N
Q Q
N N
Q Q
N N
Q Q
N
0
a
n
W
r r
(D CO
r tD
(D O
(D N
O n
N N
r n
CO CO
N N
00
N (D
W O
[O N
O r
N N
r n
N N
o w
N O
o
O
O
Q
(D N
O
O N
N N
Q Q
N (O
M�
r O]
N N
O
a
N O
n w
O M
OD 0
M N
0 N
N M
N (D
M M
tD (D
M N
(D
N n
M
n
n O
M M
M N
N r
r r
M M
M n
n r
r M
MM
.-
'- 00
N
Q
CO
W N
m N
N
(D t0
(D
m N
W W
m O
N
N n
a N
n 0
N n
N N
n r
N (p
n n
(O n
n n
n r
n n
N [0
n n
OJ (n
n n
0 0
n CO
0
OD
W 00
N N
CO [O
N M
CO
-
n W
0 0
t0
W W
n n
N 0
N
(O
N 0
0
w n
T w
n m
w (O
m m
(D w
m m
ID 0
0 O
0
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M

n
d
M m
M M
O �
m M
M M
N O
��
P m
0 O�
m r
M �
•-
O O
m m
m
M �
O N
O O
O O�
m
W
m
N
M
O
N
a
0
m
M M
O M
O
m M
P
M
O) N
m O
O r
0
0
P O)
O>
O P
O m
�-- O
m
M
m 0
m m
n m
Q� N
M
m P
M
M
0 0
O) O
m
N OY
m O
`� O�
M
n P
P m
m O
O
r m
O X11
N
N
W
r
m
Z
0
O P
r
M
a
Im
a
W
M
"'Mm
i N
p P
LL'1
N
P N
O
M
N
m m
r M
N
P m
m
O
m P
m
O P
N N
t0 O-
N
n
Q N
P
P
m
O M
O
m m
r m
m m
M
m m
rn
N n
p M
m
m
N m
O
M P
P
M m
O
M
=
N
m
M
O
N
N
M
m
n
N
m n
m
S
r
O
N m
�
m
Z
N
O
N
M N
O O
N r
r
N
0 m
m
01
N
r N
M M
m
O
m
n
m
m
0
M
m
r M
N N
N
N O
M
2
N
U
M
O
N
m M
N r
N
O m
O
n
P
N M
N O
P r
N
In,
P P
N m
N O
P
O N
m P
M N
M
M
M
P
C
m m
.O
O
Cm'J
r
P
P
tf� M
m
P
m
N N
t m
n N
n
U1
P n
m
m r
N
N
a
N
O
m n
n m
M P
°2 o
M P
r m
M M
n o
m O�
m u2
M m
m M
M n
n r
OI O�
�It N
m m
� m
m n
o n
p �
�
n n
P °
°i °�
P
O m
N
M M
m m
m m
m r
M M
m m
M M
M
M
a
�
N �
� N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N �
N N
�
N
�
En
of
ct� K
Ir K
�
x�
K K
K�
K K��
K K
a
a
a a
a a
3;
j3:
3:
3:
76
T N
@ N
N
N
@
O
U U
U d
Y
U Y
U�
U U
U U
ro U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U Y
U Y
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U
N
`m
N @@
Y
O
` 2
` Y
O
` Y
; Y
@
Y `�5
O
Y
O O
Y -'
0
Y Y
0
` Y
O
Y Y
0 0
N N
0
N
@
d
N
@@
N
N
N U
U
N N
UI
d
N
O
ry U
a
@ U
U
LL
U
LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL
.............
@
LL
@
9
a
;3:
3: 3
O
O
O ...
... j
...
j ....
... �.
j?
UUUUUUUUU_CiUUU
O
O
O O
_ O
�
�U�c
O
UUiJUUUiiU
O O_
O
UUU
�
_ �°�n
-�n-
-min
vow
-rn
rn v�cn
cn
�n vv�cn
rn v�cn
�n
m
U
U ()
@@
°
N
N
@
N@
O N
N
N
@
7
J
J
J
J
J
J
J J
J
U
U
U U
U U
J U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U
'C
t
'C CC
r
'C
t'Cr
C'Ct
rr'Crr'C
L
�
L
L
L
L
L L
L L
L
L L
L
r�r
nrrr�
�rrrrrnn
r.nnnt�r
-rnr
�nrr�n
rte
rr
n
�nnrt��rnti
r-rr
r.�nn
rrr�rr
U
a
...
n n
M M
n n
M M
n rn
M CO
r r-
M M
n
M M
n r
M M
n n
M M
n n
M co
n n
M M
n n
M M
n n
M M
r n
M M
n n
M M
n r
M M
n n
M M
n n
M M
n n
M M
n n
M M
n n
M M
n r
M M
r n
M
n n
M M
n n
M M
n r
M M
r n
M M
n n
M M
r r
M M
n
M
d
n N
m O)
N N
n n
P P
O O
P P
N N
t0
N N
N
m n
N
n m
N O
N O
ifI m
N
O N
M
Q
n
n O,
0 0
n (-
O> P
P
m p
M n
P m
N t0
O
O M
m p
m P
P r
m N
0 O�
m m
P P
r
M M
M M
'-
N N
N N
P P
N N
m m
M
P
M
N m
m
N
a
N
N m
n r
m m
01 O)
0 0
N
m OJ
M P
P N
m n
0 O
M 0 V
n
m N
M m
Q N
M M
m r
M M
m m
M M
O P N
F
m m
O O
O m
m O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N

