20120285_Report_20100803

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,
� N4}RiH �r�.Z[j�lidis
� � Tld��l�l�L� �1,1�17�j�
a Division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
�d�T�
`���, �P,�'`
Prepared by
�rHE Louis Berger Group, iNC.
www.louisberger.com

Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary ....................................................................................................
ES-1 Background ..................................................................................................
ES-2 Methodology .................................................................................................
ES-2.1 Study Area Boundaries and Timeframe ................................................
ES-2.2 Land Use Change .................................................................................
ES-2.3 Water Resources ..................................................................................
ES-2.4 Wildlife Habitat ......................................................................................
ES-3 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects ...................................................
ES-3.1 Land Use Change .................................................................................
ES-3.2 Water Resources ..................................................................................
ES-3.4 Wildlife Habitat ......................................................................................
ES-4 Mitigation ....................................................................................................
1.0 Introduction and Background ..............................................................................
1.1 Project Description ......................................................................................
1.2 Definitions ....................................................................................................
1.3 Eight-Step Process for Evaluating Indirect and Cumulative Effects............
1.4 2009 Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment ...................
1.5 Purpose of this Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment.
2.0 Methodology ........................................................................................................
2.1 Study Area Boundaries ...............................................................................
2.1.1 Gaston County .....................................................................................
2.1.2 Mecklenburg County ............................................................................
2.1.3 Cleveland County ................................................................................
2.1.4 York County .........................................................................................
2.1.5 Relating Traffic Analysis Zones to Watershed Boundaries .................
2.1.6 Assessment of Study Area Boundary Based on Qualitative Analysis
Resu Its .................................................................................................
2.2 Analysis Year ..............................................................................................
2.3 Future No Build Condition Projects .............................................................
2.3.1 Other Transportation Projects .............................................................
2.3.2 Household and Employment Growth ...................................................
2.4 Land Use Forecasting .................................................................................
2.4.1 Household and Employment Forecasts ...............................................
2.4.2 Regional Accessibility Analysis ...........................................................
2.4.3 Existing Conditions Land Use ..............................................................
2.4.4 Future Land Use Change Projections .................................................
2.5 Environmental Resources for Analysis ........................................................
2.5.1 Farmland .............................................................................................
2.5.2 Water Resources .................................................................................
2.5.3 Wildlife Habitat .....................................................................................
2.6 Rounding .....................................................................................................
3.0 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects ............................................................
3.1 Household and Employment Growth ...........................................................
3.2 Land Use Change .......................................................................................
3.2.1 Consistency with Local Land Use Plans ..............................................
3.3 Water Resources .........................................................................................
TOC
.... 1
.... 1
.... 2
.... 2
.... 2
.... 3
.... 3
.... 4
.... 4
.... 4
.... 5
.... 6
.... 7
.... 7
.... 8
.... 9
.. 10
.. 11
.. 11
.. 11
.. 12
.. 13
.. 13
.. 13
.. 13
.. 14
.. 14
.. 14
.. 15
.. 16
.. 17
.. 17
.. 18
.. 22
.. 23
.. 24
.. 25
.. 25
.. 27
.. 29
.. 30
.. 30
.. 32
.. 33
.. 34

3.3.1 Impacts of Past and Present Actions ...................................................
3.3.2 Impacts from Other Actions (No Build Alternative) ..............................
3.3.3 Direct Impacts from the Preferred Alternative .....................................
3.3.4 Indirect Effects from the Preferred Alternative .....................................
3.3.5 Potential for Cumulative Effects ..........................................................
3.4 Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................................
3.4.1 Impacts of Past and Present Actions ...................................................
3.4.2 Impacts from Other Actions (No Build Alternative) ..............................
3.4.3 Direct Impacts from the Preferred Alternative .....................................
3.4.4 Indirect Effects from the Preferred Alternative .....................................
3.4.5 Potential for Cumulative Effects ..........................................................
4.0 Evaluate Analysis Results ...................................................................................
4.1 Bud Wilson Road Interchange .....................................................................
5.0 Mitigation .............................................................................................................
6.0 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................
7.0 References ..........................................................................................................
List of Tables
Table 1: Transportation Projects Included in No Build Condition Gaston Urban Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization ............................................................................
.. 34
.. 38
.. 39
.. 39
.. 39
.. 42
.. 42
.. 42
.. 43
.. 44
.. 44
.. 48
.. 48
.. 49
.. 50
.. 50
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
Comparedto Build .......................................................................................................... 31
Table 4: Gravity Model Estimated Change in Employment by Watershed, No Build
Comparedto Build .......................................................................................................... 31
Table 5: Residential Land Conversion by Watershed No Build Compared to Build........ 32
Table 6: Employment Land Conversion by Watershed, No Build Compared to Build .... 33
Table 7: Impaired Waterbodies in the North Carolina Portion of the ICE Study Area..... 36
Table 8: Impaired Waterbodies in the South Carolina Portion of the ICE Study Area.... 37
Table 9: Change in Impervious Surface Cover by Watershed, No Build Compared to
Build................................................................................................................................ 41
Table 10: Study Area Forest Interior Habitat Patches .................................................... 42
Table 11: Forest Interior Habitat Patch Impact Analysis ...............................................43
Table 12: Change in Tree Cover by Watershed (Low Impact Estimate)
No Build Compared to Build ........................................................................................... 46
TOC

Table 13: Change in Tree Cover by Watershed (High Impact Estimate)
No Build Compared to Build ........................................................................................... 47
List of Figures
Figure 1: Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative ICE Study Areas
Figure 2: TAZ and Subwatershed Boundaries
Figure 3: No Build Transportation Projects
Figure 4: Metrolina Travel Demand Model Region
Figure 5: Parcel-Based Land Use Classification
Figure 6: Absolute Change in Households, 2005 to 2035 No Build Condition
Figure 7: Absolute Change in Employment, 2005 to 2035 No Build Condition
Figure 8: Absolute Change in Households, 2035 No Build to Build
Figure 9: Absolute Change in Employment, 2035 No Build to Build
Figure 10: Absolute Change in Households, 2005 to 2035 Build Condition
Figure 11: Absolute Change in Employment, 2005 to 2035 Build Condition
Figure 12: Impervious Surtace Cover
Figure 13: Tree Cover and Forest Interior Habitat Patches
Figure 14: Forest Interior Patches A, B, C, D and E
Figure 15: Forest Interior Patches F and G
Figure 16: Forest Interior Patches I, J, K and L
Figure 17: Forest Interior Patches M, N and O
Figure 18: Forest Interior Patches P, Q and R
Figure 19: Forest Interior Patches S, T and U
Figure 20: Forest Interior Patches V and W
TOC

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

Executive Summary
ES-1 Background
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA), a division of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), proposes to construct a controlled-access toll road extending
from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485 near the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport in Mecklenburg County. The proposed project (STIP Project U-
3321) is known both as the "Gaston East-West Connector" and as the "Garden
Parkway." For this study, the project is referred to as the Gaston East-West Connector.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Gaston East-West Connector
was published in April 2009. A qualitative assessment of potential indirect and
cumulative effects was pertormed for the Gaston East-West Connector DEIS (LBG,
2009). The qualitative assessment was focused on steps one through five of the eight-
step process for ICE assessment outlined in the NCDOT/ North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Guidance on lndirect and Cumulative lmpact
Assessment of Transportation Projects in North Carolina. Steps one through five include
defining study area boundaries, identifying community trends and goals, identifying
resources for analysis, describing cause and effect relationships and identifying
potential impacts for analysis.
A quantitative indirect and cumulative effects assessment was requested by other
agencies in comments on the DEIS, with the specific areas of concern being water
quality and wildlife habitat impacts. Other agencies and the public had no comments on
the Qualitative ICE study, except for recommending the completion of a Quantitative ICE
study. Based on the results of the qualitative assessment and consideration of the
public and agency comments on the DEIS, FHWA and NCTA decided to conduct a
quantitative assessment of potential indirect and cumulative effects for the FEIS.
While the qualitative assessment was focused primarily on steps one through five of the
eight-step process, this quantitative assessment is focused on steps six through eight
(analyze impacts, evaluate analysis results, and assess consequences and develop
mitigation). The purpose of this quantitative assessment is to: 1) provide a detailed
analysis of the potential indirect land use, water resources and wildlife habitat impacts of
the Preferred Alternative; 2) provide a detailed analysis of the potential cumulative land
use, water resources and wildlife habitat impacts that could results from the combination
of the direct and indirect impacts of this project with the impacts of other reasonably
foreseeable actions by others; and 3) to disclose mitigation measures that could be used
to offset any adverse indirect and/or cumulative effects identified by the assessment.
The land use change forecasts developed for this study may be used to provide inputs to
the water quality modeling proposed to address the requirements of NCDENR Division
of Water Quality's policy document entitled Cumulative lmpacts and the 401 Water
Quality Certification and lsolated Wetlands Program (NDWQ, 2004).

ES-2 Methodology
ES-2.1 Study Area Boundaries and Timeframe
The study are defined in the qualitative ICE study consisted of portions of southern
Gaston County, northern York County, western Mecklenburg County and eastern
Cleveland County. The study area boundaries presented in the qualitative ICE
assessment were refined as part of the preparation of this quantitative assessment. The
study area boundaries were altered to encompass the entirety of Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) 12-digit subwatersheds (See Figure 1). The study area consists of the following
HUC 12 subwatersheds:
• Upper Crowders Creek (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 (030501 01 1 406)
• Paw Creek-Lake Wylie (030501 01 1 404)
• Beaverdam Creek (030501 01 1 503)
The future analysis year for the quantitative ICE assessment is 2035 to coincide with the
2035 long-range transportation plans for the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (GUAMPO), the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MUMPO) and the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS) (GUAMPO,
2010; MUMPO, 2010 and RFATS, 2010). The analysis year for the 2009 qualitative ICE
assessment was 2030 because the current long-range plans at that time had a horizon
year of 2030.
ES-2.2 Land Use Change
To analyze the potential indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative on patterns of future
household and employment growth, a gravity model analysis was conducted using travel
time information from the April 13, 2006 version of the Metrolina travel demand model.
Gravity models are used often in transportation and travel modeling. They are based on
the observation that the overall attractiveness of an area to potential residents is a
function of the capacity of an area for development (vacant developable land in valued
and affordable locations) and accessibility to employment and activity centers. The
model produces quantified results that can serve as the basis for assessing land use
change. The gravity model formulation essentially holds that all other factors influencing
development held constant, growth will shift towards areas with the greatest relative
accessibility improvement as a result of the project. As discussed further below,
coordination with MPOs and county planning departments led to the decision to use the
gravity model approach to estimate the No Build condition because the Build condition
was reflected in the prevailing demographic forecasts.
Demographic projections in the Metrolina travel demand model for the study area are
developed by GUAMPO, MUMPO and York County/RFATS and used in their long-range
transportation plans (LRTPs). The most recent MPO LRTPs and demographic forecasts

at the time of this study were for the year 2035. A series of interviews with the MPOs
and county planning departments in the study area was conducted to determine whether
the 2035 forecasts should serve as the No Build condition or Build condition for this ICE
study. Interviews were held with planners from GUAMPO, MUMPO, RFATS, Gaston
County, Mecklenburg County and York County. Summaries of each meeting are
provided in Appendix A. All three of the MPOs with responsibility for developing the
demographic forecasts for the study area confirmed that the Gaston East-West
Connector was assumed to be completed in the allocation of future growth to specific
zones. During the demographic forecasting efforts for the Metrolina model, additional
growth was added in areas that were expected to become more attractive to
development with the project, including southern Gaston County and northern York
County. This means that the indirect land use effect of the project is already reflected in
the forecasts. Therefore, the Metrolina model forecasts should be used to represent the
Build condition. All the participants concurred that the forecasts represent the Build
condition and it was reasonable to use the gravity model approach to redistribute
households and employment for the No Build condition.
Once the No Build and Build distribution of households and employment were
established, these estimates were converted into potential changes in land use based on
the average density of proposed or existing development in the study area.
ES-2.3 Water Resources
Impervious surtace cover is an accepted indicator for assessing the potential for water
quality impacts as a result of future development. Impervious surtace cover increases
runoff volumes, which in turn can affect stream stability and water quality indicators.
Existing impervious surtace 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 surtace cover for the No Build
and Build conditions associated with future household and employment growth, the
NRCS TR-55 manual percent impervious surtace factors for various types of
development were used (e.g. residential, commercial/industrial). The impact
assessment methodology also accounted for the impervious surface growth associated
with the Gaston East-West Connector (e.g. the direct impact) and with other reasonably
foreseeable transportation projects in the study area.
ES-2.4 Wildlife Habitat
Forest cover and the size and configuration of undisturbed habitat blocks are the key
indicators for assessing potential upland wildlife habitat impacts. As with impervious
surface cover, tree cover was delineated using Feature Analyst. A range of potential
impacts of future development on tree cover were estimated in order to appropriately
reflect the uncertainty involved in predicting the exact location of future development.
The low end estimate assumed development would be prioritized away from tree cover,
while the high end estimate assumed development would be prioritized in areas with tree
cover. Direct impacts to tree cover from the Gaston-East Connector and other
reasonably foreseeable transportation projects in the study area were also accounted
for.

In addition to the tree cover impact assessment described above, an analysis was
pertormed to identify interior forest habitat and assess the direct impacts and indirect
edge effects of the proposed project on interior forest habitat. For analysis purposes, an
edge effect distance of 300 feet was selected for this study to identify potential interior
forest habitat areas. An edge effect distance of 300 feet is supported by the relevant
literature on FIDS (such as certain neotropical migrant birds) and has been used for
other transportation project NEPA evaluations (e.g. Intercounty Connector FEIS,
Maryland).
To assess existing conditions, an edge effect zone of 300 feet was created around
existing roadways, development and other open areas (e.g. large waterbodies,
agricultural fields etc.). Forested areas outside of the existing conditions edge effect
zone were indentified as the forest interior habitat blocks. The edge effects of the
proposed project were then superimposed on the existing conditions mapping to
determine the incremental increase in edge effects and habitat fragmentation impacts.
ES-3 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects
ES-3.1 Land Use Change
Up to 3,700 additional households and 300 fewer jobs are anticipated in the study area
as a result of the indirect development shifts associated with the project. This is not new
growth or lost growth, but rather represents households and employment that would
have located elsewhere in the Metrolina region under the No Build condition. The overall
indirect effect of the project for the study area as a whole is relatively small in
comparison to the growth in households (42,200) and employment (33,100) expected
between 2005 and the 2035 No Build condition.
The indirect effects of the project are not distributed evenly throughout the study area.
The project generally increases growth relative to the No Build in the zones along the
alignment in southern Gaston County and northern York County. These areas would
experience an increase in relative accessibility that would, all other factors held constant,
make these zones more attractive for development as a result of the project. Figures 8
and 9 show the change in households and employment from the No Build condition to
the Build condition based on the gravity model methodology.
In terms of land conversion, the indirect land use effect of the project is an approximately
1.5 percent increase in the total area of residential land (or 1,200 acres) and a 0.4
percent decrease in the total employment-related land (or 100 acres) compared to the
No Build condition. Cumulative land conversion to developed uses under the Build
condition totals 24,700 acres (15,300 acres of residential land conversion and 9,400
acres of employment land conversion, see Tables 5 and 6).
ES-3.2 Water Resources
The Preferred Alternative would directly add approximately 500 acres of impervious
surface cover to the study area, with the largest increase (200 acres) in the Upper
Crowders Creek subwatershed. As discussed in the FEIS, the design of the Preferred
Alternative would incorporate stormwater treatment measures to reduce the potential for

impacts to the affected watersheds. The changes in the distribution of households and
employment resulting from the Preferred Alternative could add 300 acres of impervious
surface cover to the study area, or a one percent increase over the No Build condition
(See Table 9). The largest indirect increases in impervious surface cover are projected
for the Catawba Creek subwatershed (300 acres) and the Lower Crowders Creek
subwatershed (200 acres).
The combination of past actions (e.g. existing impervious cover), other actions (the No
Build condition) and the direct and indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative is
predicted to be a total acreage of impervious surtace 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 surtace cover from
existing conditions. Although some unavoidable decreases in water resource quality are
expected in the watersheds with the greatest growth, the incremental water quality
impacts of future growth would be less than past growth due to the stormwater treatment
and riparian buffer policies in the study area.
While impervious surtace cover provides a useful metric for assessing potential
cumulative effects, it is not possible to conclude from an analysis of impervious surtace
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 lmpacts and the 401 Water Quality Certi�cation and lsolated
Wetlands Program (NCDWQ, 2004).
ES-3.4 Wildlife Habitat
The Preferred Alternative would directly impact 1,000 acres of tree cover, 300 acres of
which would occur in the Upper Crowders Creek subwatershed. The Preferred
Alternative would directly impact 290 acres of forested interior habitat and result in
indirect edge effects potentially reducing the quality of an additional 480 acres of forest
interior habitat within 300 feet of the right-of-way. Depending on the specific locations
chosen for future development, the indirect changes in the development patterns
associated with the Preferred Alternative could increase tree cover loss by 100 to 1,400
acres. The greatest potential for indirect effects on forest cover is within the Catawba
Creek subwatershed.
The combination of past actions (e.g. existing tree cover), other actions (the No Build
condition) and the direct and indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative is predicted to
be a total acreage of tree cover in the study area of 84,800 to 71,400 acres. This
represents a cumulative loss of forest cover of 9,500 to 22,900 acres or a percent
decrease of 10 to 24 percent from existing conditions. The actual impacts will depend on
the specific location of each new development, although the actual number will likely be
closer to the low estimate. The incremental effect of the Preferred Alternative accounts
for 1,100 to 2,400 acres of the cumulative loss of forest cover from existing conditions.
Planning strategies to minimize potential impacts to wildlife habitat include encouraging
higher density development in appropriate locations and preserving contiguous habitat
blocks that provide the highest quality habitat.

