HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120285 Ver 1_Environmental Impact Statement_20080801I N D I R E C T A N D C U M U L A T I V E E F F E C T S A S S E S S M E N T
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
GASTON AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES
NoR1n CnROUNn
STIP No: U-3321
REVISED DRAFT
August, 2�8
Prepared foc
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
�THE LOUIS BERGERGROUP, INC.
1001 WadeAVen�e,S�i}e400,Raleigh,NOrHiCarolina2J6Q5
Tel (919� 866-0400 Fax(919� ]SS3502 www.lo�isberger.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
f'��]
3.0 DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY
32
35
3.1 DEFiNirioNS ...........................................................................................................................................35
3.2 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................37
4.0 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES (STEP 1) ...................................................................................................51
5.0 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROFILES BY COUNTY (STEP 2) ..................................................59
6.0 LAND USE (STEP
74
6.1 GASTON COUNTY ..................................................................................................................................74
6.2 MECKLENBURG COUNTY ........................................................................................................................79
6.3 YoRK CouNn ....................................................................................................................................... 80
6.4 CLEVELAND COUNTV .............................................................................................................................80
7.0 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY (STEP 3 CONTINUED) ................................................82
7.1 WATERSHED ...........................................................................................................................................82
7.2 WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS .................................................................................................................84
7.3 WETLANDS .............................................................................................................................................85
7.4 STR EAM C LASSI FICATIO NS ...................................................................................................................... 86
7.5 STATE AND LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCES ............................................................. 88
7.6 RIPARIAN BUFFER RULES .........................................................................................................................89
7.7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ......................................................90
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES (STEP 3 CONTINUED)
91
8.1 NATURALRESOURCES ............................................................................................................................91
8.2NATURAL HERITAGESITES .......................................................................................................................92
8.3AiR QuauTV ..........................................................................................................................................93
8.4 NoisE ....................................................................................................................................................93
8.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................................94
9.0 TRANSPORTATION (STEP3CONTINUED) .................................................................................95
9.1 TRANSPORTATION ACTIONS ....................................................................................................................95
10.0 AGRICULTURAL LANDS/PRIME FARMLANDS (STEP 3 CONTINUED) ..........................................98
11.0 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS (STEP 3 CONTINUED) ...................................................99
11.1 POPULATION ......................................................................................................................................106
11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...................................................................................................................106
1 1.3 JOB GROwrH RATE ...........................................................................................................................107
1 1.4 PER CAPITA INCOME ......................................................................................................................... 110
1 1.S HOUSING STOCK MIX AND VALUE ..................................................................................................... 111
1 1.6 COMMUTING AND ACCESSIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 112
1 1.7 TOURISM ............................................................................................................................................115
12.0 IDENTIFY POTENTIAL INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (STEPS 4& 5) ...........................117
12.1 INDIRECTAND CUMULATIVE LAND USE EFFECTS .................................................................................117
12.2SURFACE WATER RESOURCESAND AQUATIC HABITATEFFECTS ..........................................................130
2
12.3TERRE5TRIAL COMMUNITY EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH INDUCED GROVJ�H AND LAND USE CHANGE.132
12.4 EFFECTS TO THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ........................................................................ 134
12.5SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS ...............................................................................................................136
1 2.6 AMBIENT NOISE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................. 136
12JAie Quaun EFFECrs .........................................................................................................................137
1 2.8 INDIRECT EFFECTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 137
1 2.9 INDIRECT EFFECTS TO PRIME FARMLAND ............................................................................................. 138
13.0 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................150
APPENDIX A. TRANSPORTATION IMPRO VEMENT PLANS SUMMARY .............................................................. 151
APPENDIX B. LISTOF REVIEWED DOCUMENTS .............................................................................................167
APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND LOCAL OFFlCIALS ................................ 168
APPENDIX D. NUMERIC RESPONSES FROMINTERVIEWEES ............................................................................189
CONTINUED ON NEXTPAGE ........................................................................................................................189
APPENDIX E. REPORTMAPPING .................................................................................................................194
APPENDIX F. SCOPING COORDINATION W1TH AGENCIES ........................................................................... 195
APPENDIX G. SCOPING COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES .........................................................................201
List of Tables
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 1.3
Table 1.4
Table 1.5
Table 1.6
Table 1.7
Table 1.8
Table 2.1
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 5.1
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
Table 8.1
Table 8.2
Table 11.1
Table 11.2
Table 11.3
Table 12.1
Table 12.2
Table 12.3
Table 12.4
Table 12.5
Table 12.6
WaterSupply Streams ...................................................................................
Corridor Segments Comprising Each Detailed Study Alternative .........
Summery of Potential Indirect and Cumulative Impacts by County....
Potential ICEs in York County .......................................................................
Potential ICEs in Cleveland County ............................................................
Potential ICEs in Mecklenburg County .......................................................
Potential ICEs in Gaston County .................................................................
Summary of Potential ICEs at the Detailed Study Alternative Level .....
Corridor Segments Comprising Each Detailing Study Alternative.........
Description of Study Methods & Primary Data Resources ......................
NotableFeatures ...........................................................................................
Economic Development Initiatives for FY 08 .............................................
Municipal Land Use Information, Gaston County ....................................
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Passengers and Mail Tons,
Domestic and International Destinations ...............................................
Watershed Protection Requirements .........................................................
Wetland Losses (acres) 1995-2000 ..............................................................
WaterSupply Streams ...................................................................................
Stream Losses (linear feet), 1997-2000 ........................................................
S.W.I.M. Buffer .................................................................................................
Natural Heritage Sites of Gaston County ..................................................
Common Outdoor Noises ............................................................................
PerCapita Income ........................................................................................
Median Housing Value .................................................................................
Commute Statistics of Gaston County, 1990-2000 ...................................
Data Layers Used to Calculate Grid Indices .............................................
Summary of Potential Indirect and Cumulative Impacts by County....
Potential ICE's In York County .....................................................................
Potential ICE's In Cleveland County ..........................................................
Potential ICE's In Mecklenburg County .....................................................
Potential ICE's In Gaston County ................................................................
....... 13
....... 16
....... 17
....... 18
....... 20
....... 21
....... 23
....... 28
....... 33
....... 43
....... 45
....... 68
....... 74
....... 79
....... 85
....... 86
....... 87
....... 88
....... 90
....... 91
....... 94
..... 1 10
..... 1 1 1
..... 1 12
..... 1 18
..... 139
..... 140
..... 142
..... 143
..... 145
3
List of Figures
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.4
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 4.1
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
Figure 7.1
Figure 8.1
Figure 10.1
Figure 11.1
Figure 11.2
Figure 11.3
Figure 11.4
Figure 11.5
Figure 11.6
Figure 11.7
Figure 11.8
Figure 11.9
Figure 11.10
Figure 12.1
Figure 12.2
Figure 12.3
Figure 12.4
Figure 12.5
Figure 12.6
Figure 12.7
Figure 12.8
Figure 12.9
Figure 12.10
Figure 12.11
Figure 12.12
Figure 12.13
Figure 12.14
Figure 12.15
Figure 12.16
NCDOT's 8-Step ICE Assessment Process ............................................................ 6
Four County Study Area ......................................................................Appendix E
Gaston East-West Connector Detailed Study Alternatives...........Appendix E
Gaston East-West Connector TIPs .......................................................Appendix E
NCDOT's 8-Step ICE Assessment Process ......................................................... 38
Gaston East-West Connector Study Areas ........................................Appendix E
Temporal Boundary ........................................................................... ..58
ICE Study Area .......................................................................................Appendix E
Detailed Study Alternative Segments ................................................Appendix E
Elevation and Watersheds ...................................................................Appendix E
Environmental Features ........................................................................Appendix E
Farmland and Prime Agricultural Soils ................................................Appendix E
Gaston County Demographics ...........................................................................99
Cleveland County Demographics ................................................................... 101
Mecklenburg County Demographics .............................................................. 102
York County, S.C. Demographics ...................................................................... 103
Gaston, Mecklenburg, Cleveland, York Demographics ............................... 104
ICE Study Area Demographics .......................................................................... 105
Employment Composition (2007 estimated) ................................................... 107
Daily Commuter Flows (2000) and Percent Change (1990-2000) ............... 113
Travel Time Changes (2030) With and Without the
Gaston East-West Connector .............................................................Appendix E
10-Minute Travel Time Isochrones for West Side and
East Side 2030 .........................................................................................Appendix E
Human and Natural Environment Sensitivity .....................................Appendix E
Growth Potential ....................................................................................Appendix E
Growth Potential and Human and
Natural Environment Sensitivity ............................................................Appendix E
Community Features .............................................................................Appendix E
Public Utilities ..........................................................................................Appendix E
Developable Land ................................................................................Appendix E
Development Over Time ......................................................................Appendix E
Alternative Interchanges ......................................................................Appendix E
Interchanges K .......................................................................................Appendix E
Interchanges A &B ................................................................................Appendix E
Interchange C ........................................................................................Appendix E
Interchanges D and E ...........................................................................Appendix E
Interchanges F and G ...........................................................................Appendix E
Interchange H ........................................................................................Appendix E
Interchanges I and J .............................................................................Appendix E
Wildlife Habitat .......................................................................................Appendix E
4
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
1.O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) is proposing to construct a toll
road, known as the Gaston East-West Connector, from I-85 west of
Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485/NC 160 in Mecklenburg County. The
purpose of the proposed action is to improve east-west transportation
mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and
the Charlotte metropolitan area in general, and particularly to establish
direct access between the rapidly growing area of southeast Gaston
County and west Mecklenburg County. This project is based on the
following:
• Need to improve mobility, access and connectivity within southern
Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County.
• Need to improve traffic flow on the sections of I-85, US 29-74 and US
321 in the project study area and improve high-speed, safe
regional travel service along the I-85/US 29-74 corridor.�
The proposed project is generally located in southern Gaston County and
western Mecklenburg County, and near or partly within the municipalities
of Bessemer City, Gastonia, Cramerton, and Belmont. In this area, the
North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) proposes to improve east-west
travel between I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County and I-485/NC 160 in
Mecklenburg County.
The Gaston East-West Connector is designated as STIP Project No. U-3321 in
the NCDOT's 2007-2013 State 7ransportation Improvement Program (STIP).
This Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICEs) assessment evaluates the
potential land use changes and environmental effects associated with the
proposed Gaston East-West Connector. The general approach taken to
evaluate ICEs associated with the proposed project follows the eight-step
process adopted by North Carolina Department of Transportation in 2001 .
Steps 1-5 of this process as described in Section 3.2 of this report provide a
qualitative approach for assessing ICEs for all Detailed Study Alternatives
that were under active consideration at the time of this assessment. The
completion of Steps 6-8 is not the focus of this report in that these steps are
typically associated with quantitative analysis of potential impacts. The
decision to analyze potential impacts quantitatively belongs to the
agencies with federal oversight and approval authority of projects requiring
NEPA. In any case, any quantitative analysis would involve the preferred
5
REVISEO DRNfi �NOIRECi NNO CYMYLNiIVE EfiECiS ASSESSMENi
Ci0.5iON ENSi-WESi CONNECiOR
TIP No: LL3321
A�gus}, 2008
alternative and would commence following the approval of the Draff
Environmental Impact Statement �DEIS). Figure 1.1 shows how the &step
process is to be incorporated into this NEPA-level project review.
Figure 1.1. NCDOT ICE Assessment S-Step Process
Approval of Draft
Environmental
Impact Statement
(DEIS)
Determination made
for quantitative
anal sis
Step 1 Step 2
Step 3 Step 4
Step 5
�
�
Step 6
�t�p 7
Step 8
Determination of Least
Environmentally
Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA)
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
This report implements Steps 1-5 (a qualitative assessment) of the ICE
analysis. Steps 6-8 (a quantitative assessment) would be addressed, if
needed, in a separate report.
A quantitative assessment will be conducted on the Preferred Alternative
following the approval of the Draft Environmental Assessment if it is
determined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the NCTA
that such analysis is needed.
Methodology and Approach
The methodology used to describe in a qualitative fashion the ICE's for the
Gaston East-West Connector project incorporated the five initial steps of a
total eight step process adopted by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation in 2001. This report focuses on the implementation of the
following steps relating to ICEs associated with the Gaston East-West
Connector. The methodologies applied herein are suggested in the
NCDOT ICI Guidance and were developed in response to the specific
nature of the project, and comments received from resource agencies
and the North Carolina Turnpike Authority.
Step 1. Define Study Area Boundaries. Using an overlay technique based
on spatial boundaries and mapping in combination with interview
information from local experts, the analyst considered the following to
determine the ICE Study Area:
• neighborhoods;
• political boundaries;
• community resources;
• public infrastructure;
• travel demand modeling;
• state and local stormwater management ordinances;
• watersheds; wetland areas; areas of known contamination;
• 100-year Flood Plain areas;
• Threatened and Endangered Species and their critical habitat;
• land use; topography;
• soils;
• prime and unique agriculture lands;
• public lands and scenic;
• recreational and state natural areas;
• air quality;
• Significant Natural Heritage Sites;
• wildlife and natural vegetation; and
• forested resources.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
The ICE Study Area encompasses geographic areas having the
potential for transportation impact causing activities.
Description of Study Areas
ICE Study Area. The ICE Study Area includes most of Gaston and parts of
Cleveland, Mecklenburg, and York (S.C.) Counties (refer to Figures 1.2 &
3.2). The purpose of the ICE Study Area was to provide a basic level of
geography that would encompass any foreseeable, potential indirect
effects stemming from the proposed Gaston East-West Connector
project. The ICE Study Area served as the basis for collecting data that
was used later to refine the qualitative impact assessment study areas
and impact assessments. The potential transportation impact causing
activities would fall within a portion of the ICE Study Area and is more
sharply described at the District and Interchange Areas levels.
Districts. The ICE Study Area was broken into 10 unique districts in order
to facilitate discussions with local experts during interviews, as well as to
provide a level of geography that would better describe potential
indirect and cumulative effects that were more localized in nature. The
District boundaries followed major roadway features as well as political
boundaries to facilitate policy differentiations among the various units of
government that were examined. The District boundaries facilitated
discussions with the local expert interviewees as well as the reporting of
results.
Interchange Areas. The third and smallest study area type was used to
assess the unique changes that would potentially be produced by
increasing accessibility in the immediate vicinity of proposed
interchanges with the Gaston East-West Connector project. The size and
shape of the Interchange Area boundaries was determined by
considering the level of increased accessibility afforded by existing
streets that would interchange with the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector. Hence, if a proposed interchange was to be located in an
area with a good level of street connectivity, the influence of the
accessibility that the new interchange would afford increased or
"stretched" the shape of the Interchange Area boundary. By considering
the places where future interchanges might be located, the potential
for indirect and cumulative effects that the higher level of immediate
access to the proposed Gaston East-West Connector will afford these
areas could be discussed more readily with local expert interview
participants and in the reporting stage.
F�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
In addition to these three basic types of study areas, the final report also
consolidates some of the results into discussions at the county level of
geography as well as for the Detailed Study Alternative corridors.
A temporal boundary spanning from 1989 to 2030 was established for
the ICE analysis. This temporal boundary is intended to encompass other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could
incrementally contribute to substantial changes in land use, in
combination with the proposed project.
Step 2. Identify Study Area Direction and Goals. The investment climate,
existing planning documents, and historical growth trends were
considered to characterize the trends and policies of areas within the
ICE Study Area as well as the potential for these areas to receive new
growth and development.
Step 3. Inventory Notable Features. A variety of third-party data
resources assessed through spatial grid modeling and information
gathered during interviews with resource agency representatives and
local experts was used to gather information on notable features
considered in this report.
Step 4. Identify Effect-Causing Activities. A geographic information
system (GIS) spatial grid analysis was developed utilizing data collected
form third party sources and interviews with local experts and assembled
at the correct geographic scale. The weighted data was attributed to
the appropriate grid cell to represent the degree or magnitude of
transportation effect causing activity.
Step 5. Identify Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects for Further
Analysis. Documenting the ICEs involved interpreting the GIS spatial grid
analysis with qualitative assessments of the policy directions and goals
and interviewee comments. Identified ICEs were analyzed in regards to
their potential to affect land use or resources using a sliding scale of
measurement ranging from very strong to weak.
The qualitative approach implemented throughout this assessment utilizes
multiple information sources; technical knowledge; and professional
judgment from several analysts that have experience in ICE work in North
Carolina, nationally, and related fields such as demographic analysis,
community effect assessment, water quality, land use planning, and NEPA
project planning. More specifically, this ICE assessment focused on the
following information sources when identifying potential ICEs relating to the
proposed project:
9
REVISEO DRNfi �NOIRECi NNO CYMYLNiIVE EfiECiS ASSESSMENi
Ci0.5iON ENSi-WESi CONNECiOR
TIP No: LL3321
A�gus}, 2008
• local expert interviews;
• spatial grid analyses/assessment of networks of weighted data
points;
• Policy context reviews conducted during this study as well as the
Community Characteristics Reporf conducted earlier for this project;
and
• Review and inventory of community and habitat notable features.
Potential beneficial direct effects associated with the proposed action
include improved regional connectivity and demonstrable travel time
savings and level-of-service improvements over forecasted No-Build
conditions. Potential indirect effects that are beneficial include improving
access to tourist attractions such as Daniel Stowe Botanical Gardens and
Crowders Mountain State Park, as well as improving access to land that
may be redeveloped or developed to a higher use and thus increase
property tax revenues. Other, cumulative actions, such as private
development actions to construct new homes and businesses, as well as
new public water/sewer infrastructure, will provide economic and housing
opporfunities to residents as well.
Area Direction and Goals
Gaston County �see Figure 1.2), like its major city
Gastonia, strives to accommodate land use
growth and development through planning,
�
� policy, ordinances and utility infrastructure
�-��_a��,��„KO,Y�„g practices. The County has a Unified
` Development Ordinance establishing goals and
�o���y ° „ objectives to manage existing and anticipated
�� development. Much of the new growth in
�-����f Gaston County is occurring in the south and
southeast portions of the County near the South
Fork of the Catawba River and Catawba River. The growth has led to the
conversion of farmland and forested areas to more urbanized land uses.
The southeastern portion of Gaston County is estimated to surpass other
portions of the County in regards to housing units. By 2010 the southeast
portion of Gaston County is anticipated to grow by 3,800 housing units. The
volume of housing is followed by the northeast porfion of the County that is
estimated to grow to 1,900 units in that same timeframe.
The City of Gastonia regularly extends utilities in an attempt to meet the
needs of new development, but in some scenarios have been unable to
keep pace with recent development. According to the Gaston Urban Area
10
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO), the majority of proposed
projects scheduled for completion over the next 1�20 years are to be
located in unincorporated areas of Gaston County that currently are not
served by public water and sewer infrastructure.
Other Gaston municipalities including the City of Belmont; Town of Dallas;
Cramerton; City of Kings Mountain; Town of McAdenville; City of Mount
Holly; Town of Ranlo; City of Lowell; and Bessemer City are currently in a
mode of residential and commercial growth.
Both the Gastonia-Mount Holly Connector and the southern portion of the
Belmont-Mount Holly Loop have been identified as study corridors
considered most vulnerable to future development.