N
M
O
N Q
O 4
Q
r CO
M r
N
Q
O O
(0 M
r
(D
(D `-
O
0 0
N
0
(O M
O r
N
m r
O N
W Q
(D
M r
�,.�
Q
r m
r
OJ
(O r
O
r
r N
m
O M
r O
W
N 0
N
Q-
r Q
(D
Q
M N
Q
(p O
Q
N N
Q �
r,
m Q
r Q
� M
N �
(D
N
N Q
N
N
N
Q
,h
.-
N
N
m N
,Q
p
W
m
N
M
0
N
r M
M r
N Q
tD Q
O r
�n
N
N e-
O M
CD
N Q
�- N
m N
Q Q
M to
W
no
M
e-
(D
N
N
N
Q
r m
m
Z
0
C N
N
N
N Q
M
M
t0 N
M Q
m p
Q
O Q
W M
N m
0�
O r
� O
O O
N
O
N
m W
m r
r M
N
02 M
W
Q r
m
�
Q
O r
Q
Q
N
�
N
N
O "�
r O
N
Q N
N
M
m O
d
M
c-
M
Q
N
llf
M
111,2
�
W
M
0
N
O
r M M
N
O m
N O
N m
Q
M
N
M
O
N
=
N
m
r
M
N
N
O
N N
M
r M
(D
W r
m
M
O
N
In
�
�,.� N
N OD
N
t0 M
O
r
r
m
�
N N
M N
(D v
M M
m
N
co
m
�
N
N
tD M
Q�
M
CO M
r r
CO
m
Z
N
O
10
O (Q O
�
cp
0 N 0
N
N
co
�
N
2
Im
117
`u
a
Vl M
N
r W
r
Q Q
N
o ID
(D
r (D
m N
OJ pr
O
N
a
a
N
O OJ
N W
Q M
M
CO m
Q O
m Q
O
Q N
Q M
Q mmm
N
O m
mw
N
N
r CO
(D r
N N
O] Q
N m
r m
M r
m W
M N
m
CO m
N N
m Q
M
Q Q
Q N
Q Q
(O r
Q Q
O
O
O O
N N
O O
r
r r
r
Q Q
(NO
a
V)
d
G�
m m
Cif K
m
Cf K
m
of
d
wC�
m
G�
m
C� Kct�
d
K
m
K K
m m
K K
m
af K
v
T KC�
d v
CC
d>
x Of
>
D�
cr
ro
n
ro m
a
ro ro
m
ro
ro
ro
m m
m m
m
m
ro
ro ro
ro
ro
ro
n a
a
n
a n
a n
a a
a
a a
n n
n n
n n
n n
n
a
m
UUUUUYU
m m
m ro
ro
m"
�U000UUU
m"
'"
m m
m m
V UUUUUUUUUUU
-' m
m'
m m
m m
m m
m
vU'�U-'�YiUYU'�U
m
m
mU''�UU
N
m
N
d d
m
N N
O m
m N
UUUUUUUUUUUU
N O
LL
O O
LL LL
LL LL
Cj
LL
V O
O
LL LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL y
LL LL
LL LL
O
LL LL
O
LL LL
O
LL LL
U o
LL
U o
LL
U U`
U
U