ES� Mitigation
The basic requirement to consider mitigation measures is established in the CEQ NEPA
regulations (40 CFR 1502.16 (h)). Compensatory mitigation for the direct impacts of the
Preferred Alternative to regulated resources (e.g. wetlands and streams) is discussed in
the FEIS. With respect to mitigation for indirect and cumulative effects related to land
use change, both the NCDOT ICE Guidance and FHWA's Interim Guidance: Questions
and Answers Regarding the Consideration of lndirect and Cumulative lmpacts in the
NEPA Process, note that it is necessary to identify mitigation actions beyond the control
of the transportation agencies. While such mitigation cannot be committed to be
implemented as part of the project, the purpose of identifying the mitigation is to inform
the affected local jurisdictions and other reviewers of the EIS. Mitigation for the indirect
and cumulative effects on land use, water resources and tree cover identified by this
study could be reduced in magnitude through implementation and enforcement of the
following planning strategies. As noted in the text below, many of these strategies are
already beginning to be implemented in the study area.
• Zoning/Comprehensive Planning to support higher density development in
planned growth areas and to discourage growth in environmentally sensitive
areas. Gaston County has adopted a Unified Development Ordinance that
provides new flexibility for higher density development, including Traditional
Neighborhood Development (TND) and a streamlined development process.
York County is in the process of developing a Unified Development Ordinance.
Open Space Planning is also an important part of protecting key wildlife habitat
areas. York County completed an Open Space Plan in 2009.
• Growth Management through restrictions on the expansion of infrastructure.
Water and sewer service should be strictly tied to areas designated for growth in
local land use plans. There is some evidence of consideration of this type of
policy in parts of Gaston County. For example, Gaston County's "Existing
Initiatives Map" identifies areas where sewer service should not be extended,
including a portion of the South Fork Crowders Creek watershed.
• Riparian buffers. Existing riparian buffer policies applicable to the study area
are discussed in Section 3.3.1. These policies are a key aspect of water
resources protection.
• Stream Restoration. Many urban streams have been straightened, channelized,
piped and buried, and/or stripped of native vegetation. Stream restoration
policies would directly improve habitat and water quality by addressing erosion
and sedimentation issues.
• Land Acquisition/Conservation Easements. Conservation easement
programs, such as the Gaston Conservation District Land Preservation Program
are another strategy for preserving high quality wildlife habitat that can be
implemented by the private or public sector. The mapping of interior forest
patches conducted for this study provides information that could be used to
prioritize areas for conservation planning and land acquisition investments.

1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA), a division of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), proposes to construct a controlled-access toll road extending
from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485 near the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport in Mecklenburg County. The proposed project (STIP Project U-
3321) is known both as the "Gaston East-West Connector" and as the "Garden
Parkway." For this study, the project is referred to as the Gaston East-West Connector.
The purpose of the Gaston East-West Connector is to improve east-west transportation
mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte
metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly
growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. The
project is intended to address transportation problems resulting from the limited number
of crossings of the Catawba River between Gaston and Mecklenburg counties and a
lack of east-west roadways in southern Gaston County. With continued growth expected
in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County, the demand for
connectivity between the two counties will increase and existing congestion on the
primary existing east-west roadways (I-85 and US 29-74) will worsen.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Gaston East-West Connector
was published in April 2009. Based on the analyses presented in the DEIS and the
comments received from other agencies and the public, NCTA and FHWA have
identified Detailed Study Alternative (DSA) 9 as the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred
Alternative is a four-lane limited-access toll facility connecting I-85 in Gaston County to I-
485 in Mecklenburg County, including new bridge crossings over the South Fork and
Catawba Rivers. In addition to the freeway-to-freeway interchanges at I-85 and I-485,
the Preferred Alternative includes eight interchanges providing local access at the
following locations (listed from west to east):
• US 29-74
• Linwood Rd (SR 1133)
• US 321
• Robinson Rd (SR 2416)
• NC 274 (Union Rd)
• NC 279 (South New Hope Rd)
• NC 273 (Southpoint Rd)
• Dixie River Rd (SR 1155)
The design of the Preferred Alternative has been refined since the DEIS, including
design changes made to minimize environmental impacts. In particular, the interchange
at Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423) considered in the DEIS has been eliminated and the
footprints of four of the interchanges (Robinson Rd, NC 274 (Union Rd), NC 273
(Southpoint Rd), and I-485) have been reduced.

1.2 Definitions
A comprehensive evaluation of the impacts of federal actions on the environment is
grounded in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing
regulations. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for the implementation
of NEPA specifically require that environmental impact statements include the evaluation
of indirect and cumulative effects along with the disclosure of potential direct impacts.
This study uses the terms "indirect effects" and "cumulative effects", however, the terms
"impacY' and "effecY' are synonymous under NEPA, and can be beneficial or adverse (40
C.F.R. §1508.8).
As a guide to the evaluation of indirect effects and cumulative impacts under NEPA, the
CEQ regulations and other relevant sources provide definitions of direct, indirect and
cumulative effects:
Direct impacts are "caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. (40
C. F. R. § 1508.8)
Indirect effects are those effects that ". .. are caused by the action and are later in time
and farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." Indirect effects
"may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the
pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and
water and other natural systems, including ecosystems."(40 C.F.R. §1508.8(b)).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation/ Department of Environment and
Natural Resources Guidance on lndirect and Cumulative lmpact Assessment of
Transportation Projects in North Carolina outlines three types of indirect effects:
• Encroachment-Alteration Effects - alteration of the behavior and function of the
affected environment caused by project encroachment (physical, chemical, or
biological) on the environment.
• Induced Growth Effects - changes in the intensity of the use to which land is put
that are caused by the action/project. These changes would not occur if the
action/project does not occur. For transportation projects, induced growth is
attributed to changes in accessibility caused by the project.
• Induced Growth Related Effects - alteration of the behavior and function of the
affected environment attributable to induced growth.
Cumulative effects are "the impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." (40 C.F.R. §1508.7).
According to the FH WA's lnterim Guidance: Questions and Answers Regarding the
Consideration of lndirect and Cumulative lmpacts in the NEPA Process, cumulative
impacts include the total of all impacts to a particular resource that have occurred, are

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 (FH WA, 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 lndirect and Cumulative lmpact
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 lndirect 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— De�ne the Study Area Boundaries. Set appropriate study area
boundaries for the analysis of indirect and cumulative effects as well as the
timeframe for the analysis.
• Step 2— ldentify the Study Area Communities' Trends and Goa/s. 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— ldentify Potential lmpacts 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.

1.4 2009 Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
A qualitative assessment of potential indirect and cumulative effects was pertormed 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— ldentify the Study Area Communities' Trends and Goa/s. A review of
planning documents for the study area was conducted, as well as interviews with
professional staff in the areas of planning, engineering, real estate development,
and environmental advocacy to identify important trends and goals. The
interviews included representatives from GUAMPO, City of Gastonia Planning
Department, Town of Belmont Planning Department, Gaston Economic
Development Commission, Bessemer City Planning Department, Gaston County
Chamber of Commerce, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department, Charlotte-
Douglas International Airport, York County, Real Estate and Building Industry
Coalition, Catawba Riverkeeper, Crowders Mountain State Park, and Allen Tate
Realty.
• Step 3— Identify Resources for Analysis. Information was gathered on land use
and valued or vulnerable environmental resources in the study area. The
resources considered included waterbodies, wetlands, natural heritage sites, air
quality, noise, cultural resources and agricultural land. A detailed socioeconomic
profile of the study area communities was also developed. A grid-cell based
composite map was created based on the occurrence of notable features in the
study area.
• Steps 4 and 5—Describe Cause and Effect Relationships and ldentify 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

analysis to represent areas that may become more accessible and therefore
more attractive to development. Potential indirect and cumulative effects were
described qualitatively taking into account the information gained from the
interviews and the information gathered on notable features and growth trends.
1.5 Purpose of this Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Assessment
A quantitative indirect and cumulative effects assessment was requested by other
agencies in comments on the DEIS, with the specific areas of concern being water
quality and wildlife habitat impacts. Other agencies and the public had no comments on
the Qualitative ICE study, except for recommending the completion of a Quantitative ICE
study. Based on the results of the qualitative assessment and consideration of the
public and agency comments on the DEIS, FHWA and NCTA decided to conduct a
quantitative assessment of potential indirect and cumulative effects for the FEIS.
While the qualitative assessment was focused primarily on steps one through five of the
eight-step process, this quantitative assessment is focused on steps six through eight
(analyze impacts, evaluate analysis results, and assess consequences and develop
mitigation). The purpose of this quantitative assessment is to: 1) provide a detailed
analysis of the potential indirect land use, water resources and wildlife habitat impacts of
the Preferred Alternative; 2) provide a detailed analysis of the potential cumulative land
use, water resources and wildlife habitat impacts that could results from the combination
of the direct and indirect impacts of this project with the impacts of other reasonably
foreseeable actions by others; and 3) to disclose mitigation measures that could be used
to offset any adverse indirect and/or cumulative effects identified by the assessment.
The land use change forecasts developed for this study may be used to provide inputs to
the water quality modeling proposed to address the requirements of NCDENR Division
of Water Quality's policy document entitled Cumulative lmpacts and the 401 Water
Quality Certification and lsolated Wetlands Program (NDWQ, 2004).
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Study Area Boundaries
The study area boundaries presented in the qualitative ICE assessment were refined as
part of the preparation of this quantitative assessment. The study area boundaries were
altered to encompass the entirety of Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 12-digit
subwatersheds. The HUC 12 subwatershed boundaries used to define the study area
were based on the Natural Resources Conservation Service National Cartography &
Geospatial Center's Watershed Boundary Dataset. The 1:24,000 scale Watershed
Boundaries Dataset provides a seamless national coverage of HUC 12 boundaries and
has been subject to an extensive quality review process to ensure accuracy and

compliance with the "Federal Standard for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries." '
The study area consists of the following HUC 12 subwatersheds:
• 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 (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 I-85 corridor was removed. The transportation modeling conducted for the project
with the Metrolina Travel Demand Model shows that the TAZs in these areas would not
experience any substantial change in travel times as a result of the Gaston East-West
Connector and thus are unlikely to experience growth pressures attributable to the
project. The reason this area would not experience substantial changes in accessibility is
that it is already in close proximity to I-85, which is the existing primary east-west
roadway and crossing of the Catawba River in Gaston County.
The study area was expanded to the north to include the entirety of the Duharts Creek-
South Fork Catawba River subwatershed (030501020605). The expanded area includes
parts of Gastonia, Lowell, McAdenville, Ranlo and Spencer Mountain. This expansion of
the study area was made only for the purpose of including the entire watershed in the
study area, not because of accessibility changes in this area.
' For more information on the Watershed Boundary Dataset refer to
http://www.ncgc.nres.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/index.html

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 I-485 was removed based on the results of the
projected travel time improvements being the greatest around and to the east of the
Gaston East-West Connector's interchange with I-485. The subwatersheds in this
location (030501030103- Upper Sugar Creek and 030501030108- Steele Creek) are
within a heavily developed portion of the City of Charlotte and would be unlikely to
experience further environmental impacts from land use change because the majority of
the land in these subwatersheds is already developed. While a portion of the Charlotte-
Douglas International Airport is within the Upper Sugar Creek watershed, the primary
considerations in terms of cumulative impacts (the new runway and the proposed
intermodal facility) are not and remain within the study area for the quantitative ICE
assessment.
2.1.3 Cleveland County
The study area was expanded approximately one-mile farther into Cleveland County in
order to include the entirety of the Upper Crowders Creek subwatershed
(030501011501).
2.1.4 York County
In York County the study area was expanded to the south to include the entirety of the
following HUC 12 subwatersheds:
• Lower Crowders Creek (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

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 "parenY'
Metrolina Model TAZ was assigned 25 percent of the total households and employment
of the parent TAZ. The assumption with this methodology is that future growth will be
spread relatively evenly within each TAZ. This assumption is appropriate in the absence
of information indicating the specific locations of new development and is unlikely to
substantially affect the results for the study area as a whole.
2.1.6 Assessment of Study Area Boundary Based on Qualitative Analysis
Results
Results from the Land Use Forecasting (Section 3.0) concluded changes to land use
within the Study Area Boundary (as defined in the initial stages of this analysis) as well
as elsewhere within the Metrolina Region. This suggested that perhaps the Study Area
Boundary should be modified. According to the NCDOT ICI Guidance (Volume II, pp. III-
5-III-6), commuteshed is a technique to assist in determining a study area boundary.
The guidance suggests that when using the commuteshed threshold technique, a study
area should take the travel time savings of the project alternatives into account the
setting the study area to coincide with the area accessible under the alternative that
provides the greatest travel time savings. Section 2.4.2 discusses regional accessibility
(travel time savings) and helps to confirm that the Study Area Boundary appropriately
includes areas that are expected to experience the greatest travel time savings.
Therefore, the basic extent of the Study Area Boundary established in the qualitative ICE
study does not need to be modified based on the analysis results contained in this
report. As noted in Sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.4, minor refinements were made to the
study area boundary for purposes of better matching watershed boundaries.
2.2 Analysis Year
The future analysis year for the quantitative ICE assessment is 2035 to coincide with the
2035 long-range transportation plans for the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (GUAMPO), the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MUMPO) and the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS) (GUAMPO,
2010; MUMPO, 2010 and RFATS, 2010). The analysis year for the 2009 qualitative ICE
assessment was 2030 because the current LRTPs at that time had a horizon year of
2030.
2.3 Future No Build Condition Projects
As part of a cumulative impact analysis, it is important to consider the impacts of the
other transportation projects and land development attributable to population and
employment growth. Other projects and developments need to be included in the
analysis if they are "reasonably foreseeable." This section explains which
projects/actions were included in the No Build condition.

2.3.1 Other Transportation Projects
For purposes of cumulative environmental impacts, fiscally constrained projects with the
potential to have environmental impacts (e.g. new alignment and widening projects)
were identified from the 2035 LRTPs for the three MPOs comprising the study area
(GUAMPO, MUMPO and RFATS). In addition, the South Carolina Department of
Transportation's 2010-2015 STIP was reviewed to determine if additional projects in
York County outside the boundary of RFATs needed to be considered in the
assessment. Currently unfunded transportation projects included in the LRTPs were not
considered reasonably foreseeable. Projects such as bridge replacements without
widening, reconstruction of existing roadways without adding additional travel lanes, and
the addition of turning lanes at intersections were not included because these types of
projects would not affect the quantitative metrics being used in this study (impervious
surface cover and tree cover).
The locations of the projects included in the No Build condition assessment are shown in
Figure 3. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the No Build condition projects from the 2035
LRTPs for GUAMPO and MUMPO, respectively. One project was identified within the
small portion of the study area that overlaps with the RFATS area boundary—widening
of Pole Branch Road from two-lanes to three-lanes from SC 274 to the North Carolina-
South Carolina Stateline (2.4 miles). No major projects in the South Carolina portion of
the study area outside of the RFATs area boundary were identified from the 2010-2015
STIP.
Table 1
Transportation Projects Included in No Build Condition
Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
GUAMPO Name Description Distance Existing Year
Pro'ect ID Miles * Facilit
Widen existing two-lane road to
Titman/ three-lane, and construct new 2015
U-5103 Cramerton three-lane connector from NC 2.6 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 poad lanes from US 29/74 (Franklin 2015
Blvd.) to Hudson Blvd.
Widen existing facility to three
U-2713 Linwood lanes with some relocation from 2.2 Two Lane Road 2025
Road Crowder's Creek Rd. to US
29/74 (Franklin Blvd.)
NCNeW (S. Widen existing two-lane road to 3 8 Two-Lane
� Hope Road) four-lane divided from Titman Road 2025
Road to Union-New Hope Road
NC 274 Widen the existing two-lane
(Union facility to five lanes and 2 5 Two-Lane
8 Road) construct a new four-lane Road 2025
divided realignment from
Robinson Rd. to Beat Rd.