Mecklenburg County (see Figure 1.2) is in the midst of a tremendous growth
cycle. Mecklenburg County's 2015 Plan, Planning for Our Future predicts
that by the year 2015 that most available land within the County
boundaries will likely have been annexed. The western portion of the
County is currently experiencing land use change in the vicinity of the
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport as the airport continues with its
expansion including an additional runway. The completion of I-485 Outer
Loop has also precipitated growth in the ICE Study Area, particularly
waterfront properties near the Catawba River and its tributaries.
The Charlotte Region, including Mecklenburg, Gaston and Cleveland
Counties is an inland port and among the top choices for major distribution
operations due to its ideal location for interstate and intrastate commerce.
The Charlotte Region's distribution network links not only to local and
regional markets but also to national and international ones. The Region is
currently served by three major interstate systems: I-77 north-south, I-85
north-south and I-40 east-west. If constructed the proposed Gaston East-
West connectorwould also support the region's interstate system.
York County (see Figure 1.2) has experienced continued growth and
economic vitality, particularly along the I-77 commuting corridor. The
County has noted suburban sprawl characterized by a pattern of low-
density residential development. Residential growth is disproportionately
outpacing commercial and industrial growth. Most of York County's recent
employment growth has been in logistics and warehousing. York County
has proposed to adopt an Adequate Public Facilities Regulation
Ordinance to better control residential growth in the County. To facilitate
the management of projected land use change and population growth,
York County has developed the York County 2025 Comprehensive Plan
with goals and strategies that are based broadly on quality of life issues;
11
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
managed and sustainable growth; balanced transportation and public
facilities priorities; and excellence in government.
Growth and development in Cleveland County is most noted in the
municipal areas of the County. The largest category of land within
Cleveland County is undeveloped property and farmland. The County's
goals and policies regarding land use seem to be rooted in improving the
quality of life for current land owners with a focus on existing towns, cities
and villages and attracting business entities that would support economic
development.
The median housing value in the ICE Study Area is greater than that
reported for both North Carolina and South Carolina. Median home values
in York County have increased 23.5% over the six-year period between
2000 and 2006. Only the figures for the Charlotte Region topped York
County's median home values.
Water Resources
Water resources with the Catawba River Basin fall within one of three
sections.
• The South Fork of the Catawba and its tributaries; Henry Fork, Jacob
Fork, and Indian Creek are considered to be in the midsection of the
Catawba.
• The Lower Catawba Basin, Dutchman's Creek, Sugar Creek,
McAlpine Creek, Twelve Mile Creek and Lake Wylie are
encompassed in the drainage that contributes to flow over the
North/South Carolina border.
• Crowders Creek which joins in the drainage area of the South Fork
Catawba.
North Carolina lists eight streams as having impaired biological integrity
under the Final 2006 provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (NCDENR,
303(d) list, 2006). The potential source of impairment for all of these streams
is urban runoff and storm sewers. These streams are as follows:
• Abernethy Creek;
• Crowder Creek;
• Blackwood Creek;
• Catawba Creek;
• Catawba River;
• Sugar Creek;
• Dallas Branch; and
• Long Creek?
12
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
There are also two 303(d) listed streams (SCDHEC, 303(d) list 2006) located
in South Carolina:
• Crowder Creek; and
• Lake Wylie 3
The Catawba River/Lake Wylie and the South Fork Catawba River have
surface water designations indicating use as a water supply watershed.
Table 1.l provides information on the water supply streams in the ICE Study
A re a.
Table 1.1 Water Supply Streams
- �- - - -
- �- -
Catawba River From I-85 bridge to the WS-IV, B; CA Catawba 11-(122)
(Lake Wylie upstream side of Paw Creek
below elevation Arm of lake Wylie
570)
Catawba River From the upstream side of WS-V, B Catawba 11-(123.5)
(Lake Wylie paw Creek Arm of lake
below elevation Wylie to North Carolina-
570)North South Carolina State Line
Carolina porfion
Unnamed From a point 0.5 mile WS-IV;CA Catawba 11-123-(2); 11-
Tributary at downstream of N.C. HWY 123-(1)
Belmont Abbey 273 to Lake Wylie
College
South Fork From a point 0.4 mile WS-V Catawba 11-129-(15.5)
Catawba River upstream of Long Creek to
Cramerton Dam and Lake
Wylie at Upper Armstrong
bridge (mouth of South Fork
Catawba river)
- rinai rvorm �aronna vvarer �tuanry Hsressmenr ana impairea vvarers usr �zuua inregrarea su��o� ana sus�a�
Repori�. Approved on May 17, 2007.
� Class C: Water� protected foruses such as secondaryrecreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life
induding propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Secondaryrecreation
indudes wading, boating, and otheruses involving human body contact with waterwhere such activities take
place in an infrequent, unorganized, orincidentalmanner.
Class B: W ater� protected for all Class C uses in addition to prim ary recreation. Prim ary recreational activities
indude swim m ing, skin diving, water skiing, and sim ilar uses involving hum an body contact with water where such
activities take place in an organized manneroron a frequent basis.
WaterSupply IV (WS-IVJ: Water� used as sources of watersuppiy fordnnking, culinary, or food processing
purposes where a WS-I, II or III dassification is not feasible. These water� are also protected for Class C uses. WS-IV
water� are generaliy in m oderately to highiy developed water�heds or Protected Areas.
WaterSupply V(WS-VJ: Water� protected as watersupplies which are generaliy upstream and draining to Class
WS-IV water� or water� used by industry to supply theirem ployees with drinking wateror as water� form erly used
as watersuppiy. These water� are also protected forClass C uses.
13
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Natural Resources
The North Carolina Natural Heritage program identifies "Significant Natural
Heritage Areas" (SNHAs) as the most important areas for natural diversity in
North Carolina. While some of the SNHAs are under permanent protection,
others are threatened by land use change. Gaston County has 12
identified sites of National State or Regional Significance and up to 25 sites
of County significance.
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties are in attainment areas for particulate
matter (PM-10) and Particulate matter (PM-2.5) and the other criteria
pollutants (carbon monoxide, oxides, nitrogen, etc.)
Land use change and development generally increase the level of
ambient noise in communities and /or wildlife habitat. An increase in noise
levels noise may be related to construction activities or noise pollution
typical for more urbanized settings.
Demographics
Within the ICE Study Area, the largest increases in population between the
years of 1990 and 2000 occurred in York County followed by the southern
portions of Gastonia, along the edge of the municipal limits, the southeast
and southwest sections of Gaston County, and the southern portions of
Mecklenburg County. Much of the growth in the counties of Gaston and
York is believed to be related to the close proximity of these counties to the
Charlotte Region.
Census data on the block, county and national level from 2000 indicated
that there are higher-than average black and/or Hispanic/Latino
populations within the ICE Study Area located west of Bessemer City, west
of Gastonia and around the general vicinity of the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport. The lowest reported median incomes are generally
located in the block groups concentrated south and west of Bessemer City;
west of Gastonia; and around the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.
Gaston County has seen an increase in the services and trade sectors over
the past decade. Residential development in the County is believed to
have fostered this growth in the services and trade sectors. Manufacturing
in Gaston has slowed considerably over the past decade, especially in
textile-related industries.
Mecklenburg County benefits the Region greatly in terms of economics.
The County reported the highest percentage of jobs in the sales (finance,
14
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
insurance, and real estate) and services sectors amongst all counties in the
ICE Study Area. Mecklenburg County continues to experience positive net
growth in terms of overall employment.
York County's largest employment sector is manufacturing, followed by
retail, healthcare and social assistance; accommodations and food
service; and local government. Census data projections indicate that the
labor force in York County will continue its trend of growth through the year
2025.
Cleveland County is still in the very early stages of the agriculture-to-
services trend that has been seen in other areas within the Charlotte
Region. The County reported the highest percentage of employment in
agriculture and mining of any counties included in the ICE Study Area.
Implementation of any one of the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives is
expected to offer travel time savings in geographic areas where the
transportation network is the least dense. Some areas around interchanges
will also see improvements in travel time in a range of three to fifteen
minutes.
Detailed Study Alternatives
The proposed project would be a new location controlled-access toll
facility. There are sixteen Detailed Study Alternatives under consideration.
The corridor segments comprising the 16 Detailed Study Alternatives are
shown in Table 1.2 and Figure 1.3. Generally, there are two-to-four corridor
options at any one location. Combinations of these options add up to the
16 Detailed Study Alternatives.
Note: Some of the 16 Detailed Study Alternatives covered in this report may
be eliminated due to potential direct impacts or feasibility.
Interchanges currently are proposed at 1 1-12 locations along the Detailed
Study Alternatives, as listed below from west to east. The interchanges at
the project termini at I-85 and I-485 would be freeway-to-freeway
interchanges. The other interchanges would be service interchanges,
meaning that there would be a traffic signal or stop sign where the ramps
would connect to the cross-street:
• I-85;
• US 29-74;
• Linwood Road;
15
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
• Lewis Road (for Detailed Study Alternatives using Corridor Segment
Hl C— Detailed Study Alternatives 58, 64, 65, and 68);
• US 321;
• Robinson Road;
• Bud Wilson Road;
• Union Road (NC 274);
• South New Hope Road (NC 279);
• Southpoint Road (NC 273);
• Dixie River Road; and
• I-485.
.. - . .. -. - . . . . �- . -. .
Detailed Study West Area - Central Area - East Area -
Alternative No.* generally west Generally east of US 321 and generally east of
of US 321 west of NC 279 or the South NC 279 or the
Fork Catawba River South Fork
Catawba River
H Segments J Segments K Segments
4 H2A-H3 J4a-J4b-J2c-J2d-JSa-JSb K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
5 H2A-H3 J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1 e-Jlf K1A-Kl B-Kl C-Kl D
6 H2A-H3 J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
9 H2A-H3 J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
22 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JSa-JSb K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
23 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1GK1D
24 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1GK4A
27 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
58 H 1 A-H 1 B-H 1 C J 1 a-JX 1-J2d-JSa-JSb K2A-KX 1-K3B-K3C
64 H1A-H1B-H1C Jla-Jlb-Jlc-Jld-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1GK1C
65 H1A-H1B-H1C Jla-Jlb-Jlc-Jld-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1GK4A
68 H1A-H1B-H1C Jla-Jlb-Jlc-Jld-Jle-Jlf K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
76 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JSa-JSb K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
77 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1GK1C
78 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
81 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
aee rigure i.:s ror a map or tne uetauea atuay ,vternatives ana tneir corriaor segments.
The project is in the financially constrained portion of the Gaston MPO
Long-Range Transportation Plan. Its toll or non-toll status of the proposed
project has not been finalized. The Gaston MPO currently lists the
proposed project as a non-tolled facility but intends to amend its plan to
show this project with tolls.
16
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Findings
The summations of findings for this ICE report are provided on a county,
District and Interchange level in Tables 1.3 through 1.8. Findings on a
Detailed Study Alternative level are provided in Table 1.7. The findings
provided in this report evaluate the indirect and cumulative effects of
the Detailed Study Alternatives for the project in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The sections in this report that follow will expand on these findings, and
will describe the guidance and methodologies used throughout this ICE
assessment.
.. - . . •. - . . - . . . - - . .
County in ICE Potential for Potential for Potential for Detailed Study
Study Area accelerated cumulative improved Alternatives which
growth as a effects mobility, contribute to indirect
result of the related to access and and cumulative
project land use connectivity effects
change
Gaston, NC High Moderate High 4, 5, 6, 9, 22, 23, 24,
27, 58, 64, 65, 68, 76,
77, 78, 81
Mecklenburg, NC Moderate Moderate High 4, 5, 6, 9, 22, 23, 24,
27, 58, 64, 65, 68, 76,
77, 78, 81
Cleveland, NC Low Low Low None
York, SC Low Low Low None
17
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Indirect Effects
The rate of development in York County is not anticipated to change
due to the construction of the proposed Gaston East-West Connector.
There would be no discernible difference in development rates
between the construction of any one of the Detailed Study Alternatives
and the No-Build Alternative.
In terms of ineasurable accessibility (2007 Metrolina Regional Travel
Demand Model), the project would influence regional travel times in
some areas in double-digit minutes saved.
On a more local level, interchanges of the proposed Detailed Study
Alternatives are too distant to have much influence in York County.
The No-Build Alternative would not offer any travel time saving or
improve accessibility for those traveling from or to portions of York
County included in the ICE Study Area.
Cumulative Effects
In the absence of local stormwater ordinances and BMPs in York
County and upstream locations including Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties, effects to water quality in York are anticipated to be greater
with the construction of any one of the proposed Detailed Study
Alternatives than with the No-Build Alternative. The longevity of indirect
impacts that contribute cumulatively to water quality degradation in
York County when considered with other actions is dependent on the
magnitude and duration of upstream hydrologic events including
sediment inputs (in absence of local stormwater ordinances and BMPs),
flooding, land use change (including changes in land use regulations)
and, ultimately, watershed stability. There has been water quality
degradation in the portions of York County that have been included in
the ICE Study Area as evidenced by the amount of 303(d)-listed water
resources that have the potential to be affected by this proposed
project.
Water resources having the potential to be cumulatively affected by
non-point source pollution occurring upstream of and within York
County include the Catawba River, Lake Wylie and Crowders Creek, all
of which are Section 3031d)-listed streams.
18
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Detailed Study Alternatives numbered 58; 64; 65; 68; 76; 77; 78; and 81
would have comparable levels of indirect effects and cumulative
effects to water quality and aquatic habitat as a result of induced
development. These potential effects would be greater than those
associated with the No-Build Alternative, but less than potential effects
associated with Detailed Study Alternative numbers 4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24
and 27(see Figure 1.3).
The proximity of segments H2A, H3 and H2B to portions of Crowders
Creek upstream of York County (generally west of US 321) would be
expected to have the greatest amount of stormwater runoff effects in
the absence of Best Management Practices for Detailed Study
Alternatives numbered 4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24 and 27.
Detailed Study Alternatives with segment K4A in the eastern portion of
Gaston County, (generally east of NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba
River) upstream of York County, have a greater potential to indirectly
affect National Wetland Inventory (NWI) areas. These Detailed Study
Alternative numbers are 5; 23; 64; and 77. Detailed Study Alternatives
numbered 4; 6; 9; 22; 24; 27; 58; 65; 68; 76; 78; and 81 would have
comparable level of indirect effects and cumulative effects to NWI
wetlands.
No direct or indirect effects to water resources are expected under the
No-Action Alternative.
19
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Indirect Effects
Rates of development in Cleveland County are not anticipated to
change in correlation to the construction of the proposed Gaston East-
West Connector. There are no distinguishable difference in development
rates anticipated between the construction of any one of the proposed
Detailed Study Alternatives and the No-Build Alternative.
Implementation of any one of the Detailed Study Alternatives would
improve accessibility to the Charlotte Region, especially in the
easternmost portion of the County.
The No-Build Alternative would not offer any accessibility benefits for
Cleveland County.
Interchanges of the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives are too distant
to have much influence in District 1, yet offer more in regards to
accessibility and travel time savings than the No-Build Alternative. The
level of traffic modeling conducted under the scope of this qualitative ICE
assessment did not indicate any conspicuous differences between the
proposed Detailed Study Alternatives, yet it is reasonable to assume due
to proximity of the proposed interchange that Detailed Study Alternatives
numbered 58; 64; 65; and 68 (shown in Figure 1.3) have the potential to
influence accessibility and travel time savings, followed by Detailed Study
Alternative numbers 76; 77; 78 and 81. Detailed Study Alternatives
numbered 4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24; and 27 would have the least effects on
accessibility and travel times.
The No-Build Alternative would not offer any travel time saving for those
traveling from or to portions of Cleveland County included in the ICE
Study Area.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects, associated with the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector and the No-Build Alternative, were not identified in Cleveland
County as part of this assessment.
20
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Indirect Effects
Development related to the proposed Gaston East-West Connector is
expected to be only minimally greater that what would occur with the No-
Build Alternative. The proposed roadway could potentially accelerate non-
residential construction plans, most particularly in the area of the
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. As District 6 continues to develop
there will be more of a burden places on local school systems and
Emergency Management Services. There were no apparent differences
identified between the 16 various Detailed Study Alternatives.
The proposed Gaston East-West Connector would provide improved
accessibility to Gaston, York and Cleveland Counties especially in the
western portion of the County.
The No-Build Alternative would not offer any accessibility benefits for
Cleveland County.
The additional access provided by the Detailed Study Alternatives in
Districts 5 and 6(see Figure 3.2) would serve increasing levels of non-
residential development around the proposed interchange as well as the
high-end housing that is starting to appear around the waterfront areas in
Mecklenburg County. There is no distinction of effects between the various
Detailed Study Alternative interchange options.
Cumulative Effects
In the absence of local stormwater ordinances and BMPs, water quality
effects are likely to occur. Water resources having the potential to be
cumulatively affected by non-point source pollution includes the Catawba
River, Beaverdam Creek, Legion Lake, Irwin Creek, Little Sugar Creek,
McAlpine Creek and Dallas Branch. There is no discernible difference in
the potential for water quality effects between the Detailed Study
Alternatives.
21
REVISED DRAFi INDIRECi
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
AND CUMULAiIVE EFFECiS ASSESSMENi
Detailed Study Alternatives with segment K4A in the eastern portion of
Gaston County, (generally east of NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba
River) upstream of York County, have a greater potential to indirectly
affect National Wetland Inventory (NWI) areas. These Detailed Study
Alternative numbers are 5; 23; 64; and 77. Detailed Study Alternatives
numbered 4; 6; 9; 22; 24; 27; 58; 65; 68; 76; 78; and 81 would have
comparable level of indirect effects and cumulative effects to NWI
wetlands.
No direct or indirect effects to water resources are anticipated with the
No-Action Alternative.
Increased traffic volumes in the southern portions of Mecklenburg County
would be expected to generally increase ambient noise levels to a greater
degree than the No-Build Alternative within the ICE Study Area. There
would be no discernible differences in ambient noise levels between the
Detailed Study Alternatives.
The assessment of the indirect effects on identified cultural resources
focuses on the presence of National Register listed or eligible sites in the
county where induced growth and other land use change is anticipated
to occur. Construction of any one of the proposed Detailed Study
Alternatives has the potential to affect cultural resource sites to a greater
degree than the No-Build Alternative. There is no appreciable difference
between the Detailed Study Alternatives in regards to the effects to
cultural resources because the noted cultural resource sites are in the
vicinity of the proposed interchange of the Gaston East-West Connector
with I-485.
22
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Indirect Effects
All Detailed Study Alternatives provide equal access across the Catawba
River. The construction of the Gaston East-West Connector would provide
another access route across the Catawba River into the southeast porfion
of Gaston County, potentially facilitating faster growth and different kinds
of development in the southeast and southern portions of the County. The
proposed project would also provide better access to the west and
northwest portion of the County, potentially changing the existing growth
pattern in Bessemer City that is primarily residential and commercial to
more light industry growth. As the County continues to grow there will be
more of a burden placed on local school systems and Emergency
Management Services.
The No-Build Alternative would not offer any accessibility benefits for
Gaston County.
Habitat fragmentation within the ICE Study Area is anticipated to continue
correspondingly with land use change. The proposed project and its
associated development are anticipated to affect terrestrial communities
to a greater degree than what would be expected to occur with the No-
Build Alternative.