U
U L
L L
L L
m L
m L
L L
L L
L L
L L
'
L L
L L
L L
... y
L
L L
m L
m L
ro ro
II
II m
II ro
II ro
II II
3 3
3 3
II U
3 3
V II
3 3
9
3 �
II
� 3
II II
3 3
0
0 0
0
m
m
o
o
'o
'o
ro o
0
m
U
U m
L)m
m
U
UUUUU
U
U U
0
U U
0 0
U U
cn�UJrn�
)
mco
co (nU)0co
n�N
wV)0V)m0
V) V)
ro0
m�
m
_.
m
� ro
Y
N
Y Y
N N
Y Y
O
U Y
d
U Y
Y Y
N
Y Y
N
Y Y
m m
Y Y
Y Y
m m
Y Y
m m
Y Y
O m
Y Y
N
Y Y
N
U Y
N
(� Y
m
U U
; U
U
; U
3 U
;
m;
m
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
U
U U
U U
U
U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U
U
r
m
r r
m m
r r
ro
r
ro
r
r r
m
r r
m
r r
m
r r
m m
r r
m
r r
m
r r
m ro
r r
m ro
r r
m ro
r
m
r
J
❑
>
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑
❑
L L
❑ ❑
L L
❑ ❑
L L
❑ ❑
L L
❑ ❑
L L
>
❑ ❑
L L
J
❑ ❑
L L
❑ ❑
L L
❑ ❑
J L
❑ ❑
L
❑
L
c
c
U
m
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M "M
...
M
mm
M M
M M
M M
M ....
M
M M
M m
`
a
M N
N
N O
0
D O
Q
m N
M N
m (D
O
M
M
O N
_ r
N Co
N m
m 0
O M
M r
N N
M M
M M
Q Q
N N
m m
m m
m m
r r
r
N N
CO
N N
O O
0 N
Q N
N r
N M
N N
W 0]
r
Q
O 00
W M
Q
M
[� N
N (O
(O Q
Q OJ
m m
N N
O O
M M
N N
M N
N N
(O (O
Q Q
v
r r
(O
00
a
M M
�-
r
N N
a Q
M Q
Q Q
N O
Q
Q
O r
Q
Q
r
Q N Q
m Q 0 N
N N N
M N Q N
r N N N
m N
0 (O
(O N (O
M Q
N -
r
N JJ
N N m
r O
0 r
r r
M r M
m 0
M
C N
O N 00000
N
N
N N
0 0
N N
00
N N
0 0
N N
0 0
N N
0 0
N N
0 0
N N
0 0
N N
0 0
N
0 0
N
0 0
N
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
i-N
fl--
N
N
N
N
N N
N N
N N
N
N
N N
-