GUAMPO Name Description Distance Existing Year
Project ID (Miles)* Facility
US 29/74 Widen existing four-lane bridge
South Fork on Wilkinson Blvd to six-lanes, Four-Lane
14 Catawba and widen existing four-lane 1.2 gridge 2025
River Bridge cross section to six-lanes from
No. 82 Market St to Alberta St
Construct new, four-lane divided
Belmont- facility from Wilkinson Blvd. to
11 b Mount Holly the proposed Gastonia-Mt. Holly 4.34 NA 2035
Central Loop Con�ectopor to the Belmont Mt.
Holl Loo Link if the Gastonia-
MT. Holl Connector is not built
*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
MUMPOIndex Distance Existing
Number/ NCDOT Name Description Year
STIP Number (Miles)* Facility
3311/ West Blvd New road (2 lanes)
U-3411 Extension from Steele Creek Rd 0.66 N/A 2015
to I-485
West Blvd Widening (4 lanes) Two-Lane
3312 Extension from Steele Creek Rd 0.66 Road (by 2025
to I-485 2015)
Relocation (4 lanes)
3157/ Little Rock Road from Flintrock Rd to 0.55 N/A 2015
U-5116 Freedom Dr
(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 poad 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
�ivote: i otai aistance trom tne iviuivirc� zo3b ��s i r pro�ect aescriptions. i ne portions ot tnese ivo
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

conditions. The data sources and methodology used in developing the household and
employment forecasts are described in Section 2.4.1. Known major development
proposals were incorporated by the MPOs and local government planners at the time the
household and employment forecasts were made.
2.4 Land Use Forecasting
This section explains the methodology used to analyze future land use change in the
study area. The assessment of the Build condition is based on the TAZ demographic
projections prepared by the planning organizations in the study area for the Metrolina
Travel Demand Model. The No Build condition is estimated using a gravity model
approach that reallocates household and employment growth based on relative
accessibility changes. Household and employment projections at the TAZ-level are
converted into changes in land use based on the average density of proposed or existing
development in the study area.
2.4.1 Household and Employment Forecasts
The Metrolina travel demand model area includes all of Gaston County, Mecklenburg
County, York County (SC), Union County, Cabarrus County, Rowan County, Lincoln
County, and Stanly County. It also includes portions of Iredell County, Cleveland County,
and Lancaster County (SC). Figure 4 shows the ICE study area in relation to the area
covered by the Metrolina travel demand model. The study area represents
approximately 248 square miles or 6 percent of the total land area covered by the model.
The April 13, 2006 version of the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model was used in the
traffic forecasting for the Gaston East-West Connector because this was the most
current version available at the time the updated forecasting activities began (See DEIS
Appendix C: Supporting Traffic Information for Chapter 2- Alternatives Considered).
Since the preparation of the DEIS traffic forecasts, the Metrolina travel demand model
and associated demographic data has been updated for 2035 to support the 2035
LRTPs for the MPOs in the region.
TAZ-level demographic projections in the Metrolina travel demand model for the study
area are developed by GUAMPO, MUMPO and York County/RFATS. As explained in
GUAMPO's 2035 LRTP, a regional socioeconomic development committee was formed
to develop the previous 2030 forecasts. This committee, along with the assistance of the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte's Urban Land Institute, developed a
methodology utilizing economic forecasts, local building permit trends, census data, and
local land development knowledge such as current and future land use, utility
improvements, economic development potential and land availability. The 2030
socioeconomic forecasts were compiled through the use of an expert panel, made up of
local planners, real estate representatives, economic developers and utility providers
(GUAMPO, 2010).
For the 2035 LRTP, updated forecasts were prepared by GUAMPO, MUMPO and the
York County Department of Planning and Development. For the GUAMPO area, an
initial 2035 forecast was developed by extrapolation from the growth rates used in the

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

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 lmprovements and Accessibilitv
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 lnfluencinq 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:

• Land availability and price - Development cannot take place without the
availability of land of a quality and price suitable for development. Property
values are de-facto indicators of the potential for land use change because
investment decisions revolve around market prices. Land prices are likely to
reflect a parcePs suitability for development (favorable topography), the
availability of other suitable parcels in the area, the attractiveness of the location
and many of the other factors listed below. An abundance of suitable, low priced
land may be indicative of potential development if other factors are present. A
scarcity of land or high price does not necessarily indicate a lower probability of
development, however. If other factors described here are favorable, high-
density development may occur where land is scarce or high priced.
• State of the regional economy - Even if changes in accessibility are great,
development is not likely to occur if the regional economy will not support new
jobs and households, if credit or financing is not readily available, or if firms
conclude that the availability of labor, suppliers, or local markets for goods, are
not sufficient.
• Infrastructure - In addition to transportation infrastructure, other infrastructure
such as water and sewer service is important in supporting development.
• Location attractiveness and amenities - Good schools and access to recreational
opportunities are important considerations in household location decisions.
• Local political/regulatory conditions - Low business, property and sales tax rates,
the availability of incentives for development, such as tax abatements and a
regulatory environment that is favorable to business are factors favorable to
development. The speed, ease, or predictability of the development review
process can also impact development costs and is a factor to be considered.
• Land use contro/s - 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.
Gravitv Mode/ Methodoloqv
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 lmpacts of Highways. This form of the model states that:
G� = G, " V�A�/EV;A;
Where
G� = household (or employment) growth in each TAZ j
Gt = total household (or employment) growth expected for the region as a whole (in this
case the Metrolina model region).

V� _(L� x Va x Vb x V� x.....) the product of vacant land and other factors of location
suitability and attractiveness.
A� = 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� _ � Ei/Tija
Where
E; = employment in each TAZ i
T�� = 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).
A1 = � ��Hi +Ei��ij��
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

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 pertormed 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.

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 Proiect 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 acre2), Stagecoach Station
(3.1 units per acre) and Crowder's View (3.3 units per acre). Excluding five
developments consisting solely of apartments, the weighted average density (by land
area) of the remaining developments in the database was 3.2 units per acre. The
exclusion of apartments helps ensure that the average density is conservative. In
addition, given that slightly lower densities could be expected in other portions of the
study area not covered by the Gaston County database (e.g. parts of York County), this
density was lowered to an even 3.0 units per acre for the purpose of projecting future
residential land conversion. Residential land conversion for the No Build and Build
conditions was calculated for each zone in the study area by dividing the growth in
households from 2005 to 2035 by the density factor of 3.0.
Employment Land Conversion
A comparable database of recent commercial and industrial developments was not
available for the purpose of making projections about employment density. Therefore,
the existing density of employment was calculated based on the study area employment
estimates for 2005 and the area of land devoted to commercial, industrial or institutional
uses (based on the methodology described in Section 2.4.3). The employment density
factor for the study area is 3.5 employees per acre of commercial/industrial/institutional
land. This factor is considered conservative (likely to overestimate rather than
underestimate) potential impacts because it is skewed by large parcels containing
substantial areas of undeveloped land. Employment-related land conversion for the No
Build and Build conditions was calculated for each zone in the study area by dividing the
growth in employment from 2005 to 2035 by the density factor of 3.5.
� This density calculation is based on the acreage of the entire Presley site, which also includes 750,000
square feet of commercial development. The density of the just the residential portion of the site would likely
be higher.

Buildable Land Estimates
As noted in Section 2.4.2, the gravity model formulation used to reallocate households
and employment based on changes in accessibility did not include any cap on the
amount of development that could occur in any one TAZ. To account for development
constraints in the TAZ-level household and employment allocations for the study area,
an analysis of buildable land by zone was conducted. The following constraints were
excluded from the buildable land area:
• Existing roads and right-of-ways- estimated using a 100-foot buffer on the
centerline of interstates and a 30-foot buffer on the centerline of all other road
types. For the Build condition assessment only, the right-of-way boundary of the
Preferred Alternative was added as a constraint on buildable land.
• Existing developed land- based on the impervious surtace estimates described in
Section 2.5.2.3
• Wetlands- based on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping.
• Rivers, streams and lakes- based on the USGS National Hydrography Dataset
and the applicable riparian buffer requirements for the study area (e.g. 50-foot
buffer zone on the Catawba River/Lake Wylie in North Carolina and York County,
South Carolina and a 100-foot buffer on perennial tributaries of the Catawba
River in York County).
• 100-year floodplain- based on FEMA's Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(DFIRMs) for Gaston, Mecklenburg and York counties.
• Conserved land- including properties in the North Carolina "Lands Managed for
Conservation and Open Space" database, Conservation Tax Credit Properties
and the proposed Berewick Regional Park. Major land areas in this category
within the study area include Crowders Mountain State Park, Daniel Stowe
Botanical Garden, and a Catawba Land Conservancy conservation easement
along Catawba Creek.
While additional constraints could be considered, the data necessary to analyze the
selected constraints listed above was readily available for the study area and provides a
reasonable approximation of constrained land. The amount of household and
employment growth was reduced in certain zones under both the No Build and Build
conditions so that the total buildable land area for that zone would not be exceeded. The
excess households and employees were not reallocated to other zones with remaining
capacity in the study area. The households and employment that would not "fiY' in the
built-out zones were assumed to either occur at a much higher density than assumed by
the simple land conversion analysis or would occur elsewhere in the region (outside the
ICE study area).
2.5 Environmental Resources for Analysis
Water resources and wildlife habitat were selected as the resources for analysis in this
quantitative ICE assessment based on the comments received on the DEIS and
coordination with the resource agencies at Turnpike Environmental Agency (TEAC)
3 Developed parcels were not used as the basis for defining existing developed land because of the
possibility of larger rural residential parcels being subdivided in the future.

meetings held on August 12 and September 8, 2009. Farmland was considered as a
potential resource for detailed analysis, but ultimately rejected as explained in Section
2.5.1. The methodologies used to assess water resources and wildlife habitats are
explained in Sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3, respectively. The analysis of both water resources
and wildlife habitat relies on land conversion estimates as a data input.
2.5.1 Farmland
Farmland is important as an industry, as open space and as a wildlife habitat for certain
species (e.g. grassland birds). The U.S. Census of Agriculture data for the area of land
in farms in 1987 and 2007 are summarized by county below.
• Gaston County- 37,561 acres in 2007, compared to 40,937 acres in 1987 (a
decrease of 3,376 acres or 8.2 percent).
• Mecklenburg County- 19,135 acres in 2007, compared to 35,929 acres in 1987
(a decrease of 16,794 acres or 46.7 percent).
• York County- 124,176 acres in 2007, compared to 128,718 acres in 1987 (a
decrease of 4,542 acres or 3.5 percent).
Within Gaston County, many of the agricultural areas are located in the northern portions
of the county that have not experienced substantial development pressures. Therefore,
the proportional loss of farmland in southern in Gaston County is likely greater than the
county-level Census of Agriculture data suggest due to suburban residential
development associated with the growth of Charlotte. A Voluntary Agricultural District
program began in Gaston County in 2004 with the objective of protecting and conserving
the agricultural open space.
Farmland was not selected as a resource for detailed analysis because farmland is not a
major land use throughout most of the study area and there are methodological issues
with distinguishing active farmland from other types of open undeveloped land based on
aerial photography. However, some indication of the potential for impacts to agricultural
land in the future as a result of land conversion associated with household and
employment growth can be obtained from Tables 5 and 6. Specific impacts to
agricultural lands will depend on the decisions of individual land owners as influenced by
land prices and the economics of farming.
In addition to Gaston County's existing Voluntary Agricultural District Program, farmland
conservation policies that could be considered by local governments include agricultural
protection zoning, cluster developments, conservation easements, farmland mitigation
requirements, and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR).°
2.5.2 Water Resources
Impervious surtace cover is an accepted indicator for assessing the potential for water
quality impacts as a result of future development. Impervious surtace cover increases
runoff volumes, which in turn can affect stream stability and water quality indicators.
° See the "Farmland Protection Toolbox°
http://www. farml andi nfo. org/doc u ments/27761 /f p_tool box_02-2008. pdf

Numerous studies have found that first order to third order streams with watersheds
exceeding 10 percent impervious surtace cover exhibit impacted stream quality.
Streams with watersheds exceeding 25 percent impervious surtace cover typically
exhibit degraded conditions and often do not meet water quality standards (Center for
Watershed Protection, 2003).
Existinq Conditions
Existing impervious surtace 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 surtace cover associated with
development, but that it also incorrectly identified many agricultural areas and wetlands
as impervious. Therefore, the impervious surtace layer was manually edited to remove
the incorrectly categorized areas.
lmpacts from Future Househo/d and Emplovment Growth
To project future growth in impervious surtace cover for the No Build and Build
conditions associated with future household and employment growth, the NRCS TR-55
manual percent impervious surtace factors were used. For residential development, the
impervious surtace 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 surtace percentage of 70 percent was selected
based on the NRCS TR-55 manual percent impervious surtace cover factor for
commercial development.
lmpacts from Other Transportation Proiects
Impervious surtace 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 surtace estimates for the No
Build projects assume 12-foot travel lanes and six-foot shoulders.
Direct lmpacts
The direct increase impervious surtace 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 surtace out
of the 280-foot right-of-way width).

2.5.3 Wildlife Habitat
Existinq Conditions
Forest cover and the size and configuration of undisturbed habitat blocks are the key
indicators for assessing potential upland wildlife habitat impacts. As with impervious
surface cover, tree cover was delineated using Feature Analyst. The resulting polygons
were reviewed in comparison to 2009 aerial photography and found to reasonably
represent tree cover without the need for manual post-processing. Note that the existing
tree cover estimates include street trees in urban areas, not just undeveloped upland
forest areas.
lmpacts from Future Househo/d and Emplovment 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.
lmpacts from Other Transportation Proiects
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
"footprinY' 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 lmpacts
The direct impacts of the Preferred Alternative on tree cover were calculated using the
right-of-way boundaries as the approximate limit of impacts.

Wildlife Habitat Edqe Effects and Fraqmentation
In addition to the tree cover impact assessment described above, an analysis was
pertormed to identify interior forest habitat and assess the direct impacts and indirect
edge effects of the proposed project on interior forest habitat. This section provides
background information on habitat fragmentation and edge effects and describes the
specific methodology applied for this project.
Background
When interior forest and/or grassland habitat areas are converted to edges as a result of
fragmentation, several types of indirect effects can occur. These indirect effects may
include increased penetration of light and wind into the forest and the establishment of
invasive plants and other competing and predatory species. Particularly for forested
habitats, changes in the microclimate (air temperature, humidity, wind, solar radiation,
soil temperature, soil moisture, etc.) tend to occur along the newly created edge.
Microclimate changes are small scale variations caused by the alteration of the forest's
physical characteristics, including tree height, percent canopy closure and forest
structure (Reifsnyder et al., 1971; Chen and Franklin, 1997). As a result, changes in the
microclimate have the potential to affect species diversity and density within the habitat
edge area.
The creation of forest edge has the potential to increase nest predation on birds (Gates
and Gysel, 1978; Wilcove, 1985), tree mortality as a result of windthrow and exposure
(Chen et al., 1999; Essen, 1994), and the alteration of nutrient cycling (Gieger, 1965).
Populations of opportunistic and adaptable species, such as raccoons, foxes, opossums
and feral and domestic dogs and cats tend to increase in fragmented landscapes. The
resulting edge effect can allow predation and nest parasitism to penetrate further into the
forest interior. As a result, species with sensitive breeding areas can be affected. At the
same time, other species that benefit from edge habitat can experience increased
abundance from the creation of additional edge habitat.
The creation of edge habitat has the potential for non-native plant species to encroach
into the habitat area interior, potentially restricting the growth of native plant species,
limiting structural diversity and disrupting the natural succession processes. Typical
methods employed during construction to prevent the introduction of weedy and invasive
species include prompt seeding and mulching of all disturbed areas and frequent
cleaning of all equipment.
As a result of edge effects, fragmentation of larger blocks of forest has been shown to
cause a decrease in those species collectively known as forest interior dwelling species
(FIDS). These species rely on large forest tracts to breed successfully (Robbins, 1979).
Patch size has been shown to correlate to the number and type of species present within
the forest interior. The larger the patch size of the interior forest, the greater the quantity
and diversity of FIDS present. Smaller patch sizes tend to have less FIDS and more
edge dwelling species (Forman, 1986). The larger patch sizes have more diverse
microhabitats, with the necessary food sources, nesting sites, and required cover to
protect FIDS from predator species (Mclntyre, 1995).