Detailed Study Alternatives with segments Hl C, Jl C, Kl A and K4A have a
greater potential to indirectly affect upland species due to fragmentation
in that these segments are located the farthest distance away from
previously fragmented forestland. The Detailed Study Alternatives
including these segments and having the greatest potential for habitat
fragmentation are: 5; 6; 23; 24; 27; 58; 64; 65; 68; 77; 78; and 81 (shown in
Figure 1.3). Detailed Study Alternatives numbered 4; 9; 22; and 76; would
have comparable level of indirect effects due to habitat fragmentation.
The proposed project and its associated development will affect habitat
of the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), a federally
endangered species, to a greater degree than what would occur with
the No-Build Alternative. Detailed Study Alternatives with segment Kl A
have a greater potential to indirectly modify existing habitat for the
Schweinitz's sunflower through land use change and /or may create new
habitat along side of the proposed roadway or other roadways
associated with anticipated growth and development. Detailed Study
Alternatives including segment Kl A are 5, 6, 9, 23, 24, 27, 64, 65, 68, 77, 78,
23
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
and 81.
The potential exists for the smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), a
federally endangered species, to be affected to a greater degree by the
Detailed Study Alternatives than the No-Build Alternative due to the
cumulative effects of habitat fragmentation and land use change.
Potential habitat for this species occurs throughout the ICE Study Area.
The potential exists for the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) a federally
threatened species, to be affected to a greater degree by the Detailed
Study Alternatives than the No-Build Alternative due to the cumulative
effects of habitat fragmentation and land use change.
The potential exists for Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) a federally
endangered species, to be affected to a greater degree by the Detailed
Study Alternatives than the No-Build Alternative due to the cumulative
effects of habitat fragmentation and land use change. Potential habitat
for this species occurs throughout the ICE Study Area.
Significant Natural Heritage Areas in Gaston County that are threatened
by existing and future development pressures associated with the
proposed Detailed Study Alternatives include Crowders Mountain State
Park, Stagecoach Road Granitic Outcrop and Penegar. Detailed Study
Alternatives numbered 58; 64; 65 and 68 have the greatest potential to
indirectly affect SNHAs due to their close proximity of these sites.
The No-Build Alternative is not anticipated to have indirect or cumulative
effects on Natural Heritage Sites.
The assessment of the indirect effects on identified cultural resources
focuses on the presence of National Register listed or eligible sites in the
County where induced growth and other land use change is anticipated
to occur. Construction of any one of the proposed Detailed Study
Alternatives has the potential to affect cultural resource sites to a greater
degree than the No-Build Alternative. Detailed Study Alternatives
numbered 58; 64; 65; and 68 have the highest potential to indirectly affect
sites that are listed on the National Register or eligible to be listed due to
the close proximity of segments in these Detailed Study Alternatives to
cultural resource sites. These sites are located in areas having the
potential to experience future growth associated with the proposed
project and other likely foreseeable actions. The remaining Detailed
Study Alternatives numbered: 4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24; 27; 76; 77; 78; and 81
24
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
have the potential to indirectly affect cultural resources, but at a lower
rate and magnitude then those listed above.
Construction of any one of the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives in
District 2 would provide improved access between Bessemer City and the
Charlotte Urban Area which is supportive of the City's desire to attract
commercial/industrial growth to the area. Construction of any one of the
Detailed Study Alternatives is likely to increase the rate of development in
the County, especially in the southern and southeastern portions when
compared to the No-Build Alternative. There would be no distinguishable
difference in development rates between any one of the Detailed Study
Alternatives.
City officials have expressed noted concerns with any Detailed Study
Alternative that would remove interchange access to Edgewood Road,
which currently serves as a gateway to the City and used by local
residents. Growth patterns in District 2 in the absence of the proposed
Gaston East-West Connector (No-Build Alternative) would likely follow
existing patterns and consist of mixed residential and commercial growth,
particularly in the Edgewood Road area.
When compared to the No-Build Alternative, the proposed Gaston East-
West Connector has much greater potential to increase roadway
capacity on US 74 and I-85 in District 3 allowing more growth to occur in
this District. Future residential growth patterns in this district in the absence
of the proposed project would likely occur adjacent to access roads
north and south of I-85. There would be no distinguishable difference in
roadway capacity improvements among the Detailed Study Alternatives.
Areas in District 7& 8 are anticipated to experience continued land use
change and residential development without the construction of the
proposed Gaston East-West Connector (No-Build Alternative), but not as
rapidly as with construction of any one of the Detailed Study Alternatives.
There would be no distinguishable difference in development rates
between the Detailed Study Alternatives. Construction of any one of the
Detailed Study Alternatives would discernibly increase the suitability for
infill development and redevelopment that enhances existing industrial
uses. Commercial and residential development near Robinson Road and
Bud Wilson Road may be slowed due to the level of difficulty in getting
public water and sewer services provided in those areas (see Section
12.1 .4).
25
REVISED DRAFi INDIRECi
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
AND CUMULAiIVE EFFECiS ASSESSMENi
Cumulative Effects
The proposed Gaston East-West Connector would provide greater access
to potential developable land in the southern and western portions of the
County when compared to the No-Build Alternative. Detailed Study
Alternatives numbered 58; 64; 65; and 68 would provide the greatest
access to the southern and western portions of Gaston County. Access to
potential developable land to the western portion of Gaston only would
be improved to an equivalent degree through the construction of any
one of the following Detailed Study Alternative numbers: 58; 64; 65; 68; 76;
77; 78; and 81. Access to potential developable land to the southern
portion of Gaston only would be improves to an equivalent degree
through the construction of any one of the following Detailed Study
Alternative numbers: 58; 64; 65; and 68. The remaining proposed Detailed
Study Alternatives (4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24 and 27) would offer the least
improvement to potential developable land located in the southern and
western portions of Gaston County.
The growth and development related to the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector is expected to add cumulatively to existing pressures on
Gaston County's infrastructure as the County struggles to keep pace with
recent growth and development.
In the absence of local stormwater ordinances and BMPs, effects to water
quality are anticipated with the construction of the proposed Gaston
East-West Connector. Water resources having the potential to be
cumulatively affected by non-point source pollution includes the following
303(d) listed water resources: Catawba River, Abernathy Creek, Catawba
Creek, Crowders Creek, McGill Creek, and Blackwood Creek.
Detailed Study Alternative numbers: 58; 64; 65; 68; 76; 77; 78; and 81
would have comparable level of indirect effects and cumulative effects
to water quality and aquatic habitat as a result of induced development.
The proximity of segments H2A, H3 and H2B to portions of Crowders Creek
in the west area (generally west of US 321) of proposed alternatives would
be expected to have the greatest amount of stormwater runoff effects in
the absence of Best Management Practices for Detailed Study Alternative
numbers: 4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24 and 27.
Detailed Study Alternatives with segment K4A in the eastern portion of
Gaston County, (generally east of NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba
River) upstream of York County, have a greater potential to indirectly
affect National Wetland Inventory (NWI) areas. These Detailed Study
26
REVISED DRAFi INDIRECi
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Alternative numbers
numbers 4; 6; 9; 22;
comparable level of
wetlands.
AND CUMULAiIVE EFFECiS ASSESSMENi
are 5; 23; 64; and 77.Detailed Study Alternative
24; 27; 58; 65; 68; 76; 78; and 81 would have
indirect effects and cumulative effects to NWI
No direct or indirect effects to water resources are anticipated with the
No-Action Alternative.
Anticipated cumulative effects associated with the construction of any
one of the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives may include terrestrial
community alteration effects relating to land use change, including
fragmentation and wildlife habitat loss beyond that which has already
occurred in the ICE Study Area and the No-Build Alternative.
Increased traffic volumes in the southern portions of Gaston County would
be expected to generally increase ambient noise levels within the CIA
Study Area to a greater degree than the No-Build Alternative. There would
be no discernible differences in ambient noise levels between the
Detailed Study Alternatives.
Future growth in the ICE Study Area in the absence of the proposed
project (No-Build Alternative) has the potential to convert important
farmlands that are protected through a conservation easement but at a
lesser rate and /or magnitude of any one of the Detailed Study
Alternatives.
Construction of the proposed project would improve access to
developable land in both District 7 and 8, and provide travel time savings
for those wanting to reside in Gaston County and commute to the
Charlotte Region. The level of traffic modeling conducted under the
scope of this qualitative ICE assessment did not indicate any conspicuous
differences between the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives, yet it is
reasonable to assume that since Detailed Study Alternative numbers 58;
64; 65, and 68 follow a more southeasterly direction than the other
Detailed Study Alternatives that the travel time savings would be slightly
less than that experienced with the other Detailed Study Alternatives.
There is no distinction of effects between the various Detailed Study
Alternative interchange options.
27
Tob�e l_8 S�mmo� of PoYe�Yio� �CE'S o• •Fie OeYOi�ecJ SY�cJ A�Ye��oYive Leve�
oeta.�e�a st.��ay _ e, � d „
sa�:9.-..��e.-.r e s -,�- � � _� � e N -Q � a.
ss - _ o o a- d _� � � � ° e � � e °' � — — � � -e � � " � d
.�.d�. .e...e�..a....e .T.aPP...9� .s'3 -e, — � � -�- .� s ° e � � -� � e e � -� .s a ° ° �, -= s e
"° z � -„ � � 2 '€ � � �
`�u'- � � � e � � ° ° � � 2 � � a� ° � � � .� - 3 � � - �
� °_�_� - - x�,� 4 ..,,.°�.e ,.,,od .a e =..o�� =..o�� ,.,,ode.a e =..o�� �,o °e° e . ..e.,. =..o�� ,.°� ea°e ..e v .,.,ea� _.°�� _..°� =..o�� ,.,,ode.a e ,.,,ode.a e ,.,,ode. °e� ,.,,ode.a e
� _° ��=- _�; - _ S T,,.°�.e ,.�ode.a e =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e =..o�� o ° a o a ..e.,. =..o�� ,.°� ea°e ..e v �,ea� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e =..o�� ,.�ode.a e
�.=°e ° 6 T,,.°�.e ,.�ode.a e =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e =..o�� o ° a o a ..e.,. =..o�� ,.°� ea°e ..e v �,ea� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e =..o�� ,.�ode.a e
�� o -� 9 T,,.°�.e ,.�ode.a e =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e =..o�� o ° a o a ..e.,. =..o�� ,.°� ea°e ..e v .,.,ea� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e ,.�ode.a e =..o�� ,.�ode.a e
���3 - - �� 22 T,,.°�.e ,.�ode.a e =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e =..o�� o ° a o a ..e.,. =..o�� ,.°� ea°e ..e v .,.,ea� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e ,.�ode.a e ,.�ode.a e ,.�ode.a e
� ���� _ 23 T,,.°�.e ,.�ode.a e =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e =..o�� o ° a o a =..o�� ,.°� ea°e ..e v .,.,ea� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e =..o�� ,.�ode.a e
• e x�z - T„��.e= ,.�ode.a.e =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a.e o a -o a ,.°�.ea=e ..e.,. �,ea� =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a.e ,.�ode.a.e
� �:a• -- - ..,,��.e= ,.,,ode.a.e =..o�� =..o�� ,.,,ode.a.e o a -o a ,.°�.ea=e ..e.,..,.,ea� ,.,,ode.a.e ,.,,ode.a.e
'�_ �, e _ _,=��-K=�.� T,,.°�.e ,.�ode.a e =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� o, � °e° e . ..e.,. =..o�� ,.°� ea°e ..e v .,.,ea� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e =..o��
'�� �. e �o-- - _ 0 64 T,,.°�.e Mode.a e =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� �,o °e° � . Mode.a e ,�� ea=e ..e v .,.,ea� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o��
zs
oeta.�e�a st.��av - e, � � ._
sa�:9.-..��e.-.r e s -�- -e � � � a - -.... � a,
ss - _ o o a- �. - �' � � � � � _ � � _ � - - � � � a � � ° � � d
..��,y .e...e�..a....e .T.aPP...g� � � � ° e � � e e � � � � a � � ° � � � � .�°� '€ � � � � � �
�.�e ,��»� -:��--- S r.,,r,°,.e ,,,,od .a e z..or,� z..or,� z..or,� z..or,� o� o° er.,er,. ,,,,ode.a e �.°� ea°� ..e v.,.,ea� z.�r,� z..�� z..or,� z..or,� z..or,� z..or,� � z..or,�
��e� ta�2 _'-� --"�° r.,,_,°,.e ,,,,ode.a e z..o_,� z..o_,� z..o_,� z..o_,� o�o°�er.,e_,. z..o_,� ,.°� ea°e ..e v.,.,ea� z..o_,� z..o_,� z..o_,� z..o_,� z..o_,� z..o_,� z..o_,�
.' ��s_ _°�_°�� 76 _.,,_,°,.e ,,,,ode.a e =..o_,� =..o_,� =..o_,� =..o_,� o� o° e_.,e_,. ..e.,. =..o_,� ,.°� ea°e ..e v .,.,ea� =..o_,� =..o_,� =..o_,� ,,,,ode.a e ,,,,ode.a e ,,,,ode.a e ,,,,ode.a e
��e��x � .�,�� _ 77 T„�°,.e ,.�ode.a e =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� o� o° e.Te�. ,.�ode.a e ,.°� ea°e ..e v .,.,ea� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e =..o�� ,.�ode.a e
'��=�a s�= - e � 78 T„�°,.e ,.�ode.a e =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� o� o° eT,e�. ,.�ode.a e ,.°� ea=e ..e v �,ea� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e =..o�� ,.�ode.a e
-�•,:�_ �� K � g l T„�°,.e ,.�ode.a e =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� o° a o. Q =..o�� ,.°� ea°e ..e v .,.,ea� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� =..o�� ,.�ode.a e =..o�� ,.�ode.a e
�s_ _==.xa,�: - E�,o.�eT,e�.
No-Baii�d A�Ye oYi 3 Te sT�o^�
dc� ivor �o oJe�e-.z jp�soeiv (w soeiv v�oee.a.e o ve v weac v�oee.a.e oo Q" o Q ve v weac i.�� ease ve v weac z..o.�� v�o � a. v�oee.a.e v�oee.a.e v�oee.a.e v�oee.a.e
eo��ecro�J sYO^ E-w o�sa) o�sa) waoc Er�eo�camar�r
29
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U-3321
AugusY, 2008
Table 1.8 (continued, Definitions)
- •- - - -
Accessibilify/Travel Time The potential effects of the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives in estimated travel time change to 5 to 10 minutes 2 to 5 minutes Less than 2 minutes No Change
Savings nearby public facilities and economic hubs when considered with other likely actions that may induce
land development. (e.g., schools, recreational facilities, powerstations, etc.J The potential effects of the
proposed Detailed Study Alternatives in estimated emergency response times when considered with
other likely actions that may induce land development.
Rafe of Developmenf The anticipated rate of residential, commercial and light industrial developmentrelated to the Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
proposed project.
Visual-Aesthefic* The estimated magnitude to which the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives will affect the Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
community's character when considered with other likely actions that are may induce land use
change.
Transporfafion System* The potential beneficial effect of the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives will have on the existing Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
transportation system within the ICE Study Area, when considered with other probable actions.
Prime Farmland The potential effects of the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives on the continued production and Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
viability of farming operations.
Land use-Compafibilify The estimated, potential degree to which the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives are consistent with Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
with Goals* the local plans.
Public Policy** The estimated, potential degree to which governmental entities adjacent to the proposed Detailed No Public Policy, Weak Policy, Weak Moderate Policy, Strong Public
Study Alternatives adhere to and enforce their own policies, particularly those related to managing and Weak Enforcement Enforcement Occasional Policy, Strong
regulating new development. Enforcement Enforcement
Projecf Proximify fo Estimated potential effects of the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives on existing neighborhoods, as Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
Neighborhoods* measured by proximity. Detailed Study Alternatives with "very strong" effects are adjacent or very close
to numerous neighborhoods along their route. Detailed Study Alternatives with "weak to moderate"
effects are adjacent or very close to a few neighborhoods.
Ambienf Noise Anticipated level of ambient noise increase related to the proposed action, land use change and Very Strong Strong Increase Weak to Moderate None to Very Weal
induced development Increase Increase Increase
Air Qualify Measures effect to air quality conformity determinations in the ICE Study Area. Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
Residenfial Demand* The potential cumulative effects on residential unit and land conversion demand of the proposed Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
Detailed Study Alternatives when considered with other actions likely to induce land use change.
Commercial Demand The potential, anticipated cumulative effects on commercial property and land conversion demand of Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives when considered with other actions likely to induce land use
change.
The potential effect of the Detailed Study Alternatives on wetland areas, impaired watenvays, and Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
Wetlands, Sensitive Water wptersupply watersheds.
Features**
Nafural Environmenfal The potential to affect terrestrial species and habitat through habitat fragmentation. Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
Features**
Significanf Nafural The potential to affectSignificant Natural Heritage Areas. Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
Heritage Areas
Threafened and The potential effects of the proposed action on species designated as being Threatened or Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
Endangered Species and Endangered.
their Designated Habitat
Culfural Resources The potential effects of the proposed action sites that are listed or eligible to be listed on the National Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate None to Very Weak
Resister of Historic Places.
30
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
No-Build Alternative
The No-build alternative would not add a high vehicle capacity
roadway in the area south of the City of Gastonia and southwestern
Mecklenburg County. This alternative would not result in land use
change beyond what is already occurring or likely to occur in the
southern portions of Gaston County and the southwestern portion of
Mecklenburg County in the absence of the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector. The No-build alternative is not expected to change current
residential development trends, but may constrain residential
development in the future as traffic congestion on existing east-west
transportation routes, including I-85, worsens, resulting in increased travel
time. Commercial and industrial development is expected to continue
to be represented by a very small percentage of land use in southern
Gaston County and southwestern Mecklenburg County. Gaston County
is likely to experience a lower rate of land use change with the No-Build
Alternative then any of the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives.
Indirect and cumulative effects on natural resources including: water
resources and aquatic habitat degradation; loss of forestland; loss of
prime farmland; and loss of wildlife and fragmentation of wildlife habitat
will continue in the future in the absence of the proposed project, but
not as quickly or to the magnitude of any one of the Detailed Study
Alternative alternatives.
Appendix A lists transportation projects that have been included in
county and state Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) and county
and regional level air quality conformity determination reports (see
Figure 1.4). These projects are included in these plans and reports as
actions with independent utility, meaning that the projects have been
deemed beneficial even if no additional transportation improvements in
the areas are made. The same is true for the expansion of the
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.
31
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
2.O INTRODUCTION
Methodology Summary - The purpose of this report is to document a qualitative
assessment addressing the potential for Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICEsJ
associated with implementing the proposed Gaston East-West Connector. The
assessment of ICEs is identified as a requirement under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPAJ of 1969; the North Carolina State Environmental Policy Act (SEPAJ;
and under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQJ regulations implementing
NEPA. �
The purpose of the indirect effect and cumulative effect assessment is to ensure that
federal actions such as the proposed Gaston East-West Connector consider the full
range of potential environmental consequences associated with a proposed action.
These consequences include effects and effects in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project, as well as those that may be further removed in time and location.
Furthermore, effects from other actions in the past; currently undenvay; or are
deemed likely to occur must also be considered when they have the potential to
affect the environment in a cumulative fashion when considered with potential
effects from the proposed project.
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) follows the guidance
adopted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT/NCDENR) (November, 2001) for the purpose of identifying and
assessing Indirect and Cumulative Effects of transportation projects as
part of the NEPA/SEPA assessment processes. This guidance, as well as
that of CEQ and FHWA, was used extensively when examining the
magnitude of land use change potential associated with the proposed
Gaston East-West Connector alternatives. Other factors considered as
part of this assessment include habitat and wildlife fragmentation
effects; accessibility changes; forecasted economic growth; and public
policy regarding growth and development within the ICE study
boundary area.