TMTTIT,
N
M
O
O
W
r
N
N
N
m
N
M
O
N
O
N O
(O
O
N
N
m N
O
I
M
N
N
m CO M
M M N
Q M N D
(M D O
m m r
M OJ
Q (D
M
Q N W �
O Q
N Q
N .-
W
0, �
N
O
N �
m
Z
N
N
W
N
Mo
W
N
O
Q
M 0�
Q
O
N N
O
M
r
N
Q
_
Q
m o
Q
CL N
O
N
Q
M
F
W
N
M
O
N
(D
N M
N
N
N
r
N D
O
O
m
N
M
O
(D
N
W
N
O O
N
Q
!D r
¢']
Q� O
r
r-
--m
O
N
(V
N
O Q�
M
NM
I'D
N m
O M
N
N
DJ
N e-
M
W
r
r N
M
m
Q
N W
N
O
e- M
M
r r
N
W `-
(Np
N
N
_
M
O� Q
N
r`
OJ Q
m
Z
N
0
p
Q
Q M
0
N O
O O
o
mm. M
OJ
Q>
rO
m
V ro Q
M N
O
Q
N
O
N
M O
M
Q
O
N O
N
—mw
M
N
r N
N
Q
O
N
N W
O r
N
CO
M
Q
M
r
0 0
N
r N
M
p
O N
CO
O r
O
M Q
w
•- Q
M
Q
r
f0
°
N
a
N
C
� N
O m
m
M N
r O
OJ N
Q Nw
Q Q
N
Q 0
(O
0
r 0
0
CO Q�
O O
N O
N N
� N
M
N Q
Q N
O O
O
O O
N O
O N
N O
O O
N
N N Q
N
r
O Q O
m
m N
r
N
N
N
N N
N N
N Q
N N
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N
N N
N N
N N
N
N N
n
N
N
N
C�
ce
01 rl�
)
cc G, a�
K
N
N
t0 t0
N N
II a°
a
II
a n
_
d �
—0—
U
U t9 l0
N U
c0 (0
N U U U
U
U
U U
U N U N U N N
NCJ
UU °
°
U LL LL
a ; ; ;
n(0 ; 3 a;
; n n n 5 n
n
L n
n L
n L L w
❑ n n 3 a n n n m
n m n m
n
n II
m3 m
3
mN UUU;
m(0
U;;
UU
;
mUU B
° ; ; i
T
;
o
U)
_
c3o .0
-
.
l6 (0
L � (0
v
d
U U Y U
U
U
U
Y
U Y Y
U U U UUU U U
Y
U U
U U U U U N U
U U U N N;
; 3:
U U
3:
DD 7
J U J
J
J U
U
U U
U U U
(.i
N
(0
N
L
tQ N N
L L
L
t
L
L
P
�-
U
M
M
M
M M
M M
M M M
M M
M M
M M
M
........ M
M
M
M Comm
M
M
M M
M
M
M
M M
M
M M
M M
M
M M
M M
M tr'J
M
M M
M
M
M
M
M
N
` O�
Q
N
O�
Q� C
D (D
Q
Q N
O� 0�
Q
O
Q
O O
O O
M
r M
W (O (D
N
W [O
V
O�
M M
N
N N
O�
N
°� Q>
M M
r r
M
N r
O
O
N
O
N
w N
N N
N
N
2 (0
nn-
N w
V
N
m
a Q
f
m °°�i
N
N M
w
O
Q M
Q
Q
(O
N N N
N
N
N
N OJ
O>
M
N
Q
r
-
N M
Q (D
r W
m O
O
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N
0
0 0
0
M
0 0
M
0
M M
0 0
M
0
m n
0 0
M Q
0
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
N
0 0 0
N N N
0
N N
IR
0 0
N N
0 0
N N
0 0
N N
0 0
N N
0 0
N N
0 0
N N
0 0
N N
0
N N
N N
N
N N
N
N N
N
N N
N N
N
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N
N N
N
N N
N
N