Methodology
The extent of habitat edge effects varies considerably between different species and
across habitat types. In addition, habitat edge effects tend to attenuate gradually with
increased distance from the edge (e.g. areas closest to the edge are affected to a
greater extent then areas farther from the edge). For analysis purposes, an edge effect
distance of 300 feet was selected for this study to identify potential interior forest habitat
areas. An edge effect distance of 300 feet is supported by the relevant literature on FIDS
(such as certain neotropical migrant birds) and has been used for other transportation
project NEPA evaluations (e.g. Intercounty Connector FEIS, Maryland).
To assess existing conditions, an edge effect zone of 300 feet was created around
existing roadways, development and other open areas (e.g. large waterbodies,
agricultural fields etc.). Forested areas outside of the existing conditions edge effect
zone were indentified as the forest interior habitat blocks. The edge effects of the
proposed project were then superimposed on the existing conditions mapping to
determine the incremental increase in edge effects and habitat fragmentation impacts.
The potential impacts of future household and employment growth on forest interior
habitat was not assessed quantitatively due to the uncertainty involved in predicting the
exact spatial arrangement of development, which is key to determining the size of the
future "edge effect zone." Fragmentation impacts from future growth were qualitatively
considered in light of the range of tree cover impacts.
2.6 Rounding
As discussed in greater detail in Section 4.0, the assessment of indirect and cumulative
effects involves numerous assumptions that introduce uncertainty into the analysis. The
exact level of uncertainty is not possible to quantify. There is no estimate available of the
"margin of error" associated with the future household and employment forecasts made
by the MPOs or with the shifts in growth made using the gravity model. Despite the
inability to assign a specific margin of error, all results have been rounded to hundreds of
acres to reflect the uncertainty inherent in any land use change forecasting exercise.
The decision to round the results to the nearest 100 acres was made based on the
general uncertainty associated with predicting the location and density of future
household and employment growth and consideration of the varying resolutions of the
input GIS data. Many of the datasets used in the ICE assessment, such as the HUC 12
watershed boundaries and conserved lands, are at 1:24,000 scale. The tree cover and
impervious surface cover layers created for this study are also considered to be
appropriate for mapping at a 124,000 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.

3.0 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects
3.1 Household and Employment Growth
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of the gravity model assessment of shifts in the
location of household and employment growth for the study area based on the
accessibility changes associated with the Preferred Alternative. Up to 3,700 additional
households and 300 fewer jobs are anticipated in the study area as a result of the
indirect development shifts associated with the project. This is not new growth, but rather
represents households and employment that would have located elsewhere in the
Metrolina region under the No Build condition. At the regional scale household and
employment totals remain constant between the No Build and Build conditions. The
overall indirect effect of the project for the study area as a whole is relatively small in
comparison to the growth in households (42,200) and employment (33,100) expected
between 2005 and the 2035 No Build condition.
In absolute terms, the largest increase in households and employment attributed to the
proposed project is in the Catawba Creek subwatershed, while the largest percentage
change from the No Build condition to the Build condition is projected for the Beaverdam
Creek subwatershed. Note that for the subwatersheds showing a"decrease" from the No
Build to Build condition, this represents a decrease in future growth, not a decrease
relative to existing conditions. For example, the forecasts for the Upper Crowders Creek
subwatershed show 2035 employment under the Build condition as 900 jobs or 6.3
percent less than the No Build condition. However, even under the Build condition the
Upper Crowders Creek subwatershed is expected to experience growth in employment
of 6,400 (a 90 percent increase) between 2005 and 2035.
Figures 6 and 7 show household and employment growth by zone from 2005 to 2035
under the No Build condition. Several of the zones with the largest household growth
expected under the No Build condition are adjacent to Lake Wylie or the South Fork
Catawba River, a pattern consistent with recent trends and developments.
Concentrations of substantial employment growth under the No Build condition include
the area around the Bessemer City industrial park and around the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport, which is located northeast of the proposed interchange between the
Gaston East-West Connector and I-485.
Figures 8 and 9 show the change in households and employment from the No Build
condition to the Build condition based on the gravity model methodology. The project
generally increases growth relative to the No Build in the zones along the alignment in
southern Gaston County and northern York County. These areas would experience an
increase in relative accessibility that would, all other factors held constant, make these
zones more attractive for development as a result of the project. Areas along the I-85
corridor would not experience as large of an accessibility improvement and as a result
show less growth under the Build condition than under the No Build condition. The
gravity model formulation shifts households and employment towards those areas with
the greatest accessibility (travel time) improvements.

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
No Build to percent
2005 2035 No Build 2035 Build Build Difference
Difference
Beaverdam Creek-Catawba 1,800 2,700 3,100 400 14.8%
River
Catawba Creek 15,000 22,000 23,800 1,800 8.2%
Duharts Creek-South Fork 12,700 22,700 22,700 -100 -0.4%
Catawba River
Lake Wylie-Catawba River 2,600 6,600 6,700 200 3.0%
Lower Crowders Creek 6,600 11,200 12,500 1,300 11.6%
Mill Creek-Lake Wylie 3,100 6,800 7,200 400 5.9%
Paw Creek-Lake Wylie 7,300 11,800 11,700 0 0.0%
Upper Crowders Creek 11,300 18,800 18,500 -300 -1.6%
StudyAreaTotal 60,300 102,500 106,200 3,700 3.6%
ivote: �sesuits nave deen rounaea to tne nearest ioo nousenoias. uitterences were caicuiatea
prior to rounding.
Table 4
Gravity Model Estimated Change in Employment by Watershed
No Build Compared to Build
No Build to percent
2005 2035 No Build 2035 Build Build Difference
Difference
Beaverdam Creek- 1,700 2,500 2,900 300 12.0%
Catawba River
CatawbaCreek 10,700 12,900 13,300 400 3.1%
Duharts Creek-South Fork 21,400 27,500 27,400 -100 -0.4%
Catawba River
Lake Wylie-Catawba River 3,500 8,700 8,300 -400 -4.6%
Lower Crowders Creek 2,300 3,200 3,600 300 9.4%
Mill Creek-Lake Wylie 1,700 4,000 4,000 100 2.5%
Paw Creek-Lake Wylie 10,100 18,400 18,300 0 0.0%
Upper Crowders Creek 7,000 14,300 13,400 -900 -6.3%
StudyAreaTotal 58,400 91,500 91,200 -300 -0.3%
ivote: rsesuits nave aeen rounaea to tne nearest iuu empioyees. uirrerences were caicuiatea
prior to rounding.

3.2 Land Use Change
Tables 5 and 6 summarize residential and employment-related land use change based
on the gravity model projected changes in the distribution of households and
employment within the study area. For the study area as whole, the indirect land use
effect of the project is an approximately 1.5 percent increase in the total area of
residential land and a 0.4 percent decrease in employment-related land. The largest
absolute difference in land conversion between the No Build and Build conditions is
projected for the Catawba Creek subwatershed.
Table 5
Residential Land Conversion by Watershed
No Build Compared to Build
Percent
Existing 2005-2035 2005-2035 No Build Change in
Total No Build Total
Area Residential Land Build Land to Build Residential
(Acres) Land Conversion Conversion Difference Land, No
(Acres) (qcres) (Acres) (Acres) guild to
Build
Beaverdam Creek- 12,200 5,200 300 400 100 1.8%
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 -0.8%
Fork Catawba River
Lake Wylie-Catawba 10,500 3,000 1,300 1,400 100 2.3%
River
Lower Crowders Creek 36,700 16,700 1,500 2,000 400 2.7%
Mill Creek-Lake Wylie 15,000 6,800 1,200 1,400 100 2.5%
Paw Creek-Lake Wylie 11,900 4,100 1,500 1,500 0 0.0%
Upper Crowders Creek 26,500 10,800 2,500 2,400 -100 -0.8%
GrandTotal 158,800 66,900 14,100 15,300 1,200 1.5%
Note: Fiesults have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres. IJitterences were calculated prior to
rounding.

Table 6
Employment Land Conversion by Watershed
No Build Compared to Build
Percent
2005-2035 2005-2035 No Build Changein
Total Existing No Build guild Land to Build Total
Area Employment Land Conversion Difference Employment
(Acres) Land (Acres) Conversion Land, No
(Acres) (Acres) (Acres) guild to
Build
Beaverdam Creek- 12,200 700 200 300 100 11.1%
Catawba River
CatawbaCreek 20,700 2,700 600 800 100 6.1%
Duharts Creek-
South Fork 25,300 3,600 1,700 1,700 0 0.0%
Catawba River
Lake Wylie- 10,500 1,800 1,500 1,400 -100 -3.0%
Catawba River
Lower Crowders 36,700 1,300 300 400 100 6.3%
Creek
Mill Creek-Lake 15,000 300 700 700 0 0.0%
W lie
Paw Creek-Lake 11,900 3,300 2,400 2,400 0 0.0%
W lie
UpperCrowders 26,500 3,100 2,100 1,800 -300 -5.8%
Creek
Grand Total 158,800 16,700 9,500 9,400 -100 -0.4%
Note: Fiesults have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres. IJitterences were calculated prior to
rounding.
3.2.1 Consistency with Local Land Use Plans
Gaston County
The substantial growth projected for the southeast portion of Gaston County (including
the indirect land use effects of the proposed project) is largely consistent with local plans
for Gaston County. Gaston County's 2002 Comprehensive Plan shows the areas
surround the Gaston East-West Connector interchanges with US 321 and NC 279 as
development target areas where future growth should be directed. In addition, bypass-
dependent development target areas shown at several other interchanges along the
corridor. Gaston County's Unified Development Ordinance will be essential in ensuring
that form of new developments match local planning objectives for compact, mixed-use
developments that preserve open space.
Mecklenburq Countv
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

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 Countv
York County's 2025 Comprehensive Plan calls for rural residential and agricultural land
use in the northern portions of the county within the study area, with concentrations of
commercial and industrial land use along the US 321 corridor. There is potential for the
substantial growth pressures without the proposed project (the No Build household and
employment estimates) to be inconsistent with the objective of maintaining a primarily
rural character in this area. The additional growth in this portion of York County with the
proposed project would incrementally add to this potential inconsistency. The priority
recommendations of the 2025 Comprehensive Plan are currently being implemented
with an Interim Development Ordinance while a Unified Development Ordinance is
developed. In addition to the potential for changes in requirements for new
developments under a Unified Development Ordinance, growth in northern York County
will also be strongly influenced by the provision of utilities to new developments. In
interviews conducted for this study, York County planners indicated that some utility
providers would be acquired by the county and it was uncertain whether county
ownership would increase or decrease the expansion of water and sewer service areas.
3.3 Water Resources
3.3.1 Impacts of Past and Present Actions
Overview of Development Historv
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�vents 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

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 surtace cover have posed new challenges to protecting surtace
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).
Existinq Percent lmpervious 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 surtace 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.
Existinq WaterQuality
Table 7 provides an overview of the Draft 2010 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies within
the North Carolina portion of the study area, while Table 8 covers the 2008 303(d) list for
the South Carolina portion of the ICE study area.
Several segments of Crowders Creek and Catawba Creek are listed as impaired for
aquatic life support based on the condition of macroinvertebrate and/or fish
communities. The impairment is likely due to impacts from urban stormwater runoff and
waste water treatment systems. A fecal coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
was established for Crowders Creek in 2004 (NCDWQ, 2004).
Lake Wylie was formerly listed as impaired for nutrients and a TMDL was established in
1991. The TMDL was implemented primarily through point-source load allocations
established by the Lake Wylie Nutrient Management Plan (NCDWQ, 2004). As of the
2010 North Carolina integrated assessment, the main body of Lake Wylie within the
study area is in attainment with water quality standards. However, the South Fork
Catawba River arm is impaired for aquatic life support based on copper concentrations
and high temperature. Lake Wylie is also listed as impaired for copper in South Carolina,
and the Crowders Creek arm of Lake Wylie is impaired for recreational uses by fecal
coliform.
s Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (ProjectNo. 2232-
522) http://www.ferc.gov/indushies/hydropower/enviro/eis/2009/07-23-09.asp

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 Name Location Use(s) Impaired Cause(s) of
Unit Im airment
South Fork
11-(123.5)b Catawba Aquatic Life Support Copper
River Arm of High water temperature
Lake W lie
From a point 0.4
South Fork mile upstream of
Long Creek to Turbidity
11-129-(15.5) Catawba Cramerton Dam and Aquatic Life Support Low pH
River Lake Wylie at Upper
Armstrong Bridge
11-130a Catawba From source to Aquatic Life Support Ecological/biological
Creek SR2446, Gaston Integrity Benthos
Catawba From SR2446, Ecological/biological
11-130b Creek Gaston to SR2439, Aquatic Life Support Integrity Benthos
Gaston
11-130c Catawba FromSR2439 to Aquatic Life Support Ecological/biological
Creek Lake Wylie Integrity FishCom
11-135-2 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
Inte rit 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 EcologicalNiological
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
�ource: ivorm �arouna �u� u:su:s �a� ust

Table 8
Impaired Waterbodies in the South Carolina Portion of the ICE Study Area
Name and Location Station Use(s) Cause(s) of
Impaired Impairment
LAKE WYLIE AB MILL CK ARM AT END OF S- CW 197 Aquatic Life Co er
46-557 Support pp
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 Copper
Support
CROWDERS CREEK AT S-46-1104 CW-024 Aquatic Life Biological
Support integrity
LK WYLIE, CROWDERS CK ARM AT SC 49 CW-027 Recreation Fecal Coliform
AND SC 274
5ource: 5outn carouna zoott 303 (a) ust
Stormwater Manaqement Po/icies
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.

Riparian Area Protection Po/icies
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 "Surtace 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 surtace 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�atawba 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 surtace 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

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 surtace
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 surtace cover to the study area,
or a one percent increase over the No Build condition (See Table 9). The largest indirect
increases in impervious surtace 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 surtace
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 surtace 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 surtace cover from existing conditions. One
subwatershed with impervious surtace 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 surtace cover provides a useful metric for assessing potential
cumulative effects, it is not possible to conclude from an analysis of impervious surtace
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 lmpacts and the 401 Water Quality Certi�cation and lsolated
Wetlands Program (NCDWQ, 2004). To issue a Water Quality Certification, NCDWQ is

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.

Table 9
Change in Impervious Surface Cover by Watershed
No Build Compared to Build
2035 No Build Build Build 2035 No
Total 2007 guild Direct Indirect Condition 2007 guild 2035 Build
Watershed Impervious Change in Change in Total Percent Percent
Impervious Percent
Area Cover Impervious Impervious Impervious Impervious Impervious
(Acres) (Acres) Cover Cover Cover Cover Cover Impervious Cover*
(Acres) qcres Acres Acres * Cover
Beaverdam Creek 12,200 700 1,000 0 100 1,100 5.7% 8.2% 9.0%
CatawbaCreek 20,700 3,700 4,800 100 300 5,200 17.9% 23.2% 25.1%
Duharts Creek-
South Fork 25,300 4,600 6,900 100 0 6,900 18.2% 27.3% 27.3%
Catawba River
Lake Wylie- 10,500 2,200 3,600 100 -100 3,700 21.0% 34.3% 35.2%
Catawba River
LowerCrowders 36,700 2,100 2,800 100 200 3,100 5.7% 7.6% 8.4%
Creek
Mill Creek-Lake 15,000 1,600 2,400 0 100 2,500 10.7% 16.0% 16.7%
Wylie
Paw Creek-Lake 11,900 3,300 5,400 0 0 5,400 27.7% 45.4% 45.4%
Wylie
Upper Crowders 26,500 1,600 3,800 200 -200 3,700 6.0% 14.3% 14.0%
Creek
StudyAreaTotal 158,800 19,800 30,700 500 300 31,500 12.5% 19.3% 19.8%
'Cumulative effect of past actions (existing conditions), the impacts of reasonably foreseeable actions by others (future household and
employment growth and other transportation projects), the indirect effects of the project and the direct increase in impervious surface cover
resulting from the project.
Note: Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres. Differences were calculated prior to rounding.
:fl

3.4 Wildlife Habitat
3.4.1 Impacts of Past and Present Actions
The quantity and quality of upland wildlife habitats in the study area have been impacted
by past development. For the Catawba River basin as a whole, forest cover decreased
by 104,000 acres or 10.1 percent between 1982 and 1997 (NCDWQ, 2004). Including
urban trees, approximately 59.4% of the study area is covered by tree cover as of 2007
(See Table 12 and Figure 13). At a watershed level, the highest percentage of tree cover
occurs in the Upper and Lower Crowders Creek subwatersheds (65.7 and 64.9 percent,
respectively), while the lowest percentage occurs in the heavily developed Paw Creek-
Lake Wylie subwatershed (37.8 percent).
Figure 13 illustrates the forest interior habitat patches, defined based on the 300-foot
edge effect zone explained in Section 2.5.3. Table 10 shows that the majority of the
forest interior habitat patches in the study area are small and that there are only 9
interior habitat patches greater than 500 acres in size. The largest habitat patches are
located in and around Crowders Mountain State Park. Some of the large habitat patches
in this area actually extend beyond the boundaries of the study area. As expected, there
are no large interior habitat patches remaining in the most heavily developed portions of
the study area, such as Gastonia.
Forest
Total Interior
Acres Habitat
(Acres)
58,802 26,967
cluding interior patc
Table 10
Study Area Forest Interior Habitat Patches
Percent Count of Forest Interior Habitats by Patch
Forest Size Acres Mean
Interior Less than 20 to 101 201_ Greater Interior
Habitat 20 100 tO 500 than Patch Size*
200 500
17.0% 12,011 139 41 22 9 37.1
:s of less than one acre.
3.4.2 Impacts from Other Actions (No Build Alternative)
Under the No Build Alternative 8,500 to 20,500 acres of tree cover could be lost as a
result of the future development, reducing the total percent forest cover in the study area
to 54.0 to 46.5 percent.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.
s For an explanation of how the `9ow° and "high° tree cover impact estimates were developed, refer to
Section 2.5.3.