The qualitative indirect and cumulative effects assessment
methodology, process, and findings for the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector are documented in this report. The assessment considered
sixteen Detailed Study Alternatives (see Table 2.1) and the No-build
alternative as defined below. Its findings and conclusions may be used
as a reference during the identification of the Preferred Alternative. This
report utilizes an approach that qualitatively assesses project-induced
Indirect and Cumulative Effects, as well as effect interactions with the
natural and human environments.
32
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
• • - • • • - • - • • • • � - • - • • - • -
Detailed Study West Area - Central Area - East Area -
Alternative # generally west of generally east of US 321 and generally east of
US 321 west of NC 279 or the South NC 279 or the
Fork Catawba River South Fork
Catawba River
H Segments J Segments K Segments
4 H2A-H3 J4a-J4b-J2c-J2d-JSa-JSb K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
5 H2A-H3 J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
6 H2A-H3 J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1C-K1D
9 H2A-H3 J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
22 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JSa-JSb K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
23 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1GK4A
24 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1GK1D
27 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
58 H1A-H1B-H1C Jla-JX1-J2d-JSa-JSb K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
64 H1A-H1B-H1C Jla-Jlb-Jlc-Jld-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1 GK4A
65 H1A-H1B-H1C Jla-Jlb-Jlc-Jld-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1 GK1D
68 H1A-H1B-H1C Jla-Jlb-Jlc-Jld-Jle-Jlf K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
76 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JSa-JSb K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
77 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
78 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K1B-K1C-K1D
81 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-Jlf K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
See Figure 1.3 for a map of the Detailed Study Alternatives and their corridor segments.
Interchanges currently are proposed at 11-12 locations along the
Detailed Study Alternatives, as listed below from west to east. The
interchanges at the project termini at I-85 and I-485 would be freeway
to freeway interchanges. The other interchanges would be service
interchanges, meaning that there would be a traffic signal or stop sign
where the ramps would connect to the cross-street.
• I-85
• US 29-74
• Linwood Road
• Lewis Road (for Detailed Study Alternatives using Corridor
Segment Hl C— Detailed Study Alternatives 58, 64, 65, and 68)
• US 321
• Robinson Road
• Bud Wilson Road
33
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
• Union Road (NC 274)
• South New Hope Road (NC 279)
• Southpoint Road (NC 273)
• Dixie River Road
• I-485
The project is in the financially constrained portion of the Gaston MPO
Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP, dated May 24, 2005). In the LRTP,
the toll or non-toll status of the proposed project was not finalized. The
Gaston MPO currently lists the proposed project as a non-tolled facility
but intends to amend its plan to show this project with tolls.
34
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
S.O DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY
Methodology Summary-The purpose of this section is to provide a foundation of
understanding for key words and general methodologies that are applied throughout
this report The methodology used to describe ICE's in a qualitative fashion for the
Gaston East-West Connector project incorporated the initial five of the total eight
step process adopted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The five-
step process references information on land use planning and its integration into the
transportation planning process. Our intent in applying the following steps is to utilize
land use assessment as a tool to better forecast areas of future growth and potential
ICEs to the natural and human environments, including upland species habitat.
Step 1- Identify Study Area boundaries. A temporal boundary spanning from 1989
to 2030 was established based on the length of time the potential ICEs of the
proposed project singly or in combination with other past present or anticipated
actions or trends could incrementally contribute to substantial changes in land
use.
The spatial boundaries developed in consideration of jurisdictional commuting,
growth management, watershed / habitat, and public involvement boundaries
included an ICE Study Area Boundary.
Step 2- Identify Study Area Directions and Goals. Information gained through
planning documents and expert interviews were condensed to describe and
identify directions and goals of municipalities and counties within the FLUSA.
Step 3- Inventory Notable Features. Information gathered through the review of
third party sources, municipal GIS data, and expert interviews were utilized to
inventory notable features.
Step 4- Identify Effect�ausing Activities. A spatial grid analysis method was
utilized allowing for the identification of potential ICEs based on weighed results.
Step 5- Analyze Indirect and Cumulative Effects. Identified ICEs were analyzed in
regards to their potential to affect land use or resources using a sliding scale of
measurementranging from verystrong to weak.
3.1 Definitions
The following is a listing of definitions as accepted by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in their guidance entitled,
"Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Effects of 7ransportation Projects in
North Carolina" (NCD07 ICI Guidance, 2001), which follow the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) definitions as well as the Code of
Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1500 to 1508) and court decisions.
35
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Accessibility. Accessibility is the ease of movement between two
places, often measured in terms of the time of travel required between
the two places in congested conditions. Often, accessibility is measured
with and without the proposed project to help ascertain which portions
of the study area may be affected by changes to land accessibility.
Cumulative Effect. Cumulative effects are "environmental effects
resulting from the incremental effects of an activity when added to
other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities
regardless of what entities undertake such actions. Cumulative effects
can result from individually minor but collectively significant activities
taking place over time and over a broad geographic scale, and can
include both direct and indirect effects." (see 40 CFR 1400 to 1508). Like
indirect effects, cumulative effects can be further differentiated into
categories as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality:
repetitive effects caused by the project; project effects that interact
with a sensitive receptor to create a non-linear effect; effects arising
from multiple sources that produce additive effects; effects arising from
multiple sources that combine to form a non-linear effect.
Direct Effect. Direct effects are caused by the proposed action and
generally occur at the same time and place as the project.
Indirect Effect. Indirect effects ". .. are caused by the action and are
later in time and farther removed in distance, but must be 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" (CEQ 1986, 40 CFR
1500 to 1508)). The terms effect and effects are used synonymously in
the CEQ regulations (see 40 CFR 1500 to 1508). It is important to
emphasize that indirect effects considered during NEPA must be
reasonably foreseeable; not every conceivable scenario should be
evaluated. Indirect effects may occur in three forms: alteration of the
environment relating to land use change; and development related to
the accessibility changes from a proposed transportation project; and
effects relating to land use change that may occur with or without the
action or project. The focus of this assessment is on the latter two of the
three indirect effect forms.
36
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Significance. The term "significance" refers to the degree to which the
proposed action affects public health or safety; the unique
geographical characteristics of the surrounding area; the potential for
controversy; the possibility of unknown risks; and the potential effect on
endangered species. Both context (the setting of the project over time
and space) and intensity (severity of effect) are incorporated into the
practical definition of significance, and the interpretation of context
and severity may be viewed differently by different stakeholders.
3.2 Methodology
The general approach to defining Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICEs)
is defined by the NCD07 ICI Guidance (2001), the Council on
Environmental Quality (esp. Considering Cumulative Effects Under NEPA,
1997), National Cooperative Highway Research Program Reports 403
and 466 (2001 and 2002, respectively), State/Federal regulations, and
past case law.
At the core, indirect effect and cumulative effect assessments are
primarily about gathering data on potentially sensitive natural and
community resources; assessing the reasonably foreseeable effects of a
proposed project and other actions in the same geographic area; and
evaluating the interaction among the proposed project, other actions,
and the resources.
This Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICEs) assessment evaluates the
potential land use changes and environmental effects associated with
the proposed Gaston East-West Connector. The general qualitative
approach taken to evaluate ICEs associated with the proposed project
follows the eight-step process adopted by North Carolina Department
of Transportation in 2001.
The following summarizes the particular technical approaches to
describing in a qualitative fashion the Indirect and Cumulative Effects
for the Gaston East-West Connector project. The order of the items
presented is sequenced according to the eight-step guidance adopted
by the North Carolina Department of Transportation in 2001. This report
includes a qualitative ICE assessment, in accordance with Steps 1-5 of
the methodology recommended in the NCDOT's guidance.
37
REVISEO DRNfi �NOIRECi
Ci0.5iON ENSi-WESi CONNECiOR
TIP No: LL3321
A�gus}, 2008
Figure 3.1. NCDOT S-Step
ICE Assessment Process
Approval of Draft
Environmental
Impact Statement
(DEIS)
NNO CYMYLNiIVE EfiECiS ASSESSMENi
Determination made
for quantitative
anal sis
Step 1 Step 2
Step 3 Step 4
Step 5
i
Step 6
Step 7
Step 8
Determination of Least
Environmentally
Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA)
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Steps 1-5 (Qualitative Assessment-Indirect Impact Identification)
Steps 1-5 (see Figure 3.1) of the ICE assessment process as described
below provide a qualitative approach for assessing ICEs for all Detailed
Study Alternatives that were under active consideration at the time of
this assessment.
Step 1. Define Study Area Boundaries. Using an overlay technique based
on spatial boundaries and mapping in combination with interview
information from local experts, the analyst considered the following to
determine the ICE Study Area:
• neighborhoods;
• political boundaries;
• community resources;
• public infrastructure;
• travel demand modeling;
• state and local stormwater management ordinances;
• watersheds; wetland areas; areas of known contamination;
• 100-year Flood Plain areas;
• Threatened and Endangered Species and their critical habitat;
• land use; topography;
• soils;
• prime and unique agriculture lands;
• public lands and scenic;
• recreational and state natural areas;
• air quality;
• Significant Natural Heritage Sites;
• wildlife and natural vegetation; and
• forested resources.
The ICE Study Area encompasses geographic areas having the
potential for transportation impact causing activities.
Description of Study Areas
ICE Study Area. The ICE Study Area includes most of Gaston and parts of
Cleveland, Mecklenburg, and York (S.C.) Counties (refer to Figures 1.2 &
3.2). The purpose of the ICE Study Area was to provide a basic level of
geography that would encompass any foreseeable, potential indirect
effects stemming from the proposed Gaston East-West Connector
project. The ICE Study Area served as the basis for collecting data that
was used later to refine the qualitative impact assessment study areas
and impact assessments. The potential transportation impact causing
39
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
activities would fall within a portion of the ICE Study Area and is more
sharply described at the District and Interchange Areas levels.
Districts. The ICE Study Area was broken into 10 unique districts in order
to facilitate discussions with local experts during interviews, as well as to
provide a level of geography that would better describe potential
indirect and cumulative effects that were more localized in nature. The
District boundaries followed major roadway features as well as political
boundaries to facilitate policy differentiations among the various units of
government that were examined. The District boundaries facilitated
discussions with the local expert interviewees as well as the reporting of
results.
Interchange Areas. The third and smallest study area type was used to
assess the unique changes that would potentially be produced by
increasing accessibility in the immediate vicinity of proposed
interchanges with the Gaston East-West Connector project. The size and
shape of the Interchange Area boundaries was determined by
considering the level of increased accessibility afforded by existing
streets that would interchange with the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector. Hence, if a proposed interchange was to be located in an
area with a good level of street connectivity, the influence of the
accessibility that the new interchange would afford increased or
"stretched" the shape of the Interchange Area boundary. By considering
the places where future interchanges might be located, the potential
for indirect and cumulative effects that the higher level of immediate
access to the proposed Gaston East-West Connector will afford these
areas could be discussed more readily with local expert interview
participants and in the reporting stage.
In addition to these three basic types of study areas, the final report also
consolidates some of the results into discussions at the county level of
geography as well as for the Detailed Study Alternative corridors.
A temporal boundary spanning from 1989 to 2030 was established for
the ICE analysis. This temporal boundary is intended to encompass other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could
incrementally contribute to substantial changes in land use, in
combination with proposed project.
m
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Step 2. Identify Study Area Direction and Goals. The investment climate,
existing planning documents, and historical growth trends were
considered to characterize the trends and policies of areas within the
ICE Study Area as well as the potential for these areas to receive new
growth and development.
Step 3. Inventory Notable Features. A variety of third-party data
resources assessed through spatial grid modeling and information
gathered during interviews with resource agency representatives and
local experts was used to gather information on notable features
considered in this report.
Step 4. Identify Effect-Causing Activities. A geographic information
system (GIS) spatial grid analysis was developed utilizing data collected
form third party sources and interviews with local experts and assembled
at the correct geographic scale. The weighted data was attributed to
the appropriate grid cell to represent the degree or magnitude of
transportation effect causing activity.
Step 5. Identify Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects for Further
Analysis. Documenting the ICEs involved interpreting the GIS spatial grid
analysis with qualitative assessments of the policy directions and goals
and interviewee comments. Identified ICEs were analyzed in regards to
their potential to affect land use or resources using a sliding scale of
measurement ranging from very strong to weak.
The completion of steps 1-5 are the principal focus of this report,
although some work has been completed that would serve the purpose
of Step 6. Additional documentation on consequences and mitigation
opportunities, as well as quantitative assessments, is not the subject of
this report. Steps 1-5 are more in keeping with the scoped qualitative
approach that not only supports a Preferred Alternative, but sets up
areas to focus on should a quantitative assessment of effect on
resources (Steps 7 and 8) be deemed necessary by the N.C. Turnpike
Authority, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in
cooperation with other agencies.
The methods used to create this report relied heavily on local expert
interviews; third-party data typically expressed as geographic
information system (GIS) "layers;" and analyses of local plans and
policies that relate directly to the proposed project or to growth and
development activities that may influence or add to the Indirect and
Cumulative Effects. A list of local plan reviewed during this ICE
assessment can be found in Appendix B. Table 3.1 identifies the
assessment steps, methods, and data resources.
m
REVISED DRAFi INDIRECi
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
AND CUMULAiIVE EFFECiS ASSESSMENi
As part of the ICE scoping process for this report, representative from the
Federal Highway Administration; NCDOT, North Carolina Turnpike
Authority and their representatives met with representatives from US Fish
and Wildlife Service (US FWS) and NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) representatives on June 29, 2007. The purpose of the meeting
was to collaboratively identify the sensitive resources, define the study
methodologies, study area boundaries and confirm the timeframe for
the assessment. The scoping meetings included individuals believed to
be the most knowledgeable on these subjects.
Minutes from these meetings can be found in Appendix F. The NCWRC
representative expressed concerns including potential indirect effects to
upland species including habitat fragmentation. Based on this input it
was determined that the ICE assessment should include a section
devoted to addressing potential effects on wildlife habitat including
fragmentation.
A similar meeting was held with North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) on July 26, 2007. DWQ agreed with the proposed multi-county
qualitative approach of assessing potential ICEs associated with the
proposed project and boundaries based on local watersheds.
Defining the ICE Study Area, District Boundaries and Temporal
Boundaries (STEP 1)
ICE Study Area boundaries were defined using an initial boundary of
county governments, specifically Gaston, York (South Carolina),
Cleveland and Mecklenburg. The study area boundary that describes
the extent of changes anticipated to occur as a result of a proposed
project is called the ICE Study Area boundary. The Detailed Study
Alternative boundary was further refined by considering demographic
boundaries derived from US Census; major streets; watersheds;
environmental features; commuting patterns derived from US 2000
Census Journey-to-Work and travel demand model data sets;
comments from local expert interviews; and political boundaries for
local governments such as Clover, SC and Kings Mountain.
The selection of some ICE Study Area boundary considerations are
performed in light of the anticipated extent of the effects of the
proposed project, as represented (for example) by the commuting
patterns with and without the proposed project in place. For many
42
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
projects, this "commuteshed" must be assumed through reasonable
estimations or Census Journey-to-Work data; for the Gaston East-West
Connector project, information on commuting patterns was refined by
using the regional travel demand model. Average commute times and
estimated maximum reasonable commute times based on vehicle
commutes were used to observe travel distances around the proposed
project.
Changes in land use may have immediate effects on a watershed or
habitat that give rise to broader ecosystem, water quality, or water
quality issues.4 To anticipate the full range of effects, it is appropriate to
size the ICE Study Area to match the extent of potentially affected
watersheds or habitat features.5 ICE Study Area boundary
considerations for this report include the watersheds in which the
proposed project are located, and the habitat requirements of both
commonly found species and those designated as significant by
Federal or state agencies.
Table 3.1 Description of Study Methods and Primary Data Resources
- - -. - .. �. . - . -
1. Study Area Boundaries ICE Study Area boundary comprised ■ Mecklenburg-Union
Gaston and counties adjacent to the Regional Travel
west, south, and east, and based on Demand Model
commuteshed review. ■ U.S. Census (esp.
Minor study areas around interchanges Journey-to-Work)
were created based on accessibility ■ Aerial photography
from cross-streets and prior ■ Interviews with local
development patterns observed planning
around existing interchanges. professionals
■ Meetings with
environmental
resource agencies
(i.e. NC DENR, NC
WRC, US FWS
2. Study Area Direction A review of relevant plans and policies, ■ Various local
and Goals as well as interviews with professional planning documents
staff in the areas of planning, ■ Interviews with local
engineering, real estate development, area experts
and environmental advocacy to
create development management
profiles for major units of government.
3. Notable Features Interviews with local area experts and ■ Numerous third-party
third-party geographic databases databases (e.g.,
were used to create a composite NWI, NHI, NCDOT)
resource inventory and mapping. ■ Interviews with local
area experts
43
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
- - - • - • • � • • - • -
■ Natural Resources
Technical Report, TIP
No. U-3321, (NCTA,
August 2007)
4. Effect-Causing Activities Interviews with local area experts; ■ Interviews with local
review of proposed project; area experts
examination of commuteshed ■ Mecklenburg-Union
alterations were used to create a Regional Travel
composite map of potential effect Demand Model
areas.
5. Identify ICEs for Further Review of Steps 1-4 with the North ■ Assessment results
Analysis Carolina Turnpike Authority and GEC from previous steps
staff. ■ Discussions with
NCTA
ICE Study Area boundaries may be defined in those places that
anticipate a higher level of direct access from the proposed
transportation facility; in this case, interchanges with surface streets.
Interchange study areas are not simple radii around the interchange,
but instead are "deformed" in the direction of reduced travel times
along the cross-streets. Even in locations that possess freeway-to-
freeway interchanges, travel times may still be reduced and
accessibility increased on nearby cross-streets.
The ICE Study Area boundary for this project was separated into ten
distinct districts for the purposes of managing data more efficiently and
to facilitate focused discussions with individuals that were interviewed
regarding the potential effects of this proposed project. Due to the size
of ICE Study Area it was commonly found that interviewees had specific
knowledge that they could offer about one or a few of the districts, but
were only able to speak in more general terms about the ICE area as a
whole. Districts were beneficial in determining and weighing their
information for the purposes of this ICE assessment.
The boundaries of Districts were determined based on the location of
major roads, geographical boundaries and watershed boundaries.
Interchange areas in the ICE Study Area were defined within the ICE
Study Area as areas with the potential for unique land use change
associated with improved accessibility due to proposed interchanges.
Policy Directions and Goals (Step 2)
The authors reviewed numerous policy and planning documents in the
course of developing a qualitative profile of the policy context and
m
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
goals for the varying communities that may be affected by the
proposed Gaston East-West Connector project. Appendix B presents
each of the items reviewed as a part of this study.
Often, the varying nature of political and economic climates forces new
policy directions in a particular area or governing jurisdiction. One of the
principal effects of such a shift is the level of adherence that a local
planning or governing body displays towards existing comprehensive
plans, guidance, or policies. To assess this level of adherence, a study
was underfaken of recent rezonings and variances of Gaston County, its
municipalities and Mecklenburg County (this was supplemented by a
question in the local expert interviews that asked how likely the local
government was to accommodate new development by allowing
variances of existing policies).