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
Calculated acreage of the Metrolina model
TAZ Acres
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
45= Cleveland
County
71= Gaston
91= York
119= Mecklenburg
HUC12
Hydrologic Unit Code 12 watershed name
See Section 2 1 5 of the report for the
Sub Zone ID
explanation of how the Metrolina model
TAZs were split into smaller zones based
on watershed boundaries
Calculated acreage of sub zone Note that
Sub Zone-Acres
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

0 V is! 1� ITWUMM,
70.,M��
Household and Employment Forecasts

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 East West Connector would not substantially affect
land use in Mecklenburg County

The Louis Berger Group Inc 199 Water Street 23rd Floor New York NY 10038
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
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 TAL 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

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

The Louis Berger Group Inc 199 Water Street 23rd Floor New York NY 10038
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
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 Metrolind
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

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

The Louis Berger Group Inc 199 Water Street 23rd Floor New York NY 10038
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
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 (forinerly 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 tc 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

-s" � c °' ��� ,
i ice.

ln
—
_
d
« E
m
F
7
�x
�4y
qq..tt
I7
x
Y'
tx
4�
�
� e
Cil�rr
r
�
! t
�' .r
� � �` '�
�
�
�
try •.
2� � �:' � i
o i j
t
v
o
IL
.}"
Ji•
Z.y
O
C W � C N � �
M 2
;7
4w
a
a o 5 � U L: 2: in rn
Dn X0100
��

�*'� '�- `w�- ,c_.-�.�".,�� - � 3 � 1 '�-„!� " + -r o/ ",�5�'�.� �"�4=�CL `�••k+�''"`� .- rr�"�- r..,,r �� i 1. L�-- ��y�•,� � v
0'LL h }
ti
�r
Lil—
4�
ell w
J � f
t 23 G[ m�i
Ilk
r �
ZF-
t/f�}�
f Ilk
N •--' .,,, its �, i � �1. aPl Sh,l°�S _ ., •-

ti
in
on
oV
" 7 "
;
, IA I
rf
_am
ZLLQ
LL
Ti
CL

i
o .. i
in E
ra
a
`w Em
U � W _ _
� 9
W a V N a
m m
-- .- °

x
Pf
x�
f
�
•
(�
�.g
�
�
o
f
•
� �'.��
tom' +xa•
�,�
�? {��' r`
�-�
4J
-•
dS
�j{
5 c e
* �. arti� �. �
N��.�
�
�f��
� Y
� *
, d�• ® xis
M
a
ILjj�t.
•i'��
ALx� �3
/ ;
p` #�
=
�
��� .�
.F
��4�`�,
• llr
`;ri�r �
'�u
r
L
`a< Rosa
��
�
;�'
FA
iF
Ml
NN
Sxv
Ell-
x
q
�����
�
®
k �
•x. ' 6S
of

!+-ti _ F es. ✓! x ,l � yZ Y xX .-..Y Fs` _ v" < r:\ `.� � ,�- ' 1�( �" `�I -� `d
F`�'��' ..�^`s� -� •,, ,., � '1j,11a
4
�
r m
O _
0 ILL
c� ° ` t d
f'
�+ , �� i C � � �/ �� •mil i'y � \� 'l � (�. ��J � �� �yS'y r2. �1 � ��
f'... —r
o
43
CL 1
m Q
-�v rn
CL
_ N / @
j ax s� �a' d�� Y^� \
E
ca
— iErr f
( }
L2 z
rlZ c U

al
-Z
o
O
11
O
n41
UJ
LZ
aJ
CY
L-1 e�-

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

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 Dally 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 m 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 Conform Bactena
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 forAssessing
the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects
Transportation Research Board 1998 NCHRP Report 403 Estimating the Indirect
Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects
52

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 expenmental 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
Mclntrye 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

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
70 References
Boarnet Marlon G and Andrew F 2000 Haughwout Do Highways Matter-9 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 microchmate vanability within an old
growth Douglas firforest 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 Microchmate in forest ecosystem and landscape
ecology Bioscience 49 288 297
50

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
41 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 Intenm 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 sti ctly 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