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*
Existing Interior Habitat Direct Impacts New Remaining
IDt glock (acres) (acres) Conversions to Interior Habitat
Edge(acres) Block(s)(acres)
A 20.6 0 3.6 16.9
B 22.3 0.4 6.1 15.8
C 76.9 0 3.9 73
D 29.3 0.5 1.5 27.3
E 336.7 18.3 33.2 63.2
222
F 112.5 27.2 20.5 62.3
2.4
1
<1
G 847.6 29.1 61.2 <1
185.8
570.5
H 18.4 9.9 6.5 2.1
I 29.2 7 7.3 14.9
58.6
J 98.6 15.3 21.9 <1
2.4
K 25.3 4.4 9.1 11.8
L 370.5 18.5 271 274.3
50.6
<1
1.6
M 150.7 18.8 26.2 1.8
9.9
92.3

Existing Interior Habitat Direct Impacts New Remaining
IDt glock (acres) (acres) Conversions to Interior Habitat
Ed e acres Block s acres
N 215.4 2.3 4.7 207.6
<1
30.4
O 62.0 9.5 15.8 <1
6.1
P 34.7 6.1 16.1 2.1
10.3
72.2
Q 112.2 18.7 19.1 <1
2.1
28.1
R 519.1 24.3 46.1 2 9
131.2
286.5
S 124.0 8.5 16.8 34.6
64.1
<1
T 32.3 1.8 5.8 <1
24.6
U 92.9 12.8 21.2 5.9
53
V 308.6 13.9 2q g 70.1
199.9
11.6
W 211.5 18.1 46.6 50.2
<1
85
-ror interior naaitat patcnes or approximateiy �u acres in size or iarger oniy. impacts to smauer
patches were calculated and included in the total edge effect statistics in the teM.
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

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.

Table 12
Change in Tree Cover by Watershed (Low Impact Estimate)
No Build Compared to Build
2035 No 2035 No
2007 Build Direct Build Indirect Build 2007
Total Forest Build Change in Change in Condition Percent Build 2035 Build
Acres Cover Forest Forest Cover Forest Cover Total Forest Forest Percent Percent
(Acre) Cover (qcres) (Acres) Cover (Acres) Cover Forest Forest Cover
Acres Cover
Beaverdam Creek 12,200 6,500 6,500 0 0 6,500 53.3% 53.3% 53.3%
CatawbaCreek 20,700 12,100 11,500 -100 -300 11,000 58.5% 55.6% 53.1%
Duharts Creek-South 25,300 15,400 12,800 -100 0 12,700 60.9% 50.6% 50.2%
Fork Catawba River
Lake Wylie-Catawba 10,500 6,000 4,200 -200 100 4,100 57.1% 40.0% 39.0%
River
Lower Crowders 36,700 23,800 23,700 -200 -100 23,400 64.9% 64.6% 63.8%
Creek
Mill Creek-Lake Wylie 15,000 8,800 8,000 -100 0 8,000 58.7% 53.3% 53.3%
Paw Creek-Lake 11,900 4,500 3,100 0 0 3,100 37.8% 26.1% 26.1%
W lie
Upper Crowders 26,500 17,400 16,000 -300 300 16,000 65.7% 60.4% 60.4%
Creek
StudyAreaTotal 158,800 94,300 85,800 -1,000 -100 84,800 59.4% 54.0% 53.4%
Notes: Negative change indicates loss of forest cover, positive indicates gain.
Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres. Differences were calculated prior to rounding.
For an explanation of how the "low" and "high" tree cover impact estimates were developed, refer to Section 2.5.3.
�

Table 13
Change in Tree Cover by Watershed (High Impact Estimate)
No Build Compared to Build
2035 No 2035 No
2007 Build Direct Build Indirect Build 2007
Total Forest Build Change in Change in Condition Percent Build 2035 Build
Acres Cover Forest Forest Cover Forest Cover Total Forest Forest Percent Percent
(Acre) Cover (qcres) (Acres) Cover (Acres) Cover Forest Forest Cover
Acres Cover
Beaverdam Creek 12,200 6,500 5,900 0 -200 5,700 53.3% 48.4% 46.7%
CatawbaCreek 20,700 12,100 9,300 -100 -700 8,500 58.5% 44.9% 41.1%
DuhartsCreek-South 25,300 15,400 10,600 -100 0 10,400 60.9% 41.9% 41.1%
Fork Catawba River
Lake Wylie-Catawba 10,500 6,000 3,700 -200 0 3,500 57.1% 35.2% 33.3%
River
LowerCrowders 36,700 23,800 22,000 -200 -400 21,400 64.9% 59.9% 58.3%
Creek
Mill Creek-Lake Wylie 15,000 8,800 6,900 -100 -200 6,700 58.7% 46.0% 44.7%
Paw Creek-Lake 11,900 4,500 2,200 0 0 2,200 37.8% 18.5% 18.5%
W lie
UpperCrowders 26,500 17,400 13,300 -300 100 13,100 65.7% 50.2% 49.4%
Creek
StudyAreaTotal 158,800 94,300 73,800 -1,000 -1,400 71,400 59.4% 46.5% 45.0%
Notes: Negative indicates loss of forest cover, positive indicates gain.
Note: Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres. Differences were calculated prior to rounding.
For an explanation of how the "low" and "high" tree cover impact estimates were developed, refer to Section 2.5.3.
:f1

4.0 Evaluate Analysis Results
The objective of Step 7 of the ICE assessment process is to consider the assumptions
and associated uncertainty used in the analysis. This section discusses the uncertainty
associated with the ICE assessment in general, as well as a discussion of the effect of
removing the Bud Wilson Road interchange from the design of the Preferred Alternative.
As with any attempt to forecast future growth or development, there are limitations to the
accuracy and certainty of the results of these analyses. Most of these analyses rely on
the land use forecasts described in earlier sections. These land use forecasts were
developed using recommended methods as described in the NCDOT ICE Guidance.
Specifically, the land use forecasts rely on the planning organizations in the study area,
and, therefore, the results are only as accurate as those forecasts. The quantities of
projected development also rely on assumptions about development density, as
explained in earlier sections of this report, and these assumptions are another limitation
on the accuracy of the analysis. Thus, the process of developing the Build condition
forecasts induces uncertainty. The exact level of uncertainty resulting from these
forecasts is not possible to quantify.
In addition to assumptions about the quantities of future development, the analysis also
requires assumptions about the distribution of future development to individual TAZs.
The purpose of producing the quantified scenarios is to gain an understanding of the
incremental effects of the proposed action (i.e., indirect effects) as well as the overall
cumulative effects to the environment. Consequently, assumptions made about the
distribution of land use follow a logical construct but are not necessarily accurate. In
other words, the analysis is a product of assumptions that allow reasonable estimates
and comparisons to be made, but in so doing, the actual projected distribution of
development is generalized according to those assumptions and does not replicate the
unknown individual private land use decisions of the future.
4.1 Bud Wilson Road Interchange
An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR 2423) was included in the description of the
Gaston East-West Connector at the time of the DEIS. The Bud Wilson Road interchange
was also included in the travel demand modeling conducted for the project. As noted in
Section 2.4.2, zone-to-zone travel time information from this modeling was the basis of
the gravity model assessment of the potential for shifts in the location of households and
employment. However, subsequent to the publication of the DEIS, refinements to the
design of the Preferred Alternative led to a decision to eliminate the interchange
proposed at Bud Wilson Road.
The Bud Wilson Road interchange would have been located in relatively close proximity
to another interchange (Robinson Road 1.2 miles to the west), thus the effect on
localized transportation access would be minimal. In addition, the ICE assessment
results show on overall pattern of increased growth in southern Gaston County and
northern York County with the project. The removal of the Bud Wilson Road interchange
would not change this basic pattern of the growth forecasts because numerous other
interchanges remain part of the design of the Preferred Alternative. The land around Bud

Wilson Road has the potential to become more attractive to development with the
completion of the project, even without an interchange in this location because Bud
Wilson Road can easily be accessed from other roads that do connect to the Gaston
East-West Connector. The Bud Wilson Road area can be accessed via Union Road (NC
274), as well as Robinson Road (by taking Sparrow Dairy Road). Therefore, it can be
concluded that the elimination of the Bud Wilson Road interchange does not have the
potential to substantially alter the results of the ICE assessment.
5.0 Mitigation
The basic requirement to consider mitigation measures is established in the CEQ NEPA
regulations (40 CFR 1502.16 (h)). Compensatory mitigation for the direct impacts of the
Preferred Alternative to regulated resources (e.g. wetlands and streams) is discussed in
the FEIS. With respect to mitigation for indirect and cumulative effects related to land
use change, both the NCDOT ICE Guidance and FHWA Interim Guidance note that it is
necessary to identify mitigation actions beyond the control of the transportation
agencies. While such mitigation cannot be committed to be implemented as part of the
project, the purpose of identifying the mitigation is to inform the affected local
jurisdictions and other reviewers of the EIS. Mitigation for the indirect and cumulative
effects on land use, water resources and tree cover identified by this study could be
reduced in magnitude through implementation and enforcement of the following planning
strategies. As noted in the text below, many of these strategies are already beginning to
be implemented in the study area.
• Zoning/Comprehensive Planning to support higher density development in
planned growth areas and to discourage growth in environmentally sensitive
areas. Gaston County has adopted a Unified Development Ordinance that
provides new flexibility for higher density development, including Traditional
Neighborhood Development (TND) and a streamlined development process.
York County is in the process of developing a Unified Development Ordinance.
Open Space Planning is also an important part of protecting key wildlife habitat
areas. York County completed an Open Space Plan in 2009.
• Growth Management through restrictions on the expansion of infrastructure.
Water and sewer service should be strictly tied to areas designated for growth in
local land use plans. There is some evidence of consideration of this type of
policy in parts of Gaston County. For example, Gaston County's "Existing
Initiatives Map" identifies areas where sewer service should not be extended,
including a portion of the South Fork Crowders Creek watershed.
• Riparian buffers. Existing riparian buffer policies applicable to the study area
are discussed in Section 3.3.1. These policies are a key aspect of water
resources protection.
• Stream Restoration. Many urban streams have been straightened, channelized,
piped and buried, and/or stripped of native vegetation. Stream restoration
policies would directly improve habitat and water quality by addressing erosion
and sedimentation issues.

• 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 surtace 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 surtace cover under the No Build condition. The total
incremental effect of the project on tree cover is estimated to be a loss of 1,100 to 2,400
acres over the No Build condition. Numerous planning strategies are available to reduce
the impacts of future growth on water resources and wildlife habitat, including
zoning/comprehensive planning, growth management, riparian buffers, stream
restoration and land acquisition.
7.0 References
Boarnet, Marlon G. and Andrew F. 2000. Haughwout, Do Highways Matter? Evidence
and Policy lmplications of Highways lnfluence 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/h istory-of-the-catawba-wateree-
river
Chen, J., and J.F. Franklin. 1997. Growing season microclimate variability within an old
growthDouglas-�rforest. Climate Research 821-34.
Chen, J., S.C. Saunders, T.R. Crow, R.J. Naiman, K.D. Brosofske, G.D. Mroz, B.L.
Brookshire, and J.F. Franklin. 1999. Microclimate in forest ecosystem and landscape
eco/ogy. Bioscience 49288-297.

Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic
Systems.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1998. Considering Cumulative Effects under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Essen, P-A. 1994. Tree mortality patterns after experimental fragmentation of an old-
growth conifer forest. Biological Conservation 68:19-28.
Forman, 1986. Landscape Ecology.
Gates, J.E., and L.W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest predation and fledgling success in �eld-
forest ecotones. Ecology 59:871-883.
Geiger, R. 1965. The Climate Near the Ground. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Federal Highway Administration. 2003. lnterim Guidance: Questions and Answers
Regarding the Consideration of lndirect and Cumulative lmpacts 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. MethodologyforAssessingLocalLand Use
Impacts ofHighways. 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 PlanningAnalysis: Methods and Models.
Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2009. Gaston East-West Connector lndirect 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.

Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2010. 2035 Long Range
Transportation Plan.
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 2004. Catawba RiverBasinwide Water Quality Plan.
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 2004. Cumulative lmpacts and the 401 Water Quality Certification and lsolated
Wetland Permit Program.
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 2004. Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for Crowders Creek North
Carolina and South Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 2010. 2010 /ntegrated Report Category 5-303(d) List.
North Carolina Department of Transportation/ Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. 2001. Guidance on lndirect and Cumulative lmpact Assessment of
Transportation Projects in North Carolina.
Reifsnyder GM, Furnival GM, Horowitz JL. 1971. Spatial and Temporal Distribution of
Solar Radiation Beneath Forest Canopies. Agricultural Meteorology 9: 21-37.
Robbins, C.S. 1979. Effects Of Forest Fragmentation On Bird Populations: R.M.
DeGraaf and K.E. Evans, eds. Management Of North Central And Northeastern
Forests For Nongame Birds. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report.
Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study. 2010. 2035 Long-Range Transportation
Plan.
Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Tech. Rep.
55.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 2001. Total Maximum
DailyLoad DevelopmentforBeaverdam Creek: Station CW-153 Fecal Coliform Bacteria.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 2008. 2008Integrated
Report Part l: Listing of lmpaired Waters.
Transportation Research Board. 1999. NCHRP Report 423A: Land Use Impacts of
Transportation — A Guidebook.
Transportation Research Board. 2001. NCHRP Report 456: Guidebook for Assessing
the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects.
Transportation Research Board. 1998. NCHRP Report 403: Estimating the Indirect
Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects.

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.