Information on Notable Features (Step 3)
A variety of third-party data resources was used to gather information
on notable features considered in this report (see Table 3.2). Notable
features are defined simply as the combination of natural and man-
made elements of the environment that possess important preservation
aspects. Conversations with local experts also enhanced information
about these resources.
Table 3.2 Notable Features
- . - - . -
Land Cover (relating to wildlife habitat) Land Use
Wildlife Corridors Infrastructure: Roads, Utilities, Railroads,
Power Plants
Bogs/NWI identified wetlands Minority and Low Income Populations
Floodplains Cultural Resources
Watershed and Water Resources Prime and Unique Farmland
Impaired Waterways Nonattainment or Maintenance Areas
Water Resource Buffers Designated Growth Areas
Water Quality/Erosion & Sedimentation Airports
Significant Natural Heritage Areas Community Facilities: Schools,
Hospitals, Churches, Cemeteries
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences Historic Sites and Districts
Threatened and Endangered Species Parks/Recreational Areas and Tourism
Attractions
Open Spaces
45
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Identify Effect-Causing Activities (Steps 4& 5)
In order to manage and assess the large quantity of data obtained for
the ICE study, a geographic information system (GIS) approach was
utilized in the following manner:
l. Data was collected and assembled at the correct geographic
scale and projection;
2. A grid of cells representing one square mile was prepared and
overlaid on the base mapping from Step (1).
3. The data from Step (1) was attributed to the appropriate grid cell
created in Step (2).
This approach resembles in many respects the Land Use and Suitability
Analysis (LUSA) documented, for example, by Collins, et. al.b While the
earliest applications of the overlay technique that is the foundation of
LUSA date back at least to 1902 (Olmstead and Eliot) and later to lan
McHarg (1960's and 1970's), more modern advances in the
manipulation of digital spatial data have made the technique viable for
larger and more complex study areas.
In general, three primary maps were created and analyzed for this
project: one for notable features of the built and natural environment;
one for factors that contribute to the potential for development; and a
composite map that indicates where notable features and potential for
development may conflict. Supplemental mapping was developed for
specific natural environment components that required an exclusive
assessment of condition indicators that are unique to the resource.
Upland species habitat suitability mapping was developed when
assessing the likelihood of ICE's associated with upland species.
Likewise, a map identifying water basins and sub-basins and other water
resources was developed. In each case, the map was populated with
information attributed to the grid cells described previously, producing a
composite picture of the sensitivity of the demographic and minor study
areas to future development.
Another feature of the analysis process used for the Gaston East-West
Connector ICE Study was the use of local expert interviews.
Representatives from local agencies that were familiar with the study
area were identified during the project scoping process. Further
refinements to the specific interviewees and specific questions to be
asked of each were conducted with the N.C. Turnpike Authority.
Appendix C and Appendix D provides information on each of the
m
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
interviewees, their representation, and a summary of the comments that
were provided.
The local experts from a variety of fields were either personally
interviewed or remotely interviewed by telephone using a map showing
the study corridor alternatives, surrounding areas, and polygons
representing 10 districts and each proposed interchange. A number of
questions were asked of each participant, some of which varied
depending on the type of agency being represented in the interview
(planning, environmental, or economic). An attempt was made to
ascertain the level of knowledge of each interviewee for each of the
districts; in some cases only the districts or interchange buffer areas
where the participant expressed good knowledge were assessed. A
Likert scale of 1 through 5 was used to represent the knowledge of the
districts as well as the strength of the development potential with and
without the proposed project. A poster-size study area map was
presented to interviewees to generate responses relating to specific
districts and interchange areas (a small scale representation of this map
is shown as Figure 3.2. The authors studied both unweighted and
weighted (by district familiarity) responses. A weighted response was
simply the cross-product of the interviewee's stated familiarity with the
district and their individual response.� Appendix C presents the summary
recorded for each of the local expert interviews. The weighted
responses of the interviewees become an input to the Growth Potential
map (see Figure 12.2). See Table 12.1 for a description of all the effects
to that map.
Documenting the ICEs involved interpreting the overlay mapping
technique results described previously with qualitative assessments of
the policy directions and goals and interviewee comments. The No-
build alternative was referenced as a baseline against which change in
land use was evaluated. The authors involved in the preparation and
conduct of the interviews with local experts, collaborated on the results
to help balance differing opinions on matters of qualitative judgment
and how to phrase specific descriptions.
Approach to Assessing Effects to Upland Species Associated with Land
Use Change (Steps 4 & 5)
GIS overlay mapping techniques were combined with spatial grid
analysis when determining the degree of potential effects on wildlife
habitat, water quality and ecosystem processes as a whole. A spatial
grid analysis of ecological resources and land use was applied through
47
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
GIS modeling to three project scenarios; Existing Conditions, Build, and
No-Build (absence of the project). The indirect land use analysis
assumes that effects to forest land may result from forest fragmentation
and the conversion of forest habitat due to indirect land use change.
An important component of assessing potential indirect effect on
wildlife habitat is to consider potential changes in habitat
"connectivity." Whether land cover types are open fields (possibly
utilized for agriculture), forests, wetlands, rivers or streams the
connectivity of a wildlife species to food, water, shelter, and breeding
areas is essential when determining the sustainability of a particular
species. Indicators considered when considering potential change in
wildlife habitat connectivity are as follows:
• Direct effects to land cover;
• Land topography (i.e., land contours);
• Direct effects to forested riparian buffers;
• Existing and planned road network;
• Utility easements;
• Planned land use conversion;
• Comments from local expert interviews; and
• Existing and projected population growth areas.
Another component of wildlife habitat conditions is the percentage of
forest cover within the ICE Study Area. The percent of forest cover
contained in the largest patch of forest in the ICE Study Area is an
indirect indicator of habitat fragmentation $ Forests become
fragmented when a large, continuous tract of forested land is broken up
into smaller "patches" or "islands" (i.e., a parcel of forested land
surrounded by non-forested land). Introduction of forest edges in areas
that were formally forested often changes the wildlife species
composition within and near these edges, making it more likely that
predatory species will become more entrenched. There is growing
evidence that habitat fragmentation is directly related to the loss of
regional and global biological diversity.9 Indicators considered when
assessing potential change in forest cover include the following:
• Proposed interchange areas;
• Forest edge modifications;
• Planned land use conversion; and
• Fxisting and projected population growth areas.
The degree of habitat fragmentation is measured from existing
conditions that, for the purposes of this report, represent a benchmark
m
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
for habitat fragmentation. The majority of the forestlands in the ICE
Study Area are fragmented by agriculture lands, low-density residential
and commercial development; roadway corridors, and water resources.
Indicators used to make this determination included the following:
• Fxisting roadway networks;
• High density and low density residential development;
• Commercial development;
• Impervious surfaces;
• Prior land use conversion;
• Prior population growth;
• Prior disturbance of forested riparian buffers; and
• Fxisting utility easements.
Approach to Assessing Effects to Water Quality Associated with Land use
Change (Steps 4 & 5)
Techniques similar to those implemented with assessing upland species
habitat were utilized when assessing the likelihood that the proposed
project would affect water quality. Effects on water quality can be
positive or adverse. An example of where a proposed action could
have a positive effect on water quality is in the case where stormwater
management measures are implemented in an area in such a manner
that the amount of stormwater runoff from that site is actually reduced
from what would naturally occur. Such mitigation measures are usually
the result of the Federal and state permitting processes; state buffer
rules; DOT BMPs, local floodplain ordinances, Phase II stormwater and
watershed ordinances aimed at protecting water resources. Sources of
water degradation effects typically include changes in hydrological
regime or conditions including stormwater runoff, sedimentation,
nutrient loading and water temperature deviation. Indicators
considered when assessing potential change in forest cover include the
following:
• Percentage of impervious surfaces;
• Direct effect to riparian buffers;
• Proximity of proposed project to 303(d) classified streams or rivers;
• Stream or river crossings;
• Potential residential and commercial development;
• Areas of proposed interchanges; and
• Areas of existing and anticipated population growth.
,�'.
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Steps 6-8 (Quantitative Analysis-Indirect Impact Modeling)
The completion of Steps 6-8 in NCDOT's 8-Step ICE assessment process
(see Figure 3.1) is not the focus of this report in that these steps are
typically associated with quantitative analysis of potential impacts. The
decision to analyze potential impacts quantitatively belongs to the
agencies with federal oversight and approval authority of projects
requiring NEPA. In the case, any quantitative analysis would involve the
preferred alternative and would commence following the approval of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Figure 3.1 shows how
the 8-step process is to be incorporated into this NEPA-level project
review.
Steps 6-8 (a quantitative assessment) would be addressed, if needed, in
a separate report. A quantitative assessment will be conducted on the
Preferred Alternative following the approval of the Draft Environmental
Assessment if it is determined by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and the NCTA that such analysis is needed.
Step 6. Analyze Indirect and Cumulative Effects. The NCD07 ICI
Guidance presents a number of qualitative and quantitative assessment
techniques that can be used to create an effect assessment for ICEs. It
is important to recognize that this area of practice is still evolving, and
that larger, more complex projects may require more robust
quantitative assessments at some point in the planning process.
Step 7. Evaluate Analysis Results. Often overlooked, but still very
important to many detailed ICE analyses, is conducting sensitivity and
risk analysis on the results of the ICE assessment (Step 6). This allows a
greater understanding of "what if?" kinds of questions and delineates
the assumptions used in the ICE analyses.
Step 8. Assess Consequences and Develop Mitigation and
Enhancement Strategies. Practicality, responsibility, and various
mitigation techniques are discussed in the NCD071CI Guidance. A key
concept is that multiple agencies representing land use, transportation,
and private development actors have roles to play in the mitigation,
enhancement, and avoidance of ICEs. An emphasis is placed on
resource management, conservation, and traditional land planning
mechanisms.��
so
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
4.0 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES �STEP 1�
Methodology Summary - The spatial boundaries of the ICE Study Area were initially
established bases on features including watershed boundaries, demographic data
sets, and notable feature (see Figure 1.3J. The ICE Study Area was refined to identify
geographic areas having the potential to be affected by the transportation project's
indirect or cumulative effect on land development (see Figure 3.2J.
A temporal boundary was established based on the length of time the potential ICEs
of the proposed project singly or in combination with other past present or
anticipated actions or trends could incrementally contribute to substantial changes in
land use. This boundary spans from 1989 to 2030.
Major transportation-related actions can have complex and long—term
effects on the environment. Actions meeting the definition of "major
actions" include those that are "likely to precipitate significant
foreseeable alterations in land use; planned growth, development
patterns, traffic volumes, travel patterns, and transportation services.">>
Environmental processes typically operate on spatial and temporal
scales much greater than that of most projects and as a result, projects
may have effects disproportionate to their apparent size and duration.12
4.1 Spatial Scope for Indirect and Cumulative Effects
In general, the spatial scale of Indirect and Cumulative Effects are
consistent with the notable features and their processes that have the
potential to be reasonably affected. Each of the notable features
considered in this qualitative assessment have their individual spatial
boundary determined by the potential of residual environmental effects
on that particular notable feature and its processes. When considering
cumulative effects, the spatial boundary is expanded to include
synergistic effects of other actions (federal or non-federal) deemed
likely to occur that are independent of the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector but may have impacts on the same geographic area.
Actions that may affect the ICE Study Area are described below. These
projects are in various stages of planning and development.
Transportation:
• NCDOT Project U-2408 is on NC 274 (Bessemer City Road/North of
US 29-74) from NC 275 to US 29074 in Gaston County. Project U-
2408 is proposed to widen existing NC 274 (Bessemer City
Road/North of US 29-74) to a multi-lane facility.
s�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
• NCDOT Project U-2713 is on SR 1131 (Linwood Road) from
Crowders Creek to US 29-74-NC 274 (Franklin Boulevard) in Gaston
County. Project U-2713 is proposed to widen existing Linwood
Road (SR 1133) to a multi-lane facility, with some roadway
relocation. The total project length is 2.2 miles.
• NCDOT Project U-3405 is on NC 274 (Gastonia Highway) from SR
1484 (Maine Avenue) to NC 275 in Bessemer City. Project U-3405 is
proposed to widen existing NC 274 (Gaston Highway) to a five-
lane curb and gutter facility.
• NCDOT Project U-3411 is on NC 160 (West Boulevard) from east of
I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) to Horseshoe Lane. U-3411 is
proposed to relocate West Boulevard and improve to multi—lanes
on new location.
• NCDOT Project 4915 is the extension of Southridge Road to the
Dole Processing Plant in Bessemer City.
• SCDOT improvement to US 321.
• SCDOT improvements to SC49.
• Expansion of the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport and
subsequent improvements to Old Dowd Road, Wallace Neel
Road and NC 160 from I-485 to East of Byrum Drive.
• Charlotte-Douglas International Airport's Strategic Development
Plan includes the development and operation of a truck/rail inter-
modal facility at the airport.
Infrastructure:
• Public water and/or sewer service area (current and planned),
see Figure 12.6.
Residential Development locations in Gaston County (current and
planned):
• US 273;
• NC 274;
• NC 279;
• US 321;
• Along water fronts and coves of Catawba River and South Fork
Catawba River;
• Crescent resources, 1,600 acres of undeveloped land belonging
to Duke Power that may be developed into
manufacturing/research park;
• Berewick-mixed use development with 1,000 homes currently
under construction in Mecklenburg Co., just south of Dixie River
Road:and
52
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
• Mixed use development planned for area near Wilson farm
Road\New Hope Union Road.
The individual spatial boundaries of notable features considered for this
ICE assessment are as follows:
Neighborhoods;
• Political boundaries (i.e., municipal boundaries, census groups);
• Community resources (i.e., cemeteries, schools, historical places,
places of worship, community centers);
• Public infrastructure (i.e., proposed roadways, schools,
water/sewer facilities);
• Travel Demand Model-generated traffic assignments and TAZ
data;
• Information derived from local development policies and
planning documents;
• State and local stormwater management ordinances (i.e., stream
buffer requirements);
• Watersheds;
• Wetland areas;
• Areas with known contamination;
• 100-year Flood Plain areas;
• Threatened or Endangered Species and their critical habitat;
• Land Use/land use controls (i.e., growth areas, rezonings,
annexation areas);
• Topography;
• Soils;
• Prime and unique agricultural lands;
• Public lands and scenic, recreational, and state natural areas;
• Air quality;
• Significant Natural Heritage Sites;
• Wildlife and natural vegetation; and
• Forest resources.
The total sum of each individual spatial boundary defines the spatial
boundary of this ICE assessment. The overall spatial boundary is not
static and is subject to change as additional information and data
become available.
Description of Study Areas
ICE Study Area. The ICE Study Area includes most of Gaston and parts of
Cleveland, Mecklenburg, and York (S.C) Counties (refer to Figure 3.2).
The purpose of the ICE Study Area was to provide a basic level of
53
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
geography that would encompass any foreseeable, potential indirect
effects stemming from the proposed Gaston East-West Connector
project. The ICE Study Area served as the basis for collecting data that
was used later to refine the qualitative impact assessment study areas
and impact assessments. The potential effects of the Gaston East-West
Connector would fall within a portion of the ICE Study Area and is more
sharply described at the District and Interchange Areas levels.
Districts. The ICE Study Area was broken into 10 unique districts in order
to facilitate discussions with local experts during interviews, as well as to
provide a level of geography that would better describe potential
indirect and cumulative effects that were more localized in nature. The
District boundaries followed major roadway features as well as political
boundaries to facilitate policy differentiations among the various units of
government that were examined. The District boundaries facilitated
discussions with the local expert interviewees as well as the reporting of
results.
Interchange Areas. The third and smallest study area type was used to
assess the unique changes that would potentially be produced by
increasing accessibility in the immediate vicinity of proposed
interchanges with the Gaston East-West Connector project. The size and
shape of the Interchange Area boundaries was determined by
considering the level of increased accessibility afforded by existing
streets that would interchange with the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector. Hence, if a proposed interchange was to be located in an
area with a good level of street connectivity, the influence of the
accessibility that the new interchange would afford increased or
"stretched" the shape of the Interchange Area boundary. By considering
the places where future interchanges might be located, the potential
for indirect and cumulative effects that the higher level of immediate
access to the proposed Gaston East-West Connector will afford these
areas could be discussed more readily with local expert interview
participants and in the reporting stage.
In addition to these three basic types of study areas, the final report also
consolidates some of the results into discussions at the county level of
geography as well as for the Detailed Study Alternative corridors.
54
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
4.2 Temporal Scope for Cumulative Effects
When considered in isolation, individual activities may appear to have
minimal effects, but the overall consequences of recurring activity may
be substantial.13 The setting of a temporal scope of analysis is largely
dependent on the availability of data. Data useful for establishing a
temporal scope for cumulative effects often reveals past, current, or
predicted trends and actions that have modified or have the potential
to modify land use, notable features and/or to influence
socioeconomic/ demographic trends or conditions when considered in
conjunction with the proposed project.
In determining the temporal scope of this Indirect Effects and
Cumulative Effect Assessment, it is assumed that the temporal scope of
cumulative effects is broader than the scope of analysis used in
assessing direct and indirect effects.14 Thus the temporal scope for
cumulative effects represents an overall, comprehensive scope of this
assessment.
When considering the most appropriate temporal scope for this
proposed project, it was deemed beneficial to consider its historic
context. A brief historical context of the Gaston East-West Connector
follows.
Note: Early references to "Garden Parkway" include a US 321 Extension.
The US 321 extension would be a new-location roadway extending from
US 321 north of the Town of Dallas to I-85 in Mecklenburg County. The US
321 Extension is now being considered as a separate project from the
Gaston East-West Connector.
Gaston East-West Connector (Garden ParkwayJ - Period 1980s
• Plans to improve east-west mobility in southern Gaston County
through construction of a new location roadway have been
under discussion since the late 1980's. The need to improve east-
west mobility and the bypass concept was first identified in 1989
during the citizen participation process associated with the
update of the Gaston Urban Area 7horoughfare Plan.
Gaston East-West Connector (Garden ParkwayJ - Period 1990's
ss
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
• The project (referred to as US 321 /74 Bypass/Garden Parkway)
was formally adopted in Gaston's 1991 Urban Area 7horoughfare
Plan .
• In 1992, Gaston Urban Area MPO's Transportation Advisory
Committee (TAC) requested the Mecklenburg-Union (MUMPO)
Transportation Advisory Committee to place the proposed project
on their thoroughfare plan.
• In 1994, the MUMPO TAC adopted a conceptual regional
thoroughfare plan proposed by the Charlotte Committee of 100,
which included the proposed project.
Gaston East-West Connector- Period 2000 to Present
• The North Carolina Department of Transportation began
environmental studies for the Gaston East-West Connector in
2002.15 The US 321 Extension was eliminated from the project
during this period.
• In July 2002, concurrence of the Purpose and Need was reached
through the NEPA/404 Merger process. In February 2005, the NCTA
Board selected the Gaston East-West Connector as a candidate
toll facility and the project is now being developed by the NCTA.
The temporal scope for the proposed project is based on the length of
time the effects of the proposed project singly, or in combination with
other past, present, or anticipated actions or trends, could incrementally
contribute to substantial changes in land use and/or trends and
conditions. In the case of transportation projects, only projects that were
both listed in the Gaston 2030 Long Range 7ransportation Plan and the
NCDOT 7ransportation Improvement Program (TIP) 2007-2013 were
considered as likely to occur. A summary of actions or trends considered
in establishing the appropriate temporal scope for the proposed project
are as follows:
Period 1990's
• 1999 Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden was first opened to the
public.