5001000 2000 3000 4000 ,,.:�)r ' � / -
Fe �
1 �- J Sk`_ � � l� _�
�., t�� - x . e .�
�1 ' � � .. y,0 a � ' � �f L'
�Z � ,_ :. ' ¢ 1 (i}A .A < '�„� ; .. ra` �� �T- [ y
�,; �
e �
s� 1 V r i , ` , a
J pa�,�'`,l'��� .4 }. ,;�L � � ..; � ,�y�a ' a �'� g158ACr . l �A�f ;� ._f� 5�
� ��'.� u� ��,� ��..� . ' � t � kc
�` r '` ' il � , . ��� � � 4t.
� � y r
b r 169Ages . f� � n ��;r
J �
p�� � r"_r�. _ .A . ' �, .-
� �
� �y .' , � '2]3ACresD
I
. � ,� � � ,� I .f % � .«
. �*�,r''I'!�� �'�/ I e� I .
� S`
i � i'.��t � � i J ;� �+ �
}til.v�r�. I � 0�, `� fi� l I 1:' � j ��� i� �A� -
i
"l.C� i _ � � �,_ � ��� � �� � til + _
_ ` ' � � / f R - d"
. ,. � � � � � , �
q . . ° .� - r i � � . - � °'.
�� � - � � ]3 Acres 7 � ' *'-� � f V " : � ! �
� � y � �, ��p� moso�onso� �'�, � i � d �e.:se`Y�� ,� s I ?;�iu�f�� ` " �,
��°�( � UppxOrowtlxz0eek —� �� � .f /��
L/ft �i � _ t r '—1 �. 7 T1 �.t I � � � � • �
i pl
� � �-r � � �+ �.._ "� �� � -�' � _
,. . ��a � � �� 1 � � y .�.�� � _
�
-,i � x .' � i _
1 �'i � �f r.�.. r' 1= - � �.t � r 5 _ � y � � � ,,
i , �" � � . �'- - �� i � r � � i
r . I � � -- . � � I .;� � (' ' moso�onsoz`.
� sr' . �� � � , . � ]�'-- � y{ .. � i'. Y° Fi.i C#wbaC�etl'.
� , �( '�) . �[ T�I �r�p 1 � � � 1 � 1
.... �� ql,. . -� .__ I�I - Ay— I � , .t-
. � ,. v � � 7 -=t� � �: C s -,� �
oP�e�dA�� ��eR9n� f�v ,. , , �
� ��y, � ; _ � , " t�,,� , �
IOlrec[ OeEaecG' ' � �d . 222ACre5 � �LV_h S ?� ,�3 3 ...I } •
9 p F-. 632ACres . - , � ...,
� � ' �. - �'F�� � � t -
Remainngwms�mrerorHaovzc L ��� ti E�
-i ul r --� � '
r-a.
COII52N2tl L3IIWP31t5 �� / 0 si E si W si C � �
�FlOOtlj113I15 � � ,� � � �� I ���f Itl �ntlCUmula� ERCISBWtly
�NWIWetlantl5 'r � � ; - � � ��� � �� Fgure14
4 y
O Wd@�FeaWIPS � � �1�_ � � y i pf I` �0.��,�, ��' �� Fore511MenorPalcM1esF B QOantlE
�SWtlyAI23BOWtldf% � / . � k �. i
OswoynreaHUCi2suowxersneos � {- � -F'= �'��^t�� � ';:� a'� o�� a,a„�� �

soo �000 z000 a000 a,000 � ^ �� ��. ��, r �- ,
� h 1 - � .� eF �h� �� � � . Acres � ,, � i, f � �� � � .' y,
o.,j � �¢ �t _ � �_ 1 ..�� � �
� -r� _ � � a aa r
d .'„ t .:: I 1 IS. `�4 � :
' � � . S�f � � {. �� � � �. Y
. +
! e
.. � � � �.t�'� y .� � � �
p,y, . � . F _ l � ��., � a. °e r' �B. n I j�'' a .� + ��t
` t �,' x �
i
-, . / � 62.3 Acres (y - � �. � 1 y .I ( ` � . .'
� j
� . , � i - �F c �3�- .� t � � ry s � .�,+,
Y . / . " � � � �G� � � � - r :3 �.%�
p�( i /
f�T � yM# .. i. / ' � I � \ �... V.t / � ,
CTi � J� ���� F , , 1 fi � 4 f ;�! 6 `
.�.. i � �� �.,
r�/ �'�- i , � �. . � ?.� � � r t � i � ,r,
� S fi' .. - F 0 Acre I • 4 I� '. I i ��.
i � ���i � � .., I , '� �� �q: � % [� � �� i r l� � t �M �r i �j � /
�. r r fi '., � �' e� � i � a� — _ . � � � 0 . � ;. I � � f � I
. Y`�',� 1 f r5M �i �' I r x r ,� �` I ��, 1 �� 1.
' � I � i (
„� ��I
�� �� � � Fi �f' ososoimisoi :. q t a F��-�� �
�' �� � _ uppercrowderscreek j � � �r �i �
� �� � i
.` /"4� � '`� � -�,
p f
II /`. -r� '��� 1 l� �al-� Y
�' S • � /-' .� 5]OSACres . _ - � '. � � 4 �.
I t S A� I
- ' G 1+; . � - - � .3„- '� -� �. f'� �
� ' s �+ � ,
II r � +' . _ ' n �_
} + -
y �858ACres s o3o5mo��5oa
I
_ �/ � � _ t .` f - � � `J �� e C d rsCrsek
'' �1 ..` F � . I., � / 1 �" _
„� � - f � �` I ' .. ' � 'I'flcres � f �i � �
�
,+ l
� Prs� rtedAlt We W9M1L �W Y .. o�;�. �� �� ����+� . �� p F � � t -�
�orenimPac�s {r �`°,�� ! �� � ' � � �'�� � d�
inarenelaeertens i �. � �" °�� . e �. , � i � � �'� �� ��_�' � "
Qaema�nngcorenm�erorHaoii �;� - � F� . � _
�
cor.�e�vea wnaman:s � �• � . � ` � � `� . - �r � "C . + i � .
�ciooapia�ns -�— ri��,�' ' � +A � � �� ia� �aamui��re�eaaossway
�ivwiweuanas ��- � � ,1� � �1;G'�� � r F �s
Owa�erceawres �� � gure
� s „'� i, i � i ��� 1��,
Oswaynreaeounaary "�iT€"°�si! C; "� '� _ R t , i . .' �� i. Forerii���o�vamasFa�ae
i
' , _i ',i' J�f,:
OswaynreaHUC�zsuowa�e n as � �,^}'� § 7 � _ � "' ,r _ ,���,aa,�,��v.i� ��yzo�o
nc'y p J""� L�4 �': Y.

sooi000 z000 a000 a000 � ,. �. TTy-. � , ,
F � �asanaes ,-� -� 'r' ' -�
�. c�s . .. -'
� � � � FI .� S�y� � -, ,'� � � �� �0305010H502 6I
1 ' -,1 { '� � 4 C [ wb C k �r':
�!- �4�. � i�i �f. r �'a� y i.�� �� i_� 1 � ��y ��,��� a..� , �- �
i' I � � ° � k � � ' �'
r � 1 �.
I � , 1 � � �_,�„_ . � ai
� �
— �,� ' ' w H �'� � . � i i
w � � � ��;; � � � �
.r'� �. � .. 21ACres�,��-� '�� �, ��Lri'� I i �_� i . � .
i
S J�a�4 i � i �i ..
� ye^�5 . �. H -�(,� � �� E x V r � r'"I ��
� I : • 24ACres � � , t } - ! � jjj
Y.-
� f, e � -, _A` ��, f��
'f
,�.� � �a9naas� ' � ' � � oanaas ' . a ��, —_ .
} r
.. I ' , r� �� � '
s �
�t f�?d�� , , �� �
,d� � - . `�. '� � . �� ° , r
!�l — � . � , ��50.@Aaes ,y �
� �-' I . u -' . � . 58 6 Acres . � .
' � F'�. - . '7 � }� - � K �!,` ,
!i ���[[[
. � rWO5o1o11501� y F 118ACres //////��/�
f.� .� UppxCrowtlezCretl� x5 � �� 923ACres
y � i �� F
� � , "� � � Roomso� Ro. ' � M _
� � 1''
��� .- . `- �i � � ., __ 93ACres
� � _' � ��' � ��� �� � � . : ..
� r,.
� � .
�
�`_ . , 1 .�z... . � � �. -.�, f�.. _ . > lsnores
t_ ... . ,�' _ �r..,. i .. . r . _ .
,
� � � F
�... �,: r. 2]4 3 Acres �' -
: V � > � �, � C•� ( � . %
� , . lf � L .� / J .
" �" � JM y� .i� � � �� . . ,".li
A �� �
�P�tertetlAl@ma[veR9MOtWY �j .� �a �,
t
x' t Y
� orettimPa�a �:; � ,�a R � � /� t< . � � � ,-. �` .
� �,
moretteoge�rrear �� . �° ;w �. � � - �
oRema��9FO����,o��ati<< , �� �' , z t
��1`.•.F 1 f F YY !'' -
CoriservetlLanWParla — �' �f� 1 ' , �
�Fiompians � , . 1 �, � fi,-: � woso�onsoa '� i�a�a��a�aamia��aeaa��e�wav
Z� � � � y Lowe�C� tl C k�
�mwiweoanos � '�1 ���. �� b k � `j� Fqureie
o���Fea�„� � . � q
OSmtlyAreaBOUndary �� � �^ �� r lf 3�%��'' D j� fYT �I�,s � � forgunerorvncnesidxma�
os�,dvArea���,�s�tiwa�ned= d ,�-.. � �, ,,.:` �; ��m ..e� � '' o�=a,a,�� �
� '�

5001,000 2000 3000 4000 p " ' ' ` ,� � �
F / ,�� �!y�i ����" / li ' � '
i A �.
. . �� � t' j '. . ' � . �
4ACres .y ';
J � Y .�.�� �? : � _, � Ey`s' � �
� �. .'°�. � , .k <
�
� ` .r .' . -: l � ��� _ � � � s� � -
' SD.6ACres - . / J, � � ;t �,.�
i e e
J K . " �' ' �� t , y
�� � .. 923ACres � � � ` � �� r i
M .�" F � I �," �. � �
�
� 0305m0��502 ��
, .. _ Roei�so�Ra. � a � car�ro c k '� k
.. ;-�� �rFr ��'- i � ?: ,� .
.. . - �99Aaes � � '. �r� T e �k'-
i ..s �y�i/, , ��M1 h�
'� . .. "I 8ACre � � f � � bx� �'+�
� .. ' — "1.6ACres O l Acres 0 9 Hcre3 _ . `j•/ ' ' i - �Sa
S 2]4BAaes ��! . '.
�- L t° � � "� �^ � - 1
i ; — � ! .. �y, .. r y.� � . ,�
Ti'r . 'T�a a� � `
f w- r
� :ri$ � � � �"i i' r_
� v, � �.. � ,;� � +a'.. .,
�:. � ;� .� i �:
u,T � ' � i � . , � . , • -
�^`e'' � I w�! �, �� a Gy
c'`' � ' �
.� <' � '` ��� � 4
30.50�M�50�!��p; i'_^"i" � g �� .
vv �c aer c k .`k � j$ ¢� � � ,1' . . � .- s ° ,� s� AcrBS i . Q
� � � "�✓� � �mo5o�m�5oa i ' . � �03ACres
� 'L rCrowdersCreek ' 4
i�l� � iv ° �� C� i ;PSAae ' P
a
�f f �
.� �� � �� , . i � � �� 1 _ "21 Aae�
�4 +6 � i � , . O ...
�-�' '}� � 4� 20]6ACresN ;� a gq 3Q.4ACres �
�ti �5,�, S � � � � (Y �s .�i � � a oaaso�m�sos . J
""' s S ti } ���, � i & �: ' MIICeek-Lk Wyl `4 �
.ca' � 4 e" ..� - _ 4 4 v . p � . ��` �a
�r�kYy �!'�' � � �• � + � .'. 'W � Aj �° 5 , p
! a r . -r � ��.�k
Qvrererreanu awewem-0rway �.. � fj �0s� '"i ��r �l e � `n. �' . q�F��d �i' r � �k`� �yqr��q�, r "'��
�orenimPac�s � 1 �� � �{� �' ✓� �� hN��S." 3 `F'� Y'+ � � :',V y. ( �
R " �(r .- 'A�; s��' +t. i ,+ 8 ; 6� � _ _� '�`
inareneyqeertens �r x�� �:s.,%� g"^, �� � r �L � y d �°y� � - � �7 � }�
�aama���eco�ani���o�Haoii �r�vr / � �^6 t � T rl �`� � �s.�� � �.i � . , ��
cor.�e�vea �anamarks � 3+ ✓' � q � +�" ': � � � °
.e ' � ���,' � I � j r e , : �„ - +� � � eano� eanwa c
�ciooapia�ns > � .•-,,a :'V:" -f,# �� - -� � N � ': ,_ � � m fd�y��J: marenxnaamwxr�reerteussway .
�Nwiweuanas .� ��� p� - ��� --� 1 , � - q b��, Fguren
Ip _A ]" t, .t � ..
owa�,Faaw,a= , �. � < 4 �,w, p
Oswaynreaeounaary �'J��•�i z -iT�7 .-'`r� ,� ' f . Forerim��o�ramn�m,ma�ao
�� 7
Qswaynrs-aHUCizsuowa�ersneas F�`�' .�• s:'�lno p-� � � � iG. ' �� - �,�,t r �..u+i�' ,���=aa�,��v.R

500� 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 i N. �'1 . . '�"11 E) ' I -� -
d s �,- F ',v � C���ie F. . - i��r�Frf�� R ��.}� �2 '1 .( ' �'. ;
1 f,� ��� t (.; .�/ f� �a 4 � .. W0501020605
�"'`�N� t ; �S�"�` � r�� ' � � ; �L �% �, �ounarczcreexsoumrorxc [awnaever, ��
� � � ' � tii� � � �i���' - - � v � Pf-. td.��� ��� 64.�ACres �
!� �g � !`,�j� / �:�f�lJYJ �� .�
A . - � - ��� kt.yF� 3 i.� � IWy� � .S
Y f ` Pl r� F
� ` � *` ` - .�, �e, z �".-� . + � �. v�;'� _
r i � � v � �� �
�' ta a
'�� � � y � � y,3v� � Y " ' �� 34.6ACre
� :' �' � i" ya ,� ,�i:;'- � y � r �r � �'�� 4
r �� �1 '1 � Je . `��� �_� A ti •
C ��� ��g. ;: `� �3+ � t�r .. � �, . - .
�� 1 ��+ �� �e.? v "-r_ - � t ryt ? �
� �`�Y� . ��� .� '�� . � ���n (��.,!'aj�,_ �I 286SACres .
�a +`f'�.�' ( �` }i�� ��+h��n:t A �`;'., 1.q '� � i � � �� *i ' .
j�,�,,}iI � f� 3 I � �\
"'�`�+e�i� j 9�n
� ��pt �,i��p;. ��?,r��; � . . � R ,.
���� 1 ��, � • .'. . � .
11'�030501011502 , . . . �
'� caawbacrea� � 23 Acres. . � .,'.r `� �..
.. : d . � . . � .
� x .� • :, .. -
s �o-� �IPi E�� 02Acres 29ACres � —
x�, � i . � �+�,. .. � � ' za � naas - � r _ .
�'=C r „ �� `��'�n� 14Y'E s r'S _ . ' j '
� -- , � � �03ACres 722A�cres �� ��y. ' � '' h � �'. � � � �-
G i
LL�:.W05010fl505 -�� J. �1§?,s'.. V.r �� S{' � �
m��creekLakewy� p , � �yv q � � y,� � i n•�� ��. 13t2ACres
u � �
' �� z.7 ncrey r `'� V�," ,� �q''7�, , sG � � ej7� �A' i '.1 , °�.' �'` �
o �,: � r "� '� _ � : ; . }i3" '!� �� �z�
q i + �,e a ; � Rg ta� �. �.�� � , � �i} �, � _ � v
�- i r k �b s x 1ti'�} ly� kt . T�. r�'� .
Q vrererreanu maive aem-0rw y ° ��� I� . ^i � «�1 v �$.� � ��;r Y �'v��' 1"f—= 's ��f1 , i Yl �
�orenimPac�s !f� ��� -� �' � � � � +Wr:. '?. �, �
inarenelaeertens sjr '�°�,,,�5' � y .. �6. �� L 4 t ,9 i i
T I i
Qaematingcorenm�erorHaoii � , � � � � �d�3'�� � � � �- '
cor.�e�vea�anamarks j �' !" ' � � .'�� � °`s ?i�� ".,-.� . �,�
� F� � �` - v � �� a� � e e w aconneoor
�ciooapiains � ; !. �?.°- • � � ,���. sx^ .�, i aenanaamwar�reertearsway
�ivwiweuanas '"- -t" �� �� �s o�. Fgure�s
�''-e" � . ' �: .
... :
wa�,Faaw,a=
� ,..i
� . ..
0 `' � v � �S � � '� i � Fore�rime�oraa�ne:a,¢a�aa
o��A�eo���ry �
�'' �' �v j- ar '
OswaynreaHUC�zsuowa�emeas . F _ � - - ,���,aa,�,a.,�p.i� ��yzo�o
,r f •

500 1000 2000 3000 4000 �c� ' -' � .
Fee A �' .l'4k'' � �i';J' ! Y �r-=i- .
�;. . , � :�� � � � � 1
l�i` RF: � v� . t0 �4 f A� i��1���
A.- ya � ,; � E i �ii.—
� � � . , �, �,. „ . , � , > „�
� _,- �,; � � a , "'�
� � � , �'�� � � - �, �
;�� � ;. ,�v . 4 — � -
� ,_ p, � , ,— , � 9 � ' c � �� _ �
f � .> �' �, , ��: � a,os�,o„aoa. .
r
f--�t'•�� . �; "'��' _ �� r�wo�aak��""�
K �
p, � } �'� t It r ;e i�
� S,
4�'v s' " 1�, �'6 G I� � �� 1
� / . , �. , ', .. ' � i .�� �,. �y� :t
' � _ ," �''� � ti �� 4�) Y. ¢'yd !
". � � r �;� . � �� ����4`� 1'�^
' - -. �:: � � . c�
� '�' . '-zasncres ssncres �''�" i'l� Cs:� �
. " ` � i T U - '�1 t{�'�-
� �, k. � . � v� n 4,� �i
oaosmozoeos'. � � �'�._ t r 4:.i�'� ,
�, ounarcscreeksoumFOrkczrmnroaaiver Op���e5,- " W�
�;�,�f / ` 64.1ACres � � ,��+,� ,�.9ACres '
� f } 1��
� � � }
, ,
s � r , n� ; �
. ,. �. l '� v a �� � ?�
�/ ' �� ��
S b
� � p {°� } �^1'1
� J
l J� i i' J`�\ / � I _ .q
, q _ ( — . . T� i��
� 34.6ACres � r � . 0 4
, � � �
� P , r , 'e�
i oaaso�m�soz � a / ' " ;y''�`t� i '�� ` ,�'M � .��H .� � r
o P,�e�dA�� m��e R9n� f �v ; � � ,� ;', � ,�; � , �.�- � � � ,�� •�� �
�orecnmPaca . 'o��'� i� �� (��„ � �.::�'" �k4� ..
morec�ea9eeaec� tl"• �`�: � � �i ( � rn .. '.. rYlrF� `�'+.
pRemzoneFOmsnnre,o�HZOrz� � , r- i ,e ��9 r 1r� ;.� . �",�„�` '
coriserveo �anmvaria �-0_ � . .. l°•r _ �� 11.'? s, � lvy,�°i_ � � � • 9 V � .
" �( 03�' os eswsc �r
�Flomplans � � " �T , °` � �°k iarectanaamwat ertnseway
�NWIWetlantls - � .� � � �'" �°-��{ � ���1�. Fgure19
I . �- ' �,9 y E •C � � 1
o ���F��„� , , >
os��dvAreaao���ry i < I 'r �f� , �',�r �{ � z Fo�ri���,o�Pa�na=s,a�a�
� �
QswoynreaHUCi2suowatesneos _ �� , �� 1-�� e ro�,� r � r_i9,-,i s- o s a,a,

500�,000 2000 3,000 4,000 � �
F � I r . �'�&C
Y. l 6 �l . �I�� � J �ir � , y+^�':%.
Y r � �' ._ ` `� / Y''
0 1 ta�5 .. � �
i 0305010fl000
' �L I ^ t � PawCreekLakeWVle q' I . �"��`. .
T4
�� � �� �
� �f � y � r - ..
��� S �e C�` 9� �� � � �
( ��i� � ��'. i � �y� 'i
. t� � 'f ���� ��� �
� I �� � ��...
n �� ' � �
i � . pl' ',� , �� �
Wo5o1o20605 V�999ACres _ �
'-. -. ' � rL �.. . i '
OuM1MS C�eek-SOU[M1 Fo�k Ca[ wb Nlvx � � � � � � � � � ' � �
,� �� ��(/ I�85ACres
� . s.. . .. oxeaverRa. , , � . . ..
t �.{
n �'� ,� � f i�� f' � .� . . � � �
or '��1' r> /'' E '�� .
�/ i W
� {� _ � � �� � .: ��o.� naes o � aaes . �� .
ti
.. . � .. �, a ' ��: ; . _
6'�� '°�y,.�j'.. �.,yq�''.'. woso�o��mc _. .
- _ Lake IieCa[svbaNlve� . . . .
��
I Y.' H'V
� �_� � %� � 502ACres , � '
i
� d�` �! � '�' : r ��� . �"� � . ! ,
✓ f ,�_:Q. J � �
�� • � � �� I � Y � � . .
.1 �' ����
� � y. � � �, �i �-�h 7s � i ' � �`I 6ACres �
` t
�� � i �. � � .p;gy,ti ��.` t - I
ea
Qvrererreanitemarveagmorway �Y��T' A��� � _ .
� ovenimpac�s � � � �—"r f � �
� J �
inareneyqeertens � ;
Qaemainngcorenm�erorHaoii „�� �,'��. �, :•�,. �t .,
cor.�e�vea�anamarks '� ' � *' r � '" � � �
�ciooapia�ns �1.��'.7� - �y� a.�� � % , ia� ac ���re�eaaossway
�ivwiweuanas a� ����n� r � �� °,t�'i' ��g `'� -.)� �f%� .�'����._ __ ' Fe zo
m
Owa��caaw�as �r '+� a5 � / �$ � k " � _,�� � ,+1'
Oswaynreaeounaary u 7�� .1�� '�PY 9✓3'4f Fore�rm�eroraa�nesva�aw
� ����. iJ . r '� riC' ri
+,.., � � - F; �
0 swa nreaHUC�zsuowa�ersneas f `a,r / r�„ ,���,ea
Y _ 1 . ����v. � ��bmio

Appendix A
Interviews

���5.. � � ". 'i.
� �� �� MEMORANDUM
�
The Louis Berger Group, lnc., 199 Water Street, 23'� 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,
• Curtis Bridges,
Department
Transportation Planner, RFATS
Long Range Planner, City of Rock Hill Planning Services
• Chuck Chorak, Senior Planner, City of Rock Hill Development Services
Department (formerly with RFATS).
• Jill Gurak. PBS&J
• Leo Tidd, Louis Berger Group
• Larry Pesesky, Louis Berger Group
The objective of the teleconference was to confirm whether or not the 2035 Metrolina
model TAZ-level forecasts should represent the No Build condition in York County and to
provide a reasonableness check for the land use forecasting results based on the local
area knowledge of the participants. Berger provided the participants with a description of
the household and employment forecasting methodology and maps of the preliminary
results in advance of the meeting.
In the discussion of the No Build condition, Mr. Chorak indicated that he participated in
the original demographic forecasting for the York County portion of the 2025 Metrolina
travel demand model. These original forecasts have been updated with the various
updates to the model, including a reduction in the forecasts for the 2035 model based on
current economic conditions. Mr. Chorak stated that Gaston East-West Connector (or
Garden Parkway) was assumed to be completed in the allocation of future growth to
specific zones in York County. Household and employment growth was added to areas
in northern York County under the assumption that these areas would become more
attractive for development as a result of the project. This means that the potential

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 .
�

���5.. � � ". 'i.
� �� �� MEMORANDUM
�
The Louis Berger Group, lnc., 199 Water Street, 23'� 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 Metrolina
model TAZ-level forecasts should represent the No Build condition in Gaston County
and to provide a reasonableness check for the land use forecasting results based on the
local area knowledge of the participants. Berger provided the participants with a
description of the household and employment forecasting methodology and maps of the
preliminary results in advance of the meeting.
The participants noted that transportation access was not considered the most important
factor in future development patterns and that the majority of development is expected to
occur regardless of whether or not the Gaston East-West Connector is constructed.
However, the participants did agree that the 2035 Metrolina model forecasts should be
used as the Build condition because the indirect effect of the project was reflected in the
household and employment forecasts. The No Build condition would have somewhat
less growth in southern Gaston County than the forecasts. Mr. Graham noted that a five
percent difference in households in the study area between the No Build and Build
conditions seemed reasonable.
Mr. Graham stated that GUAMPO has evaluated the reasonableness of the 2035
household and employment forecasts in light of the economic recession. They have
1

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.
�

���5.. � � ". 'i.
� �� �� MEMORANDUM
�
The Louis Berger Group, lnc., 199 Water Street, 23'� Floor, New York, NY 10038
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Date:
To:
From:
July 2, 2010
Project File
Leo Tidd
Re: Gaston East-West Connector Indirect and Cumulative Effects Study
Subject: Summary of the July 2, 2010 Teleconference with the Mecklenburg-Union
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) and the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Planning Department
Attendees:
• Bob Cook, MUMPO
• Kent Main, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department
• Jeff Dayton, NCTA
• Leo Tidd, Louis Berger Group
• Larry Pesesky, Louis Berger Group
The objective of the teleconference was to confirm whether or not the 2035 Metrolina
model TAZ-level forecasts should represent the No Build condition in Mecklenburg
County and to provide a reasonableness check for the land use forecasting results
based on the local area knowledge of the participants. Berger provided the participants
with a description of the household and employment forecasting methodology and maps
of the preliminary results in advance of the meeting.
Mr. Cook stated that the Gaston East-West connector and associated land use effects
were considered by MUMPO in making the 2035 forecasts for the Metrolina model. The
participants agreed that the 2035 Metrolina model forecasts should be used as the Build
condition because the indirect effect of the project was reflected in the household and
employment forecasts. Mr. Cook noted that the forecasting approach is consistent
between the various MPOs in the study area.
The participants noted that the preliminary indirect effects analysis results for the
Mecklenburg County portion of the study area show little change between the No Build
and Build condition and the direction of the change is downward (e.g. lower household
and employment levels in western Mecklenburg County in the Build condition compared
to the No Build). Berger explained that the gravity model approach redistributes growth
based on accessibility to employment centers. The gravity model results show southern
Gaston County and northern York County receiving the largest increase in accessibility

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.
�

Appendix B
Household and Employment Forecasts

This appendix provides the 2005 and 2035 (No Build and Build) household and
employment estimates for the ICE study area. A key to the field names used in the data
table is provided below. The household and employment results presented in the table
are unrounded.
Field Name Explanation
TAZ Metrolina model Traffic Analysis Zone ID.
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 2O05 2005 Households
NB HH 2O35 2035 No Build Households
B HH 2O35 2035 Build Households
EMP_2005 2005 Employment
NB EMP 2035 2035 No Build Employment
B_EMP_2035 2035 Build Employment

TAZ TAZ Acres State Count HUC12 Sub Zone ID Sub Zone Acres HH 2O05 NB HH 2O35 B HH 2O35 EMP 2005 NB EMP 2035 B EMP 2035
2001 149 37 71 Catawba Creek 251 16 37 50 47 22 24 24
2002 84 37 71 Catawba Creek 252 2 0 3 3 23 27 27
2003 99 37 71 Catawba Creek 250 99 82 90 89 632 781 781
2004 85 37 71 Catawba Creek 249 79 36 41 41 1,728 1,755 1,755
2006 254 37 71 Catawba Creek 253 3 2 2 2 4 4 4
2007 125 37 71 Catawba Creek 288 6 4 5 5 7 7 7
2008 35 37 71 Catawba Creek 287 35 9 10 10 188 220 220
2009 44 37 71 Catawba Creek 286 44 11 9 9 211 245 245
2010 489 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 244 14 16 16 16 36 39 39
2010 489 37 71 Catawba Creek 245 476 547 559 556 1,265 1,369 1,351
2011 148 37 71 Catawba Creek 248 148 294 318 315 266 278 277
2012 366 37 71 Catawba Creek 205 366 645 721 713 1,218 1,402 1,395
2013 434 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 206 8 15 15 15 6 7 7
2013 434 37 71 Catawba Creek 207 426 826 831 831 347 375 375
2014 112 37 71 Catawba Creek 210 112 290 492 492 44 46 46
2015 149 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 208 3 7 8 8 2 2 2
2015 149 37 71 Catawba Creek 209 146 349 376 375 95 99 99
2016 650 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 158 636 1,048 1,281 1,287 356 445 452
2016 650 37 71 Catawba Creek 159 14 23 28 28 8 10 10
2017 67 37 71 Catawba Creek 211 60 74 92 90 242 288 287
2018 240 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 212 1 3 3 3 1 1 1
2018 240 37 71 Catawba Creek 213 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
2019 130 37 71 Catawba Creek 215 31 59 74 71 44 46 46
2022 187 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 214 12 17 22 21 13 13 13
2023 228 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 164 176 213 258 250 211 226 224
2023 228 37 71 Catawba Creek 165 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2024 566 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 160 555 807 883 878 524 663 663
2024 566 37 71 Catawba Creek 161 11 16 18 18 11 13 13
2025 448 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 162 448 553 751 731 437 852 839
2026 808 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 106 808 263 576 575 332 561 574
2027 929 37 71 U erCrowdersCreek 105 929 806 1,130 1,228 150 154 155
2028 543 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 156 507 605 915 961 581 618 625
2028 543 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 157 35 42 64 67 41 43 44
2029 231 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 202 5 7 8 8 10 11 11
2029 231 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 203 1 2 2 2 3 3 3
2029 231 37 71 Catawba Creek 204 225 334 378 379 495 534 538
2030 319 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 151 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2030 319 37 71 LowerCrowders Creek 152 318 260 355 372 109 112 113
2030 319 37 71 Catawba Creek 153 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
2031 847 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 149 23 22 31 32 8 10 10
2031 847 37 71 Catawba Creek 150 824 794 1,119 1,155 291 345 354
2032 121 37 71 Catawba Creek 200 121 293 310 310 256 266 267
2033 773 37 71 Catawba Creek 148 773 958 1,115 1,119 354 369 370
2034 641 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 198 4 6 7 7 0 0 0
2034 641 37 71 Catawba Creek 199 637 997 1,145 1,136 79 82 82
2035 520 37 71 Catawba Creek 195 520 348 1,162 1,187 99 179 187
2036 556 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 242 530 547 597 590 775 837 833
2036 556 37 71 Catawba Creek 243 26 26 28 28 37 40 40
2037 282 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 246 267 158 189 182 543 681 658
2037 282 37 71 Catawba Creek 247 15 9 10 10 31 39 38
2038 316 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 284 223 655 687 678 427 452 446
2038 316 37 71 Catawba Creek 285 90 264 277 273 172 182 180
2039 118 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 341 118 146 150 149 441 465 460
2040 448 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 340 439 67 259 251 4,779 5,217 5,226
2041 182 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 283 182 30 30 30 1,230 1,443 1,443
Page 1 of 7

TAZ TAZ Acres State Count HUC12 Sub Zone ID Sub Zone Acres HH 2O05 NB HH 2O35 B HH 2O35 EMP 2005 NB EMP 2035 B EMP 2035
2042 81 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 282 81 0 0 0 1,015 1,045 1,045
2043 253 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 342 253 227 266 257 245 519 470
2044 332 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 338 332 119 139 133 2,342 2,475 2,444
2045 561 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 281 561 834 921 900 263 276 274
2046 985 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 193 12 15 19 19 2 8 8
2046 985 37 71 Catawba Creek 194 973 1,234 1,557 1,542 193 637 653
2047 880 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 240 880 876 1,163 1,099 64 68 67
2047 880 37 71 Catawba Creek 241 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
2048 570 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 280 570 510 778 719 344 414 404
2049 141 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 344 141 98 181 158 158 308 276
2050 614 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 293 614 308 409 395 396 522 513
2051 219 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 292 212 205 549 546 408 463 466
2052 512 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 291 10 11 14 14 7 11 11
2053 303 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 290 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2054 582 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 289 11 14 16 15 10 10 10
2057 489 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 254 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2058 236 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 255 164 10 15 15 0 0 0
2059 148 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 217 65 6 9 9 0 0 0
2060 1,630 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 218 1,616 170 280 291 12 12 12
2061 1,203 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 256 1,145 128 420 391 92 96 96
2062 676 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 257 666 222 465 475 8 39 43
2063 591 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 258 591 143 374 336 179 759 701
2064 527 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 294 527 447 514 492 237 558 471
2065 285 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 337 285 148 202 184 188 199 196
2066 378 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 279 378 245 414 375 3,532 3,814 3,765
2067 605 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 239 605 663 892 882 334 574 580
2068 579 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 188 569 190 351 371 97 135 142
2068 579 37 71 Catawba Creek 189 11 4 7 7 2 3 3
2069 696 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 191 673 370 1,096 1,051 411 676 678
2069 696 37 71 Catawba Creek 192 23 13 38 36 14 23 23
2070 453 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 142 7 3 10 10 2 4 4
2070 453 37 71 Catawba Creek 143 446 226 623 635 110 263 277
2071 867 37 71 Catawba Creek 141 867 798 1,169 1,182 47 49 49
2072 945 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 144 22 16 23 25 6 6 6
2072 945 37 71 Catawba Creek 145 924 675 985 1,053 254 273 278
2073 1,233 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 95 6 4 6 7 1 1 1
2073 1,233 37 71 Catawba Creek 96 1,227 812 1,324 1,474 218 258 270
2074 304 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 146 17 1 1 1 1 1 1
2074 304 37 71 Catawba Creek 147 286 9 10 10 20 21 21
2075 1,295 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 99 1,254 387 1,767 2,058 321 465 497
2075 1,295 37 71 Catawba Creek 100 41 13 57 67 11 15 16
2076 259 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 103 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
2076 259 37 71 LowerCrowders Creek 104 258 168 239 263 32 33 33
2077 469 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 154 445 460 632 692 179 185 187
2077 469 37 71 LowerCrowders Creek 155 24 25 35 38 10 10 10
2078 747 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 101 530 288 443 520 117 121 122
2078 747 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 102 218 118 182 213 48 49 50
2079 1,127 37 71 U erCrowdersCreek 71 1,127 220 326 350 14 14 14
2080 682 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 72 682 100 164 165 62 65 65
2081 1,128 37 71 U erCrowdersCreek 73 1,128 402 823 769 93 97 97
2082 805 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 74 805 187 323 301 61 64 64
2083 3,080 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 40 2,809 492 736 691 44 46 46
2083 3,080 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 41 271 47 71 67 4 4 4
2084 1,124 37 71 U erCrowdersCreek 70 1,124 693 842 884 123 139 143
2085 1,275 37 71 U erCrowdersCreek 65 710 129 171 198 818 956 1,052
Page 2 of 7