• A significant loss in the textile industry in Gaston County has been
offset by an increase in the service and trade sectors.
Period 2000 to Present
• On-going Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Expansion to
include 9,000-foot runway. Project is expected to be completed in
2010.
56
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
• Relocation of Wallace Neel Road, Western Boulevard, and Old
Dowd Road is on-going and associated with the Charlotte-
Douglas International Airport Expansion.
• Employment projections for Gaston County presented in the 2030
Long Range Transportation Plan show a drop in employment
growth occurring from 2000-2010.
• Completion of I-485 in 2004.
• NC 274, NC 275 to US 29-74 (NCDOT TIP # U-2408). Widen to multi-
lanes due to be let to construction in 2007.
Period 2010 to 2020
• The Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor Study (Macon-Charlotte
Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor).
• Charlotte-Douglas International Airport's Strategic Development
Plan includes the development and operation of a truck/rail inter-
modal facility at the airport.
• Gaston County's Comprehensive Planning Program predicts that
by 2010 the southeastern portion of Gaston County is estimated to
surpass other portions of the County in regards to housing units.
• SR 1131 (Linwood Road), Crowders Creek to US 29-74-NC 274
(Franklin Boulevard) (NCDOT TIP # U-2713), widen to multi-lanes,
right of way and construction are currently unfunded.
• SR 1136 (Myrtle School Road), US 29-74 to SR 1255 (Hudson
Boulevard), widen to multi-lanes, right-of-way and construction
are currently unfunded.
Period 2020 to 2030
• Gaston East-West Connector, I-85 West of Gastonia to US 321
North of Gastonia. Four lane divided freeway on new location,
right-of-way, and construction are currently unfunded.
• The updates to metropolitan planning organization Long-Range
Transportation Plans (LRTP) must, according to federal regulations,
extend a minimum of 20 years into the future. The current LRTPs or
LRTP updates taking place now in the Region are extending to at
least the year 2030.
Based on the available data, the determination was made that the
temporal scope for this assessment spans from 1989 to 2030. This scope
includes the anticipated design life of the project (25 years) which
originates from the current NCDOT Long-Range Transportation Plan that
was adopted in 2005.16
57
R E V � S E O O R A F T � A� O � R E C T A A� O C L� M L� L A T � V E E F F E C T S A S S E S S M E A� T
ASTO A� EAST - W EST C O A� A� ECTO R
T � P f�l o= LJ -�� 2 -1
A V c� V s t, 2OO -��-
� Y c� �� r_ 4_ "7 Y � ��� s t rca t_ s ca o r—r� �� o s Y t _ o f t F� _ f ca t o rs t F� ca t o r—� t rY l� �� t_ t o t F� _
c1 _ t_ r r—r� Y r—� ca t Y o r—� o f t F� _ t_ r—r� �� o r ca � s t�� c1 y l� o�� r—� c1 ca r Y _ s _
FicJ �sr 4_ 7_ T r�-� �ooro ■ Bo�s r�cJory
—r � �� — T
� �
S �
REVISEO DRNfi �NOIRECi NNO CYMYLNiIVE EfiECiS ASSESSMENi
Ci0.5iON ENSi-WESi CONNECiOR
TIP No: LL3321
A�gus}, 2008
5.0 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROFILES BY COUNTY ($TEP 2)
Methodology Summary—In addition to reviewing the plans adopted by local jurisdictions
reviews were also cenducted of development policies guidelines utilily provisions and
other actions in areas induded in the ICE STUDY AREA that specific�liy provide information
on the approach that loc�l govemments take towards managing growth in their
jurisdictions. The following profiles focus on rec�nt (lypic�l: previous three yearsJ histories of
Planning Commissions; Boards of Commissioners; Ci1y orTown Councils and other bodies
responsible for censidering the degree that new de�elopment may effect cultural and
natural resources in the ICE STUDY AREA. Jurisdictions induded in the ICE STUDY AREA
indude the following:
• Ci1y of Gastonia, North Carolina;
• Gaston Counly, North Carolina;
• Ci1y of Charlotte, North Carolina;
• Mecklenburg Counly, North Carolina;
• YorkCounly, South Carolina;
• Cleveland County, North Carolina;
• Ci1y of Belmont, North Carolina; and
• BessemerCily, North Carolina.
Citations are provided in several instances that ilNstrate specific reactions towards
de�elopment pressures as well as instances where interview centent with loc�l staff and
agency representatives support or refute the d ocum ented research.
� � The counties discussed below are included in the
IM ICE Study Area of the proposed Gaston East-
��� � West Connector.
Gaston County, North Carolina
The County of Gaston tends to rely more heavily on tourism than its
major city, Gastonia, principally by highlighting gardens, parks, and
historic attractions. Urban attractions are also marketed through the
Gaston County Department of Tourism, including shopping and dining
opporfunities located primarily in the City of Gastonia.��
Significantly, the County is underfaking a Consolidated Utility Study to
identify the feasibility of inerging the public water and sewer rystems of
the various municipalities within the County. The County itself does not
provide any public water or sewer utilities.
59
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
A review of both broad- and local-level land use planning and
transportation goals and objectives was completed to determine the
consistency of the proposed project with such goals and objectives. The
following goals, objectives and policies are based in large part upon
regional and local documents that address land use planning and
zoning ordinances. For the purpose of this assessment, goals are
considered to be broad statements that express priorities about how a
specific area should develop and re-develop over time. Objectives are
more specific than goals and are attainable through the
implementation of planning policies and strategies.
The stated goals and objectives for Gaston County's Unified
Development Ordinance include:
• addressing problems of sprawl patterns of land use;
• developing procedures and standards that safeguard Gaston
County from "undesirable development";
• developing design guidelines that promote livable communities,
including promoting street connectivity and placement of
sidewalks in new residential development;
• creating a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that is
readable and functional across jurisdictions (specifically, the UDO
will create a standard set of definitions, zoning districts); and
• development approval processes that can be implemented by
all local municipal governments in the County.�$
The UDO was developed to streamline the development process and to
make it more user-friendly. It combines and integrates the land use
ordinances for Gaston County and some (but not all) of its municipalities
into one document to include: zoning, subdivision ordinances,
manufacturer ordinances, watershed water supply and flood damage
prevention.
The stated goals and objectives of the Gaston County2030 Long Range
7ransportation Plan are consistent with the development and growth
desire for the jurisdictions that comprise the GUAMPO. Stated goals and
objects in the Plan are as follows:
• Provide a safe, comprehensive and efficient transportation system
that allows the movement of goods and people within Gastonia
and from Gastonia to other places.
• Improve the quality of life for residents of the Gaston MPO area.
• Provide a transportation system that affords the public with
mobility choices including walking, bicycling, and transit options.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
• Provide a transportation system that is sensitive to significant
features of the natural and human environment.
• Provide equitable transportation options to low income and
minority neighborhoods.
• Require and promote transportation improvements to better
connect Gaston County to other cities in the region, particularly
Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.
• Promote additional bridge crossings (Gaston East-West
Connector, Mount Holly North Loop and widen existing) over
the Catawba River to handle increases in traffic on I-85 and US
29/74.
• Strengthen Gastonia's connection to the regional
transportation network.
• Promote land use patterns that combine different uses such as
industrial, retail, and residential.
• Develop an efficient street and highway network capable of
providing an appropriate level of service for a variety of
transportation modes.
• Promote an integrated multimodal local and regional public
transit system.
• Develop a transporfation system that integrates pedestrian and
bicycle modes of transportation with motor vehicle transportation
and encourages the use of walking and bicycling as alternative
modes.
• Maximize rail and air transportation opportunities.
• Develop a transportation system that preserves and coexists with
the natural and built environments.
• Support and promote a freight transportation system which
supports the movement of goods.
• Make investment decisions for transportation modes that make
the most efficient use of limited public resources.
According to the 2030 Long-Range 7ransportation Plan, the Gaston East-
West Connector is considered to be the most significant infrastructure
project currently under consideration in Gaston County. The 2030 plan
anticipates that, once constructed the Gaston East-West Connector
would provide relief to I-85 and US -29/74 and US 321. Traffic projections
indicate that both I-85 and US Highway 29/74 are projected to be at or
near capacity. Gaston County's 2030 Long-Range 7ransportation Plan
indicated that the proposed Gaston East-West Connector and the
expansion of the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport will provide a
critical link for movement of goods between rail, highway, and air.19
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
This historical record indicates that the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan
Planning organization (GUAMPO) has consistently supported the project
since its initial adoption. The MPO and its member communities have
planned for and incorporated the Gaston East-West Connector (or,
alternatively named, the Garden Parkway) for the last 18 years. Apart
from placing the project into the fiscally constrained element of the
LRTP, the 2030 Long-Range 7ransportation Plan reinforces the place of
this project relative to other, identified MPO transportation needs by
noting that
"The importance of this project to Gaston County cannot be
underestimated. The TAC considers the Garden Parkway the most
significant project of all the facilities proposed for Gaston County
and as such is item # 1 on the MPO's Unmet Needs List. When built,
it will serve as a reliever to I-85 and US 29/74, both of which are
projected to be at or near capacity, even with the bypass in
place" (emphasis in original text).20
The Gaston East-West Connector was identified by the Gaston Urban
Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Advisory
Committee (TAC) as the number one project to relieve traffic
congestion in the urban area?� The Director for the City of Gastonia
Planning Department stated in an interview that the project may act as
a catalyst for retail development in the ICE Study Area22
City of Gastonia, North Carolina
With over 70,000 residents, Gastonia is the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
metropolitan statistical area's second-largest municipality. Its population
has expanded by 7.5% between 2000 and 200723. Gastonia presents a
pro-development face through its government website address, the
Gaston Economic Development Commission (GCEDC,
www.gaston.org), Gastonia Downtown Development Corporation
(www.gastoniadowntown.org), and Gaston Chamber of Commerce
(www.gastonchamber.com).
General. Gastonia markets a"pro-business permit" process for new
subdivisions and commercial properties. The City has a Unified
Development Ordinance (unified subdivision and zoning ordinances),
and suggests that the average turnaround time for subdivision
development applications is three to four months from the time of plan
submittal to building permit approval; two to three months' time is
suggested for site plan review and approval.
62
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
The City of Gastonia provides public water and sewer services for a
large area, and regularly extends lines to meet the needs of new
developments, particularly on the southern part of the city. Maps
shared during interviews indicated several major new subdivisions on the
southern side of Gastonia, all of which will utilize the City's public water
and sewer. There was no indication during interviews that access to
water and sewer has been limited as a growth management strategy.
Topography has proved the only complicating factor in reaching utilities
to some sections south of Gastonia, but plans exist to build a pumping
station that would alleviate that issue. The Gastonia Planning Director
expects that the entire area south of Gastonia would have public water
and sewer available by the time the project is operational.
The City has exhibited other signs of being accommodating to new
development; for example, granting vested rights for two-to-five years to
the proposed Bethesda Oaks Subdivision and Howe Dairy Traditional
Neighborhood Development project. These new development would
not be required to comply with the new Phase II Stormwater
Management Ordinance that the City has agreed to create.2a, zs
To address the development activity and improve quality, Gastonia
recently created a"Resource Guidebook for Residential and
Commercial Development" which provides guidance to developers
and staff on aesthetic and design treatments, such as building setbacks,
street cross-sections, pedestrian / bicycle connections, open space,
and signage. The Guidebook, which emphasizes Planned Residential
Developments, states that these guidelines represent "minimum
standards", and may be exceeded.26
Gastonia has taken other proactive steps to manage development,
such as agreeing to create a Phase II stormwater management
ordinance. The new ordinance will affect all new developments,
although most dramatically affecting new residential development that
would not otherwise be required to have permanent stormwater runoff
controls in place. The City currently uses a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
process in many development cases that allows them to have a finer
degree of control over proposed development design.
The Planning Commission and City Council do reflect on the 2010
Comprehensive Plan (which is currently being updated) during some
discussions pertaining to development effects, including a notable
63
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
recent discussion regarding the height extension of wireless
communications towers within the SP (State Park) zoning district, which
protects that part of Crowders Mountain State Park that the City
annexed in August of 1996. On that occasion, the City Council voted
unanimously to deny the ordinance revision that would have allowed
the extension, citing extensive concerns by the public and Planning
Commission regarding the visual and construction effects of the
heightened tower facility.
At the same meeting, the City Council approved two requests for four-
way stop controls at intersections to help mitigate concerns about
neighborhood traffic, a potential indication that the government is
cognizant and willing to act on issues related to traffic congestion?�
City of Belmont, North Carolina
The City of Belmont is currently in a mode of residential and commercial
growth. Development proposals in the November, 2007 minutes for the
City's Planning Board include a 24-lot single-family home subdivision and
a 48-slip marina with a retail store on River Drive. To better manage the
residential and commercial growth, the Belmont City Council adopted
the City of Belmont Comprehensive Land Use Plan in August of 2007 and
adheres to the land use ordinances of the UDO. Belmont's
Comprehensive Land Use plan is a policy document designed to work in
sync with the legally binding Belmont Land Development Code
adopted in 2003. 28 Since the Plan's adoption, the City Council has been
considering proposed text amendments to change the Belmont Land
Development Code. Many of the proposed text amendments are
aimed at incorporating more consistency with the Belmont
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Examples of such proposed
amendments to the Belmont Land Development Code include certain
architectural requirements to single-family homes and a proposal to
allow drive-through facilities in the Business Campus Development
zoning district29
The City of Belmont currently offers both water and sewer services to
areas within its boundaries. The City has extended their water and
sewer facilities along NC 273 to the south end of the peninsula in order
to service a new subdivision there. During interviews, planners noted
that areas along that highway that are not currently serviced by the city
utilities could easily tap into the new line, provided that they are
annexed into the City.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Bessemer City, North Carolina
Bessemer City approved a new land use plan in August of 2007 and like
many other municipalities in Gaston County they follow the land use
ordinances of the UDO. According to Bessemer City's planning director,
the Plan rezoned the entire City. Bessemer City is actively embracing
residential, commercial and industrial development. He noted that a
significant incentive for mixed use development is the expedited, staff-
level review for new mixed use development proposals. Some
development code variances are allowed. The City provides public
water and sewer services within its boundaries.
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Fueled by its center city, Mecklenburg is in the midst of a tremendous
growth cycle 30 Mecklenburg County's 2015 Plan emphasizes the urban
transformation that the County has experienced over the past decade.
According to the Plan, low-density, suburban sprawl characterizes the
current development pattern in Charlotte-Mecklenburg 31 The Plan
predicts that by the year 2015 that most available land within the
County boundaries will likely have been annexed 32
The 2015 Plan has established the following goals and objectives of the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg area:
Goal I: Develop Charlotte as a unique and attractive urban center of a
suburban region. Objectives include:
• The enabling of new development and infill development
(residential and non-residential) that allows for mixture of uses,
enhances existing neighborhood character, preserves older
buildings and landmarks, is sensitive to its surroundings, is
pedestrian-oriented, supports transit use and helps to revitalize
deteriorating areas.
• Development of a balance of appropriate land uses and higher
densities in key transit corridors and major activity centers to form
an integrated land use and transportation system that will support
multi-modal (i.e., roads, mass transit, aviation bicycles
pedestrians) circulation.
• Creation of unique urban, pedestrian-oriented mixed use centers
at key locations throughout the County.
Goal II: Provide for a more geographically balanced growth pattern
within Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Objectives include:
• Increase development/revitalization within the "City Within A
City."
65
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
• Stimulate quality growth on the northwest and west sides of the
City and County.
• Ensure that existing stable neighborhoods are maintained and
enhanced.
Goal III: Promote higher design quality in development, recognizing the
importance of scale, attention to detail, and the relationship between
land use and structures. Objectives include:
• Design development which is environmentally sustainable and
which integrates the built environment with the natural
environment.
• Use design elements such as lighting, landscaping, scale and
innovative site plans to improve the safety of both residential and
commercial areas.
Mecklenburg County's 2008-2010 Strategic Business Plan sets the short-
term direction for achieving the long-term goals identified by the Board
of County Commissioners. The Plan outlines Mecklenburg County's goal
to manage growth and to improve various aspects of the environment
including air quality, water and land quality. The business strategy is
described as being three-pronged:
• Permitting and enforcement of ordinances and regulations;
• Direct prevention and intervention/remediation services, including
facilities and other resources to prevent pollution; and
• Public education and awareness to influence personal behavior
that can prevent pollution.
The 2006 Performance Report on Mecklenburg County's
implementation of the Strategic Business Plan indicates that the County
is not meeting its goals of managing growth and improving the
environmental attributes of the area. Progress has been made in
protecting natural resources through improved air, water, and land
quality, but reaching its stated goals will require additional changes in
the habits of residents, additional regulation, and increased county
leadership 33
Because it has more than 100,000 residents, the City of Charlotte had to
obtain a Phase I NPDES permit to manage stormwater anywhere in the
City. Charlotte's Phase I permit was received in 1993. Phase II of NPDES
applied the same laws to smaller jurisdictions. In 2005, Mecklenburg
County and the six towns it contains were granted a joint NPDES Phase II
Permit to manage stormwater outside of the Charlotte City limits.
�]
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
City of Charlotte, North Carolina
Charlotte is currently the 20'" most populous city in the nation and could
become the 10'" most populous by 2030 34 Charlotte City Council has
established "focus areas" including economic development and
planning as well as transportation. Future goals for Charlotte in regards
to economic development are to invest in public services, facilities and
infrastructure, along with sustainable commitment to business and
entrepreneurship 35 Charlotte's long-term economic health is in large
part driven by the City's ability to facilitate private sector job growth
and investment. The economic development focus area is directed by
the Economic Development Committee which seeks to maintain,
increase and enhance the quality and number of jobs available within
Charlotte. Table 5.1 details economic development initiatives for fiscal
year 2008 in Charlotte.
67
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Table 5.1 Economic Development Initiatives for FY0836
Promote a healthy Percent of targeted FY08: 100% FY06: 100%
business climate by businesses retained
implementing a or expanded
strong business Percent of job FY08: 5% FY06: 2.9%
expansion and growth at targeted
retention effort businesses
Develop Hospitality tax FY08: 7% increase FY05: 7.8%
Collaborative revenues over FY05
Solutions: Work with Convention Center FY08: 54% FY06: 46%
internal and external utilization
partners to grow
Charlotte's
hospitality industry
The City of Charlotte takes a proactive approach to transportation
planning and management. The City's overall goal is to become the
premier city in the Country for integrating land use and transportation
choices. Charlotte's 7ransportation Action Plan (TAP) details the City's
transportation strategies and programs that are necessary to
accommodate the City's anticipated future growth through 2030. The
TAP's goals and policies are intended to meet land use objectives while
enhancing the multi-modal capacity and connectivity of streets and
thoroughfares, so that over the next 25 years an increasing percentage
of residents are within short distances to neighborhood-serving land uses
such as parks, schools, greenways, retail stores and employment areas.
The City currently has public water and sewer service areas covering
nearly the entire western area adjacent to Gaston County. One
relatively undeveloped area west of the airport currently has sewer but
no water service.
33
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
York County, South Carolina
York County, South Carolina, has enjoyed continued growth and
economic vitality due largely to its proximity to Charlotte. This growth
has not been without a cost. Over the past decade, York County has
experienced unprecedented suburban sprawl characterized mainly by
a pattern of low-density residential development. It has been fueled by
market demand associated with Charlotte's expansion and by an
abundance of developable land and facilitated by incremental
rezoning37. Lower taxes, state incentives, lower housing costs, and good
quality schools create a strong incentive for companies and individuals
to move to York County from other areas within the Region 38 York
County's residential population has grown much faster than projected.
According to the York County industry Cluster & Target Market Study,
2,200 residential permits are being issued annually in York County and
the County's population is approaching the 2015 population projection.
In 1996, York County adopted procedures to assess impact fees on new
development, which had as one of its stated purposes "to implement
the goals, objectives and policies of the county comprehensive plan
relating to assuring that new development contributes its fair share
towards the cost of public facilities necessitated by new development."
Due to a variety of circumstances, impact fees have not served as an
important growth management tool in York County.
York County has proposed to adopt an Adequate Public Facilities
Regulation Ordinance to better control residential growth in the County.
The purpose of the ordinance is to require developers to pay into a fund
to offset the effect of their development if adequate school facilities are
not currently available.39 There is currently a$2,400 per residence fee
imposed to aid the schools in building new facilities ao
Public utilities in northern York County are provided by several different
entities. The Town of Clover provides its own water and sewer service,
which actually draws from the City of Gastonia system, and additional
services are provided by Carolina Water Service, Tega Cay and
Riverview Water Service. The latter two have small, defined service
areas that cover specific large subdivision developments in the
southeast portion of the ICE Study Area. Carolina Water Service uses
lines that are owned by York County to service development along the
Highway 274 corridor, just west of Lake Wylie. The Town of Clover
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
currently services within its town boundaries, and has plans to expand
service areas west, north and east of the town, but not south. Both the
Town of Clover and Carolina Water Service expressed a willingness to
extend service to any developer who is willing to pay for, and then turn
over ownership, of the new lines. York County has incorporated a
"conceptual urban services area" in its 2025 Comprehensive Plan (April
2004), which incorporates the service areas of the various utility
providers (although there is some disagreement between this map and
the proposed service areas for the Town of Clover, which is currently
under discussion).
To facilitate the management of projected land use change and
population growth, York County has developed the York County 2025
Comprehensive Plan with goals and strategies that support York
County's Vision Statement. The Vision Statement is based broadly on
quality of life issues; managed and sustainable growth; balanced
transportation and public facilities priorities; and excellence in
government. The latter includes the effective utilization of codes and
standards to guide growth and improve development quality 41
York County's land use goals, and the strategies identified to
accomplish them, address a broad array of growth-related challenges.
These include measures to limit patterns of sprawl that consume
valuable land and natural resources; overload roads and public
facilities; create unfair tax burdens; and compromise the scenic
character of York County's urban and rural areas. This approach to
growth management does not seek to stop growth, or to impose a
defined growth "cap" or a pre-determined "rate of growth," but is
expected to have an effect on the timing, location, and patterns of
growth by:
• encouraging maximum retention of open space;
• reserving land needed in the future for development of industry;
• providing greater flexibility within zoning districts to produce more
compact mixed uses and investments in older urban areas; and
•"raising the bar" for quality and protection of natural resources 42
On June 18, 2007 York County adopted the Interim Development
Ordinance. This ordinance implements priority recommendations of the
York County 2025 Comprehensive Plan and serves as a temporary
bridge between the current regulations and the planned overhaul of
those regulations, which are anticipated by County planning
representatives to take several years to complete 43 In addition to
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
implementing several comprehensive plan initiatives, York County
planning representatives believe that this ordinance addresses
significant deficiencies in the existing development regulations aa
Specifically, this ordinance requires the following:
• Requires zoning and subdivision applications to be consistent with
the York County 2025 Comprehensive Plan;
• Promotes effective use of land by providing incentives for
conservation subdivisions;
• Ensures that planned developments will be long-term assets for
the County-creating stable neighborhoods and commercial
areas;
• Increases the flexibility of rural residents to establish home-based
businesses;
• Enables the creation of compatible neighborhoods services at the
edges of neighborhoods;
• Establishes more stringent design standards for commercial
development to ensure that it is both attractive and functional;
• Ensures that open spaces serve rather than burden future
residents;
• Enables the County to ensure that new subdivisions do not shift
capital costs to existing taxpayers and ratepayers; and
• Establishes a more rational platting process.
Prior to the 1972 and 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA),
point source discharges from industrial facilities, sewage treatments
plants, and storm events were seen as the major contributors to water
quality degradation in York County. In 1992, a permit was required for
construction activities affecting five or more acres of land. In 2003, the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
initiated Phase II controls. Phase II controls will affect all urbanized areas
with 50,000 or more residents, or a population density of 1,000 or more
per square mile and any construction activity disturbing one or more
acre of land. On March 10, 2003, York County submitted their NPDES
Phase II permit proposal for York County's urbanized areas, as
designated by EPA to South Carolina's Department of Health and
Environmental Control. Control measure goals were submitted along
with the NPDES Phase II permit as listed below:
• Protect and preserve natural areas, wildlife habitat and
agricultural and timber lands by ensuring zoning classifications
adequately protect environmental areas;
• Regulate stormwater discharge in York County's urban areas in
accordance with federal regulations through the use of Low-
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Effect Development (LID) and Best Management Practice
implementation by developers, farmers, timber companies and
any other group whose activities may cause land disturbances.
A number of regulatory methods have been adopted which further the
need to preserve plant and wildlife habitat. York County has adopted a
Traditional Neighborhood District floating zone, which provides for the
conservation of 50 percent of the property of large mixed-use
development. York County has also adopted the Catawba River Buffer
Rules, which maintains land within 100 feet of a designated segment of
the Catawba River in its natural state.
York County's Capital Projects Sales and Use Tax Programs Referendum,
Pennies for Progress Programs, were initiated by York County in 1997. The
purpose of the programs was to provide the citizens with a safer and
more efficient roadway system. The projects were chosen by a Sales Tax
Commission that represented the citizens of York County and then were
approved by the voters in York County. York County was the first county
in South Carolina to pass this type of sales tax to improve the road
system. A benefit of this tax is ninety-nine cents of every sales tax dollar
raised in York County stays in York County. York County is currently
working on two sales tax programs to improve the road system in the
county.
Cleveland County, North Carolina
Cleveland County's Land Use Plan is a statement of the community's
vision for its own future and a guide to achieve that vision through the
year 2015 45 Goals and main objectives as set forth in their Land Use Plan
are listed below.
Goals of the Cleveland CountyLand Use Plan
• To ensure that Cleveland County is comprised of well-planned,
safe residential developments that offer housing choices that
retain their value and meet the needs of the County's population.
• To ensure that land use and community planning in Cleveland
County is coordinated among all parties, and to proactively and
equitably enforce minimum housing and building code
regulations, zoning regulations, and similar ordinances throughout
the County planning jurisdictions.
• To develop well-planned, safely-designed, economically-viable
commercial areas in designated portions of the County that serve
the retail and commercial needs of County residents, and which
72
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
will have continuing long-term beneficial effect for the County
and which fit well with adjoining land uses.
• To promote and expand quality, environmentally friendly industrial
development in those portions of the County that are served by
adequate transportation and utility infrastructures.
• To ensure that Cleveland County contains viable, vibrant, and
attractive cities, towns, and villages that serve as the focal point
for development and community life.
• Develop and maintain a modern, safe and efficient multi-modal
transportation network that serves the needs of the County
residents and persons traveling through the County.
• To ensure that Cleveland County residents are provided with safe
and sanitary water and sewer utilities, and with an energy
infrastructure that supports economic development.
Main Objectives of the Cleveland CountyLand Use Plan
• Protecting the integrity and viability of the County's established
neighborhoods.
• Maintaining an ongoing and pro-active minimum housing
enforcement program.
• Upgrading manufactured housing and multi-family development
standards in the County.
• Elimination of the commercial zoning district along State and
federal highways in the County, and replacing with a series of
commercial "nodes" at designated sites throughout the County.
• Designation of key areas in the County for future industrial
development.
In Cleveland County, the City of Kings Mountain provides public water
and sewer services to a limited area surrounding the town. The County
provides water, but not sewer, services throughout a large portion of the
County.
73
REVISED DRAFi INDIRECi
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
AND CUMULAiIVE EFFECiS ASSESSMENi
6.O LAND USE (STEP 3)
Methodology Summary - To determine ICE's associated with the proposed Gaston East-
West Connector, it is essential to understand the existing land use conditions. Land use
and transportation planning often have a reciprocal relationship. Growth and
development resulting from land use modification often acts as a catalyst for
transportation needs, such as improving accessibility or reducing congestion in an area.
The reverse can also be true in that improved accessibility can in some cases lead to land
use change. The information in this section provides a current picture of land use
conditions and growth patterns as they exist today in the ICE Study Area.
6.1 Gaston County
Gaston Countv is part of the Piedmont Plateau, located between the
foothills of the Appalachians and the sandhills of the coastal plain 46 It is
bounded on the east by the Catawba River and Mecklenburg County;
on the west by Cleveland County; on the north by Lincoln County; and
on the south by York County, South Carolina 47
Gaston County has 15 municipal incorporations (cities or towns) within its
boundary 48 Land use mapping of Gaston County reveals a pattern of
development along major roadway corridors with infill development
between the roads (see Figure 6.1). Commercial, office, and industrial
uses are concentrated in the cities and towns, and along major
transportation routes: I-85, US 321, US 74, and the rail corridor that
roughly parallels I-85 and US 74.49
Table 6.1 provides
municipalities that
proposed project.
a summary of land use information for the various
may be affected by the implementation of the
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Town of Dallas North, south and west Predominantly yes
residential,
commercial, industrial
Gastonia South Residential, yes
commercial, industrial
City of Kings North; towards the City of Residential, yes
Mountain Bessemer and the city of commercial and
Cherryville industrial
City of Lowell Former Textile Operations residential no
Town of Former Mill Operation residential no
McAdenville
City of Mount Holly North and West Residential, Relinquishment
commercial and of ETJ
industrial
Town of Ranlo East, north and west Residential yes
Source: Gaston County Surtace WaterSUpplyWatershed F'rotection map, JulyZ00/
Corridor studies are currently underway for several corridors in Gaston
County that are considered most vulnerable by development. Two of
these are the Gastonia-Mount Holly Connector and the southern portion
of the Belmont-Mount Holly Loop.so
County planning staff has identified two proposed intersections sites as
potential "hot spots" for current and near-future development. The
intersection of the future Gaston East-West Connector and NC-274 is
one of the two sites. Located just north of the Daniel Stowe Botanical
Garden, this area is a combination of vacant land and land developed
for agricultural uses, plant nurseries, single-family housing, and a few
commercial uses.51 The other identified "hot spot" for development is at
the intersection of the future Gaston East-West Connector and US 321 in
Gastonia. Existing conditions in this area are a combination of primarily
industrial and residential uses it is surrounded by agricultural land on
roughly three sides.52
Residential growth continues to occur in the southeast corner of the
County. According to the Belmont Chamber of Commerce, the River
Bend and South Point townships of Eastern Gaston are the county's
fastest growing residential areas. There are no major employment
centers in the area within and near the Detailed Study Alternatives (see
Figure 6.2).53 Large subdivisions with one acre or larger lots are being
developed; most of these developments do not have public water and
sewer services.
�s
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
According to GUAMPO, there is a need to provide public services
(water and sewer) in Gaston County in order to reduce the effects on
water and soil quality, but also to provide the ability to build various lot
size developments. Inability to provide public services creates pressure
and stress on the natural environment due to the need to build wells
and septic tanks. Long-term effects on water and soil quality occur.sa
Several municipalities in Gaston County including Belmont, Cramerton,
Gastonia and Mount Holly have excess wastewater treatment capacity.
Yet many areas in the County that are not incorporated do not have
access to municipal wastewater services.ss
A vast majority of the proposed projects are scheduled for the
unincorporated area and southern portion of Gaston County. These
areas are primarily underdeveloped, with the primary development
pattern being residential and open space. The area contains no water
and sewer infrastructure. However, this area is projected to see a higher
percentage of Gaston's growth over the next 10-20 years.
A summary of municipalities that are located in Gaston County and that
have experienced land use modification in response to growth and
development either in the past or are likely to experience such change
in the future as a result of or in accordance with the proposed project
are provided below. These areas include the following:
• The City of Gastonia;
• The City of Belmont;
• The Town of Dallas;
• Bessemer City;
• The Town of Cramerton;
• The City of Kings Mountain;
• The Town of McAdenville;
• The City of Mount Holly;
• The Town of Ranlo; and
• The City of Lowell.
These municipalities and the ICE Study Area can be found on Figure 6.1.
The Citv of Gastonia is centrally located in Gaston County and
encompasses approximately 43.5 square miles. Future growth is
anticipated to be a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial. Land
use in downtown Gastonia is characterized as mixed use with modern
retail and civic uses. A site visit to downtown Gastonia indicated that
the central business district is in the early stages of redevelopment, with
the City investing an increasing amount of resources to see the area
redevelop faster. Outside of the downtown area, non-residential
development transitions into strip commercial along major arterial roads
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
with single-family residential neighborhoods behind.56 Areas around the
outskirts of Gastonia are relatively rural and characterized by low-density
residential and agricultural areas. Areas in or adjacent to the city limits
of Gastonia are characterized by moderate- to high-density residential
areas or areas of small businesses.57
The Citv of Belmont is located in the eastern portion of Gaston County
and has ready access to Charlotte and Mecklenburg County,
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, and the City of Gastonia by
both Interstate 85 and US Hwy 29-74. Belmont is bordered by
Mecklenburg County and the Catawba River to the east, the City of
Mount Holly to the north, the Town of McAdenville to the northwest, and
the Town of Cramerton to the west. Although some growth is possible to
the north between McAdenville and Mount Holly, the predominant
future growth is anticipated to take place to the south, along the
peninsula formed by the Catawba and South Fork Rivers. This is
evidenced by recent annexations, growth of subdivisions, and planned
extensions of water and sewer lines. Predominant growth is anticipated
to be residential in nature. Future growth is anticipated with the
proposed Gaston East-West Connector.58
The Town of Dallas is located in the geographic center of Gaston
County, and is bordered to the south and east by the City of Gastonia.
Although there is some room for potential growth towards the Gastonia
corporate limits, the predominant growth is anticipated to the north and
west as demonstrated by recent annexations along NC 279 and US 321 .
Predominant future growth is anticipated to be residential in nature_with
a mix of commercial and industrial facilities.59 The Town of Dallas is
experiencing an expansion in subdivision growth. Its officials believe that
the proposed project represents a major economic engine for Gaston
County and all of its municipalities as well.bo
The City of Bessemer City is located in west central Gaston County, with
the center of the City being within four miles of the Cleveland County
Line. Bessemer City is predominately north of the I-85 corridor that runs
through Gaston County, with the City of Gastonia to the east and the
City of Kings Mountain to the southwest. Although there is room for some
expansion by annexation in most directions, a large portion of Bessemer
City is currently undeveloped. Future growth is anticipated to be a mix
of residential and industrial/commercial.b�
The Town of Cramerton is located in east-central Gaston County,
between the City of Belmont to the east and the City of Gastonia to the
west. The northern town boundary is contiguous with that of
McAdenville. Although limited growth is possible to the north, west, and
��
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
east, the Town's greatest potential for growth is to the south.
Predominant future growth is anticipated to be residential in nature.b2
The Citv of Kinqs Mountain, once known as White Plains, has the
distinction of being located in two counties. Out of the 10,000 residents
of Kings Mountain, only 590 live in Gaston County with the remaining
living in Cleveland County. The City is bordered in part by the City of
Gastonia to the east. As the City continues to grow into Gaston County,
the primary growth is expected in the north toward the Bessemer City
and the City of Cherryville, and is expected to be a mix of residential,
commercial and industrial.
The Town of McAdenville is located in east-central Gaston County along
NC 7, between the Town of Ranlo, City of Gastonia, Town of Cramerton,
and the City of Belmont. Future annexation would be primarily confined
to the north, in areas where it is feasible. Future growth is anticipated to
be predominately residential and likely to occur adjacent to I-85.
The Citv of Mount Hollv is located in the northeastern quadrant of
Gaston County. A large portion of the City is located on the Catawba
River and annexations have taken place on Mountain Island Lake.
Mount Holly is for the most part bordered only by the City of Belmont to
the south. Future development is anticipated to be to the north and
west. With the completion of the proposed Mount Holly-Gaston
Connector, additional growth is to be expected, especially along the
NC Hwy 27 corridor, and is expected to be a mix or residential,
commercial, and industrial. In the past decade, the City of Mount Holly
has experienced an escalated demand for property near and along its
lakes.
The Town of Ranlo is centrally located to the north of the City of
Gastonia, along NC Hwy 7. Although there is no direct access to more
land to the south of existing boundaries to the south, future annexations
are possible to the east, north and west. Future growth is expected to be
primarily residential in nature.
The Citv of Lowell is centrally located in the eastern half of Gaston
County, between the City of Gastonia and a portion of the Town of
Ranlo to the west, and the Town of McAdenville to the east. Although
growth by annexation is still possible, significant annexations are not
expected due to proximity of other municipalities and the South Fork
Catawba River. Future growth is anticipated to be primarily residential in
nature, which will replace former textile operations.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
6.2 Mecklenburg County
Mecklenburg County faces many challenges in addressing the growth
and development experienced in both the residential and commercial
realms of urbanization. Low-density, suburban sprawl characterizes the
current development pattern in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The
Southwestern District of the County is experiencing rapid growth.
According to Mecklenburg County's 2015 Plan, much of this
development is thought to have been spurred by the construction of
the I-485 Outer Loop. Problems associated with suburban sprawl are the
primary focus in this area. Charlotte-Mecklenburg's 2015 Plan predicts
that by the year 2015, most available land within the County boundaries
will likely have been annexed.b3
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, located in Mecklenburg County,
provides regional access to the international market. In the year ending
October, 2007, Charlotte-Douglas ranked 12'" among the 855 domestic
airports for which the Bureau of Transportation Statistics maintains
records. US Airways is the dominant passenger carrier, with over 54% of
all passengers using this airline. The number of passengers using the
airport is increasing, with a 51% increase recorded between 2002 and
2007 for domestic destinations (refer to Table 6.2 for all destination
statistics for this time period). On-time performance has slipped slightly
during this period, and average delay increased slightly (although some
of this change may be due to more carriers reporting in the latter part of
this five-year period).64 To accommodate this growth, Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport is expected to expand by adding a 9,000-foot
runway at the western edge of the airport. The expansion is needed to
provide sufficient airfield capacity during peak operating periods, and
to also provide a means of reducing delay during peak periods.65 The
expansion is expected to be completed in early 2010.66
Table 6.2 Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Passengers and Mail
Tons, Domestic and International Destinations
2002 524,842 8,654,576
2007 650,308 10,856,757
Difference 125,466 2,202,181
Difference (%) 24% 25%
Source: USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2002 and 2007 T-100 Tables
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
6.3 York County
Approximately 80 percent of York County's unincorporated land
remains underdeveloped as agricultural land, or developed land at
very low intensities as agricultural residential use.b� Also evident in the
County's land use pattern are the extent of sprawl and the fragmented
pattern of population growth in the rural area, typified by small, low-
density residential subdivisions scattered county-wide.b$ According to
York County's 2025 Comprehensive Plan, it is this development pattern
which represents the greatest threat to the County's future sustainability,
ever-increasing demand for public services in remote rural locations, as
well as the continued displacement of farmland.69 The most potent
factor for residential development is York County's proximity to
Charlotte, principally along the I-77 commuting corridor.�� This proximity
and transportation link northward directs the most growth pressure to
the County's northeast sector in the vicinity of Fort Mill. Areas
surrounding rural-suburban edges are particularly likely to experience
substantial growth pressures unless curbed by the Interim Development
Ordinance and other new growth policies.