TAZ TAZ Acres State Count HUC12 Sub Zone ID Sub Zone Acres HH 2O05 NB HH 2O35 B HH 2O35 EMP 2005 NB EMP 2035 B EMP 2035
2085 1,275 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 66 565 103 135 157 651 760 836
2086 1,621 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 67 1,621 792 1,086 1,249 6 111 166
2087 1,959 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 97 1,916 772 933 1,048 131 135 137
2087 1,959 37 71 Catawba Creek 98 43 17 21 24 3 3 3
2088 2,471 37 71 Mill Creek-Lake lie 93 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
2088 2,471 37 71 Catawba Creek 94 2,470 365 1,683 2,285 254 435 511
2089 1,404 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 139 35 11 22 24 5 6 6
2089 1,404 37 71 Catawba Creek 140 1,369 419 875 959 212 230 234
2090 1,124 37 71 DuhartsCreek-SouthForkCatawbaRiver 137 1,114 219 1,261 1,360 190 314 332
2090 1,124 37 71 Catawba Creek 138 10 2 12 13 2 3 3
2091 1,725 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 187 1,718 537 1,813 1,962 88 299 329
2092 455 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 190 455 135 270 268 101 105 105
2093 466 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 238 466 206 786 774 58 301 316
2094 1,175 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 185 3 1 3 3 0 1 1
2094 1,175 37 71 Lake lie-Catawba River 186 2 1 2 2 0 1 1
2095 409 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 236 7 9 10 10 7 10 10
2096 525 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 237 513 615 751 741 221 240 240
2097 360 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 277 323 367 494 465 277 291 288
2099 252 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 276 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 899 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 278 891 498 1,460 1,166 711 949 892
2103 825 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 296 40 30 53 48 24 110 96
2104 588 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 295 408 191 260 248 622 906 873
2105 1,005 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 259 971 831 1,048 1,036 37 38 38
2107 775 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 220 14 12 14 14 1 1 1
2108 661 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 260 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
2112 1,843 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 168 4 2 5 5 0 1 1
2113 777 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 219 10 4 5 5 7 8 8
2128 1,197 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 216 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2134 950 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 110 9 1 1 1 21 26 25
2135 370 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 166 4 2 2 2 7 8 8
2136 297 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 163 279 331 473 441 425 497 485
2137 221 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 75 221 77 178 157 84 356 317
2138 599 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 108 561 76 96 91 543 781 738
2139 804 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 77 804 168 396 344 97 1,434 1,199
2140 1,381 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 109 23 7 14 13 6 11 10
2142 1,704 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 111 38 25 37 35 26 33 32
2143 2,024 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2144 1,158 37 71 U erCrowdersCreek 113 13 1 3 3 0 0 0
2145 1,660 37 71 U erCrowdersCreek 78 1,627 307 516 481 41 219 200
2146 1,493 37 71 U erCrowdersCreek 76 1,493 573 969 880 356 3,502 2,963
2147 794 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 44 794 202 284 267 137 521 467
2148 227 37 71 Catawba Creek 201 227 425 366 368 188 196 196
2149 789 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 196 17 39 36 36 17 18 18
2149 789 37 71 Catawba Creek 197 772 1,756 1,621 1,635 754 799 798
2150 314 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 107 314 205 374 359 70 73 73
2151 574 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 64 574 45 125 179 4 4 4
2152 1,133 37 71 U erCrowdersCreek 31 425 37 82 110 22 64 89
2152 1,133 37 71 LowerCrowdersCreek 32 708 63 137 183 38 108 149
2153 625 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 68 604 90 182 226 1 1 1
2153 625 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 69 21 3 6 8 0 0 0
2154 1,419 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 36 696 144 212 231 7 7 7
2154 1,419 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 37 724 149 221 240 8 8 8
2155 1,826 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 38 13 2 3 3 0 0 0
2155 1,826 37 71 LowerCrowdersCreek 39 1,813 312 480 464 15 15 15
2156 243 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 33 243 15 24 30 122 125 127
Page 3 of 7

TAZ TAZ Acres State Count HUC12 Sub Zone ID Sub Zone Acres HH 2O05 NB HH 2O35 B HH 2O35 EMP 2005 NB EMP 2035 B EMP 2035
2157 731 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 42 722 79 1,790 1,790 0 0 0
2157 731 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 43 9 1 24 24 0 0 0
2170 3,087 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 167 346 86 154 165 6 7 7
2175 3,367 37 71 Mill Creek-Lake lie 129 12 2 2 2 1 1 1
2175 3,367 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 130 1,134 162 306 432 67 155 230
2175 3,367 37 71 Lake lie-Catawba River 131 2,032 290 547 773 120 279 413
2176 1,506 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 135 1,492 362 714 911 78 387 557
2176 1,506 37 71 Lake lie-Catawba River 136 10 2 5 6 1 3 4
2177 1,775 37 71 Mill Creek-Lake lie 132 7 1 2 3 0 1 1
2177 1,775 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 133 1,750 360 627 818 35 210 325
2177 1,775 37 71 Catawba Creek 134 18 4 7 9 0 2 3
2178 2,318 37 71 Mill Creek-Lake lie 88 344 47 225 341 13 52 75
2178 2,318 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 89 253 34 166 203 9 38 45
2178 2,318 37 71 Catawba Creek 90 1,721 235 1,127 1,708 63 258 375
2179 1,785 37 71 Mill Creek-Lake lie 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2179 1,785 37 71 Catawba Creek 92 1,785 285 526 585 25 26 26
2180 1,706 37 71 Mill Creek-Lake lie 59 57 9 19 25 1 11 16
2180 1,706 37 71 Catawba Creek 60 1,648 274 550 711 18 289 447
2181 2,372 37 71 Mill Creek-Lake lie 56 1,801 304 507 637 56 21 0
2181 2,372 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 57 509 86 143 180 16 6 0
2181 2,372 37 71 Catawba Creek 58 62 10 18 22 2 1 0
2182 1,162 37 71 Mill Creek-Lake lie 61 7 1 2 0 0 0 0
2182 1,162 37 71 LowerCrowdersCreek 62 1,154 155 278 340 19 19 19
2182 1,162 37 71 Catawba Creek 63 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2183 1,010 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 34 27 1 3 4 1 1 1
2183 1,010 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 35 983 52 116 146 26 27 27
2184 160 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 339 160 119 146 141 202 486 458
2185 436 37 71 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 343 436 234 882 783 63 498 461
2186 1,424 37 71 LowerCrowdersCreek 6 1,274 79 253 209 0 0 0
2187 730 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 14 730 107 177 212 0 0 0
2188 2,880 37 71 Lower Crowders Creek 15 2,880 198 427 408 4 4 4
2190 1,842 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 16 401 19 24 24 1 1 1
2190 1,842 37 71 LowerCrowdersCreek 17 1,220 57 86 81 2 2 2
2191 1,982 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 114 86 13 23 21 2 2 2
2236 1,566 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 18 1,484 113 423 351 10 72 62
2238 217 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 79 203 187 305 273 55 77 72
2239 448 37 71 U er Crowders Creek 45 448 108 263 234 1 11 10
3257 5,612 45 91 Beaverdam Creek-Catawba River 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3257 5,612 45 91 Lower Crowders Creek 4 5,465 326 488 503 144 219 231
3258 15,605 45 91 Lower Crowders Creek 1 27 0 1 1 0 0 0
3260 5,141 45 91 Lower Crowders Creek 5 15 1 2 2 0 0 0
3261 8,972 45 91 Beaverdam Creek-Catawba River 11 3,020 835 1,201 1,393 925 1,294 1,487
3262 2,880 45 91 Beaverdam Creek-Catawba River 12 650 134 194 226 9 26 35
3262 2,880 45 91 Lower Crowders Creek 13 2,217 456 661 770 29 90 119
3266 4,803 45 91 Beaverdam Creek-Catawba River 23 4,717 407 662 750 418 733 838
3266 4,803 45 91 Lower Crowders Creek 24 85 7 12 14 8 13 15
3267 8,052 45 91 Beaverdam Creek-Catawba River 21 18 2 4 4 1 2 2
3267 8,052 45 91 Lower Crowders Creek 22 416 51 79 87 29 42 45
3268 5,163 45 91 Mill Creek-Lake lie 52 4,702 1,026 1,477 1,764 1,031 1,227 1,345
3268 5,163 45 91 Duharts Creek-South Fork Catawba River 53 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3268 5,163 45 91 Lower Crowders Creek 54 18 4 6 7 4 5 5
3268 5,163 45 91 Catawba Creek 55 442 97 139 166 97 116 127
3269 1,885 45 91 Mill Creek-Lake lie 50 953 696 1,088 1,174 233 433 483
3269 1,885 45 91 Lower Crowders Creek 51 932 681 1,064 1,148 228 423 472
3270 6,787 45 91 Mill Creek-Lake lie 48 5 1 1 1 0 0 0
Page 4 of 7

TAZ TAZ Acres State Count HUC12 Sub Zone ID Sub Zone Acres HH 2O05 NB HH 2O35 B HH 2O35 EMP 2005 NB EMP 2035 B EMP 2035
3270 6,787 45 91 Lower Crowders Creek 49 1,119 144 209 239 12 37 49
3275 5,915 45 91 Mill Creek-Lake lie 25 10 1 2 2 1 1 1
3275 5,915 45 91 Beaverdam Creek-Catawba River 26 3,717 375 619 682 334 457 490
3275 5,915 45 91 Lower Crowders Creek 27 2,048 206 341 376 184 252 270
3276 6,063 45 91 Mill Creek-Lake lie 28 1,161 148 220 249 4 9 11
3276 6,063 45 91 Beaverdam Creek-Catawba River 29 44 6 8 9 0 0 0
3276 6,063 45 91 Lower Crowders Creek 30 4,857 619 924 1,043 17 40 48
4106 339 37 45 U er Crowders Creek 82 334 252 362 329 57 85 78
4107 180 37 45 U er Crowders Creek 115 4 1 2 2 1 5 4
4108 183 37 45 U erCrowders Creek 80 183 152 264 230 84 101 97
4109 157 37 45 U er Crowders Creek 47 157 147 262 225 47 61 57
4110 122 37 45 U er Crowders Creek 81 121 140 253 217 156 152 153
4111 291 37 45 U er Crowders Creek 83 6 4 6 5 3 4 4
4115 320 37 45 U er Crowders Creek 46 287 346 397 381 143 250 222
4116 311 37 45 U er Crowders Creek 19 289 154 173 167 318 470 431
4117 591 37 45 U er Crowders Creek 20 14 6 6 6 16 22 21
4123 1,801 37 45 U er Crowders Creek 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
4135 1,810 37 45 U er Crowders Creek 9 3 0 1 1 0 0 0
4136 1,665 37 45 U er Crowders Creek 7 382 24 95 74 160 196 187
4136 1,665 37 45 Lower Crowders Creek 8 62 4 15 12 26 31 30
4137 3,317 37 45 Lower Crowders Creek 2 4 0 1 1 0 0 0
10577 430 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10581 482 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 264 7 1 1 1 3 2 2
10584 649 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10587 703 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 221 30 6 41 36 34 38 38
10588 766 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 173 634 371 1,032 1,001 1,462 1,905 1,902
10589 1,219 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 176 1,216 625 922 909 131 2,222 2,213
10590 207 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 223 207 7 51 49 14 2 2
10591 1,015 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 222 1,004 109 537 475 139 345 323
10592 686 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 226 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
10592 686 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 227 662 63 74 71 178 2,012 1,517
10593 176 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 224 3 0 1 1 0 0 0
10593 176 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 225 172 3 46 53 11 2 0
10599 261 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 265 1 0 0 0 2 2 2
10600 2,460 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 266 110 0 0 0 612 907 882
10600 2,460 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 267 1 0 0 0 5 8 8
10601 947 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 228 928 145 600 608 391 2,372 2,484
10601 947 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 229 16 2 8 8 7 32 33
10602 813 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 231 813 218 439 444 311 757 785
10603 309 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 268 298 18 18 18 174 126 124
10604 514 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 180 9 0 13 15 1 0 0
10604 514 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 181 504 21 702 797 32 12 8
10605 279 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 230 279 59 238 243 65 55 54
10606 746 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 182 438 40 373 422 15 7 5
10606 746 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 183 302 28 257 291 11 5 4
10607 687 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 184 446 25 746 742 31 173 178
10608 335 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 234 4 1 7 6 0 2 2
10614 46 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 316 4 1 1 1 7 6 6
10620 205 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 269 205 0 63 61 39 544 547
10621 221 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 233 221 18 37 34 37 305 274
10622 103 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 271 103 3 12 11 623 674 675
10623 220 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 303 220 11 14 14 69 50 51
10624 96 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 317 90 0 2 2 122 84 87
10625 87 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 304 87 6 19 18 43 13 15
10626 75 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 302 75 0 4 4 101 75 76
Page 5 of 7

TAZ TAZ Acres State Count HUC12 Sub Zone ID Sub Zone Acres HH 2O05 NB HH 2O35 B HH 2O35 EMP 2005 NB EMP 2035 B EMP 2035
10628 130 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 272 130 116 123 122 51 118 108
10629 192 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 307 189 66 79 76 74 187 165
10630 225 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 270 225 114 130 130 96 484 485
10631 251 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10632 233 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 232 221 153 272 254 71 144 135
10633 229 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 274 74 21 155 135 49 66 64
10634 455 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 297 35 10 74 62 11 24 22
10636 730 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 328 670 712 1,112 1,092 297 738 727
10637 103 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 332 10 19 20 20 14 11 11
10638 376 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 327 14 36 46 45 65 86 85
10639 512 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 320 512 550 550 631 223 223 132
10640 194 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 318 65 19 23 23 224 322 316
10641 348 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 329 348 337 502 514 177 175 175
10642 338 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 299 330 240 605 557 118 103 104
10643 347 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 309 347 302 799 752 45 27 28
10644 289 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 321 289 467 469 469 69 57 57
10645 513 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 308 503 154 232 228 256 1,162 1,166
10646 475 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 319 475 230 280 276 311 405 400
10647 224 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 306 224 124 146 144 241 449 437
10648 309 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 305 309 100 180 185 63 132 138
10649 232 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 323 232 280 370 370 274 248 247
10650 104 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 322 104 215 212 212 33 18 18
10651 218 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 310 87 132 175 174 69 313 315
10652 198 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 300 6 0 12 12 2 7 7
10654 2,071 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 261 17 3 13 11 4 7 7
10656 465 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 298 4 1 3 3 4 5 5
10658 592 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 262 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
10661 348 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 331 335 136 138 138 1,371 1,858 1,858
10662 244 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 335 244 547 634 632 170 522 525
10663 142 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 334 142 334 350 349 37 23 23
10665 135 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 336 26 66 66 66 19 15 15
10666 151 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 333 135 416 427 426 206 185 186
10670 167 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 326 5 0 0 0 15 14 14
10671 383 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 330 383 326 327 327 1,031 1,874 1,874
10672 342 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 324 324 43 48 48 772 789 791
10673 336 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 325 326 319 334 334 454 554 559
10675 406 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 314 66 9 16 17 128 129 129
10676 302 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 312 5 2 2 2 4 5 5
10677 313 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 313 15 23 28 28 3 15 16
10680 308 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 311 4 2 3 3 2 2 2
10702 248 37 119 Paw Creek-Lake lie 315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10943 752 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 171 2 3 4 4 2 5 5
10944 417 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 172 19 8 8 8 86 110 110
10952 478 37 119 Mill Creek-Lake lie 169 9 5 17 16 3 9 9
10953 471 37 119 Mill Creek-Lake lie 116 8 1 11 10 0 5 5
10954 1,250 37 119 Mill Creek-Lake lie 119 1,237 136 1,511 1,327 50 504 458
10955 1,224 37 119 Mill Creek-Lake lie 84 1,017 72 349 319 32 1,109 1,049
10956 716 37 119 Mill Creek-Lake lie 117 16 2 17 15 2 9 8
10957 899 37 119 Mill Creek-Lake lie 118 11 3 8 7 0 2 2
10960 1,049 37 119 Mill Creek-Lake lie 121 57 30 138 127 26 72 69
10960 1,049 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 122 5 3 12 11 2 6 6
10961 1,795 37 119 Mill Creek-Lake lie 123 16 7 9 9 11 14 14
10961 1,795 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 124 1,697 790 976 958 1,203 1,519 1,500
10962 264 37 119 Lake lie-Catawba River 170 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10963 1,295 37 119 Mill Creek-Lake lie 85 1,232 168 296 298 90 309 320
Page 6 of 7

Page 7 of 7