The counties of Mecklenburg, Gaston, and Cabarrus in North Carolina,
along with Chester County in South Carolina, all represent employment
destinations for those residing in York County.��
Residential growth is disproportionately outpacing commercial and
industrial growth despite efforts to diversify the employment base.72 Most
of York County's recent employment growth has been in
logistics/warehousing, and efforts to attract the financial sector have
been relatively successful.73
6.4 Cleveland County
Cleveland County is located between Asheville and Charlotte.
Cleveland County is centered between two of the largest metropolitan
areas of the Carolinas -- Charlotte and Greenville/Spartanburg. Along
with the county seat of Shelby and the City of Kings Mountain,
Cleveland County also includes the towns of Belwood, Boiling Springs,
Casar, Earl, Fallston, Grover, Kingstown, Lattimore, Lawndale,
Mooresboro, Patterson Springs, Polkville and Waco.
'-m�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
The largest category of land within Cleveland County is undeveloped
property. Much of this undeveloped land is farmland. The municipal
areas within the county continue to growth despite the economic
reversal that the loss of the textile industry has had on the towns and
cities within this County.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
7.O WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY (STEP S CONTINUED�
Methodology Summary - This section provides information related to the Catawba
watershed and wetland areas. Water quality information includes stream classifications,
state and local stormwater ordinances and applicable riparian buffer rules.
Indirect effects to water resources and downstream water quality could
occur as a result of the increases in impervious surfaces from
development, and soil erosion and stream sedimentation due to soil
disturbing activities.
7.1 Watershed
The project is in south-central North Carolina within the Piedmont
physiographic province in the Catawba River basin. The rivers and
streams of Gaston County generally flow from northwest to southeast,
and most drain into either the Catawba River or its principle tributary,
the South Fork Catawba River.74 The Catawba River winds 224 miles
through central North Carolina, originating in the eastern slopes of the
Blue Ridge Mountains, and flowing southeast to the North Carolina-
South Carolina border near Charlottel5 The Catawba River basin
encompasses 3,285 square miles in 12 counties, including Gaston.
The elevation of Gaston County ranges from 587 feet above sea level in
the southeast corner of the County to 1,705 feet in the southwest at the
pinnacle of the Kings Mountain Range, with the average elevation
being 825 feet above sea level.�b The elevation of the watershed can
be seen in Figure 7.1 .
The Catawba River is composed largely of a series of impoundments,
the Catawba chain lakes, a sequence managed by Duke Power for the
purposes of hydropower generation. Lake Wylie is among these
sequences of lakes. Water resources with the Catawba River basin fall
within one of three sections.
• The South Fork of the Catawba and its tributaries; Henry Fork,
Jacob Fork, and Indian Creek are considered to be in the
midsection of the Catawba.
• The Lower Catawba Basin, Dutchman's Creek, Sugar Creek,
McAlpine Creek, and Twelve Mile Creek are encompassed in the
drainage that contributes to flow over the South Carolina border.
• Crowders Creek which joins in the drainage area of the South Fork
Catawba.
m
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
The project, located in the Catawba River watershed, possesses a wide
variety of land uses. Some tracts are still forested or in agricultural
production. A large portion of the watershed is moderately developed
as residential or industrial. Many of the waterways and wetlands within
the watershed remain forested, although some of the streams have
minimal riparian buffers. Potential threats to water quality in this area
and downstream may include agricultural practices, land use change
including land clearing which may contribute to soil erosion and
increases in chemical runoff and nutrient input.
Existing development has affected the water quality of the Catawba
River cumulatively as development has concentrated along the east
side of Gaston County close to the Catawba River.�� Land use changes
from rural to urban as the river enters the Piedmont from the mountains.
Nonpoint source pollution in runoff from agriculture and urban areas
affects water quality in the streams, rivers and lakes downstream
through the Catawba basin. Gastonia and Charlotte are both
considered to be included in the list of these urban areas.�$ The west
bank of the Catawba River also is home to the Allen Steam Station, a
major coal-fired power plant operated by Duke Power.
The project is located in the Catawba River Basin (Hydrologic Unit
Codes (HUCs): 03050101, 03050102, 03050103, DWQ subbasins 03-08-34,
03-08-36, and 03-08-37 respectively). A brief summary of each subbasin
is provided below.
Subbasin 03-08-34 (see Figure 7.1 J. Subbasin 03-08-34 covers 324 square
miles and is one of the most densely populated areas in North Carolina.
The streams in this subbasin are part of the Catawba River Basin that
spans both North Carolina and South Carolina. Water from this subbasin
discharges into Lake Wateree, a 303(d) listed water in South Carolina.
This subbasin contains the greater Charlotte area, and urban
stormwater and municipal wastewater heavily influence the local
streams. Charlotte is required to comply with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Phase I Stormwater regulations.
Mecklenburg County is required to comply with Phase II stormwater
regulations.79 The City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County have
initiated stream buffer ordinances through the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
"Surface Water Improvement & Management (S.W.I.M) program" 80
There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters
m
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
(HQWs) or Trout Waters (Tr) in areas of this subbasin included in the ICE
Study Area.
Subbasin 03-08-36 (see Figure 7.1 J. The subbasin includes Gastonia, the
southern rural portion of Gaston County, and parts of Bessemer City $�
This basin covers 104 square mile. One stream in this subbasin, Dallas
Branch, is rated as being impaired. There are no ORW, HQWs or Tr in
areas of this subbasin included in the ICE Study Area.
Subbasin 03-08-37 (see Figure 7.1J. This subbasin has a drainage area of
106 square miles, one of the smallest subbasins in the Catawba River
Basin. More than one-third of the streams within this subbasin are rated
as impaired. Parts of Gastonia, Bessemer City, and Kings Mountain are
within the subbasin. Major roadways bisecting the area are I-85 and US
321 82 There are no ORW, HQWs or Tr in areas of this subbasin included in
the ICE Study Area.
7.2 Water Supply Watersheds
The water supply watershed ordinances in Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties were developed to protect this valuable resource. A brief
summary of such watersheds is provided below.
Mountain Island Lake Sub Watershed. The Mountain Island Lake
watershed has a surface area of 2,788 acres, and is the smallest of the
three lake systems within the Catawba River Watershed. It serves as the
primary water supply watershed for Mount Holly, Gastonia and
Mecklenburg County83 Mountain Island Lake has 'good' to 'excellent'
water quality. However, streams which flow into the lake are declining in
terms of water quality 84 Gaston County's Killians Creek and Johnsons
Creek flow into Mountain Island Lake.85
Lake Wvlie Watershed. The Lake Wylie Watershed has a surface area of
12,139 acres. It is the largest of the sub-watersheds along the Catawba
River, encompassing 1,160 square miles. This watershed serves as the
water supply for Belmont and Rock Hill.86
Tributaries draining into and forming arms of Lake Wylie in South Carolina
include Catawba Creek, Mill Creek, Crowders Creek (South Fork
Crowders Creek, Rocky Branch, Brown Creek, Beaverdam Creek, Camp
Run), and Torrence Branch. There are a total of 37.2 stream miles and
4,500 acres of lake waters in this Catawba River/Lake Wylie watershed in
South Carolina, all classified as freshwater.87
m
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Lake Wylie water quality is being threatened due to numerous sources
of nonpoint pollution which has contributed to water quality
degradation in its embayment and tributaries. High nutrient levels have
been linked to algae blooms and fish kills in warmer months. The primary
sources of pollution are urban runoff and wastewater treatment plant
discharges. Urban runoff, wastewater treatment discharges, and
agricultural runoff from Gaston and Lincoln counties are also significant
problems $$
Mecklenburg and Gaston counties have established the following water
supply watershed protection requirements in the ICE Study Area as
shown in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Watershed Protection Requirements
Upper Lake Wylie Watershed
Protected Area Charlotte/Mecklenburg < or = 24%-Low Density 40 feet
< or = 70%-High Density 100 feet
Critical Area Charlotte/Mecklenburg < or = 24%-Low Density 100 feet
< or = 50%-High Density 100 feet
Lower Lake Wylie Watershed
Protected Area Charlotte/Mecklenburg < or = 24%-Low Density 40 feet
< or = 70%-High Density 100 feet
Critical Area Charlotte/Mecklenburg < or = 20%-Low Density 50 feet
< or = 50%-High Density 100 feet
Catawba River
Critical Area Gastonia/Gaston < or = 24%-Low Density; 30 feet
Protected Area or 36% for projects
without a curb and
gutter street system
>24%- High Density 100 feet
Source: Watershed Protectlon Ordlnance, Gaston County, North Carolma, Octoberl,
1997
7.3 Wetlands
A total of 122.83 acres of wetlands were lost in the Catawba River basin
through permitted actions between 1996 and 2000.89 During this period,
64.65 acres of wetlands were replaced through mitigation to
compensate for permitted loss.90 Table 7.2 lists the total loss of wetlands
by subbasins within the ICE Study Area.
m
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Table 7.2 Wetland Losses (acres), 1995-2000
03-08-34 42.88
03-08-36 1.05
03-08-37 0.88
Source: Watershed Restoration Plan for the Catawba River Basin, 2001.
7.4 Stream Classifications
North Carolina waters are classified according to their best-intended
uses. Class "C" waters are protected for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses
involving human body contact with water where such activities take
place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no
restrictions on watershed development activities.91
In York County, South Carolina, portions of Crowders Creek within the
ICE Study Area are classified as "Freshwater" with designated use being:
• primary and secondary contact recreation;
• a water supply after conventional treatment in accordance with
the requirements of South Carolina;
• fishing; and
• the survival and propagation of a balanced indigenous aquatic
community of fauna and flora, and industrial and agricultural
uses.92
Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires states to
develop a list of waters not meeting water quality standards or which
have impaired uses. The 303(d) list and accompanying data are
updated as the basin-wide plans are revised.93 Waters considered
supporting their uses may continue to appear on the 303(d) list because
of standard violations. North Carolina lists eight streams as having
impaired biological integrity under the Final 2006 provisions of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) (NCDENR, 303(d) list, 2006). The potential source of
impairment for all of these streams is urban runoff and storm sewers.
These streams are as follows: Abernethy Creek; Crowder Creek;
Blackwood Creek; Catawba Creek; Catawba River; Sugar Creek; Dallas
Branch; and Long Creek.94 There are also two 303(d) listed streams
(SCDHEC, 303(d) list 2006) located in South Carolina, Crowder Creek
and the Lake Wylie.9s
m
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Both North Carolina and South Carolina have a draft 303(d) list for 2008
that is currently under public review. A comparison was made of
available data to determine if there were any additional streams that
should be disclosed in both of the revised drafts. Long Creek, in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is currently not among listed
streams in North Carolina's 303(d) List Draft for Public Review (January
'Z��B�. 96
The Catawba River/Lake Wylie and the South Fork Catawba River have
surface water designations indicating use as a water supply watershed.
Table 7.3 provides information of the water supply streams in the ICE
Study Area.
Table 7.3 Water Supply Streams
- �- - - -
- �- -
Catawba River From I-85 Bridge WS-IV, B; CA Catawba 11-(122)
(Lake Wylie to the upstream
below side of Paw
elevation 570) Creek Arm of
Lake Wylie
Catawba River From the WS-V, B Catawba 11-(123.5)
(Lake Wylie upstream side of
below Paw Creek Arm
elevation of Lake Wylie to
570)North North Carolina-
Carolina South Carolina
portion State Line
Unnamed From a point 0.5 WS-IV;CA Catawba 11-123-(2); 11-
Tributary at mile downstream 123-(1)
Belmont of N.C. HWY273
Abbey to Lake Wylie
College
South Fork From a point 0.4 WS-V Catawba 11-129-(15.5)
Catawba River mile upstream of
Long Creek to
Cramerfon Dam
and Lake Wylie
at Upper
Armstrong Bridge
(mouth of South
Fork Catawba
River)
* Fnal Noiih Carolina Water QualiN Assessmentand Imqaired Waters List 12006Inteqrated 3051b1 and 3031d1
Repori�. Approved May 17, 2007
Source: Http://h20.enrstate.nc.us/bims/reports/basinandwaterbodies/
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Catawba River and Lake Wylie and the South Fork Catawba River carry
surface water designations indicating uses as a water supply watershed.
The Catawba River/Lake Wylie is designated as WS-V, and South Fork
Catawba River is designated as WS-V. WS-V waters are protected as
water supplies which are generally upstream of WS-IV waters (water
protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds). No categorical restrictions on watershed
development or treated discharge shall be required.97
Permitted stream effects in the Catawba River basin during the period
of 1997 through 2000 totaled 104,306 linear feet. During that same time
span, 33,355 linear feet of stream restoration were required to mitigate
for these losses. The majority of these losses occurred in Subbasin 03-08-
34, which encompasses the Charlotte area. Table 7.4 lists the total
stream losses within the ICE Study Area.
Table 7.4 Stream Losses (linear feet), 1997-2000
Source: Water�hed Restoration Plan forthe Catawba River Basin, 2001.
7.5 State and Local Stormwater Management Ordinances
Gaston County's stormwater ordinance established minimum
requirements and procedures to control the adverse effects of
stormwater runoff associated with new development.98 Gaston County
is a Phase II Stormwater community. All water from the proposed project
and its bridges must be collected by drains or pipes and discharged into
vegetated areas and/or silt basins where pollutants are filtered out
naturally before entering streams.
Because it has more than 100,000 residents, the City of Charlotte in
Mecklenburg County obtained a Phase I NPDES permit to manage
storm water anywhere in the City. Charlotte's Phase I permit was
received in 1993. Phase II of NPDES applied the same laws to smaller
jurisdictions. In 2005, Mecklenburg County and its municipalities were
granted a joint NPDES Phase II Permit to manage storm water outside of
the Charlotte City limits.
York County's Phase II Stormwater permit was established in 2003. York
County has stated that they will regulate stormwater discharge in York
m
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
County's urban areas in accordance with federal regulations through
the use of Low-Effect Development (LID) and Best Management
Practices implemented by developers, farmers, timber companies and
any other group whose activities may cause land disturbances.
7.6 Riparian Buffer Rules
The Catawba River is considered to be a nutrient sensitive management
river basin. The Catawba Buffer Rules require a 50-foot minimum buffer
width for new development along the Catawba River. Wider buffers
may be necessary for steeper slopes, areas downstream of intense
development, or for extra protection of highly valued uses such as
drinking water.99 New development must either treat the runoff from
new impervious areas to remove nitrogen to specified levels, or design
stormwater discharges outside of a 50-foot riparian buffer so the flow will
not re-concentrate before it reaches the stream.�oo
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.��� The loss of
riparian vegetation results in increased water temperatures and
decreased oxygen levels.
Permanent riparian buffer protection rules were enacted for the main
stream of the Catawba River below Lake James to the Norfh Carolina/
South Carolina border. These rules also encompass the seven main stem
lakes from Lake James to the North Carolina/South Carolina border.
Lake Wylie is one of the main stem lakes in which the buffer rules apply.
The buffer protection rules apply within 50 feet of all riparian shorelines
along the Catawba River main stem and the seven main stem lakes. The
buffer is 50 feet wide and is measured from the waters edge (at full
pond in the lakes) and has two zones of 30 feet (Zone 1 nearest to the
water) and 20 feet (Zone 2 landward of Zonel ).
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 it must be re-vegetated and maintain diffuse flow to Zone
l. Certain activities (including road crossings) may be allowed with
mitigation but must first be reviewed and given written approval by the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
[37
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) staff. The project crosses three water
bodies that are part of Lake Wylie in which the Catawba River Riparian
Buffer Rules will apply.102
Mecklenburg County Surface Water Improvement and Management
(S.W.I.M.) ordinance establishes buffers along streams. There are three
different buffer sizes (35', 50', and 100') in Mecklenburg County
depending on the size of the drainage. SWIM buffer requirements apply
only to streams, whereas watershed buffers apply to both the lakeshore
and streams. In situations where a stream is covered by both a
watershed and SWIM buffer, the more stringent buffer requirement
would apply. Table 7.5 provides the required buffers along streams
based on drainage.
Table 7.5 S.W.I.M. Buffers
7.7 Department of Transportation Best Management Practices
The NCDOT implements Best Management Practice (BMP) on
transportation project in accordance with their published handbook
entitled Best Manaqement Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.�o3
The NCTA intends to follow the NCDOT BMPs. Best Management
Practices are defined as activities, practices and procedures
undertaken to prevent or reduce water pollution. NCDOT's BMP serves
as a compendium covering both preventive and control measures that
are implemented in NCDOT's various activities.104 These activities include
general maintenance operations and facilities, construction operations
including temporary erosion and sediment control, as well as project
planning and design.
The South Carolina Department of Transportation implements their
stormwater management manual entitled Interim Stormwater Control
Manual to limit the discharge of sediment from the project site and to
prevent post-construction peak discharge flow rates from exceeding
the pre-construction peak discharge flow rates.�os
m
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES �STEP 3 CONTINUED�
Methodology Summary - This section provides a description of natural resources that exist
within the ICE Study Area. This information is important when assessing the cumulative effects of
the proposed Gaston East-West Connector on environmental resources including:
• Natural Resources;
• Natural Heritage Sites;
• AirQuality;
• Noise; and
• Cultural Resources.
Each resource is discussed in more detail below.
8.1 Natural Resources
The natural areas of Gaston County are spread across its land area and
encompass a variety of natural features that include mountains, bogs,
and old-growth forests.��b The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
identifies SNHAs as the most important areas for natural diversity of the
State.107 Gaston County contains 7,790 acres of protected open space,
which includes some SNHAs. While some of the Significant Natural
Heritage Areas are under permanent protection, others are threatened
by development pressure.��$
Table 8.1 lists the Gaston County Natural Heritage Sites as two distinct
categories. The first category indicates sites of national, state, or
regional significance, while the second category lists sites of County
significance (see Figure 8.1).
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Jenkins Site Mike Moore Hill
Forney Rankin/Redlair Preserve Penegar, Gastonia South
Ferguson Ridge
Ferguson's Knob
Unity Church Road
Catawba Cove
Rhyne Bluffs
Thornburg Shoals Granitic Flatrock,
Bottomland Forest
Sumner Road
Grant Hill
Kenneth Oates Farm Forest (Area A)
Kenneth Oates Farm Forest (Area B)
Jack Moore Forest
Falston Road
Johnson Creek and Side Catawba
aource: �asron �ounry ivarurai rtenrage invenrory, iv� ivarurai rtenrage rrogram ana rne ivwnon ,vcre
Initiatives in the Office of Conservation and CommunityAffair�. Information accessed on 5/ib/08.
8.2 Natural Heritage Sites
There are few natural heritage sites out of those listed in Table 8.1 having
the potential to be indirectly or cumulatively affected by the proposed
project. Those having that potential are listed below.
Crowders Mountain State Park is located west of the Detailed Study
Alternatives (See Figure 8.1) but within the ICE study Area. The State Park
is the largest natural heritage site in the County. It covers over 3,000
acres of topographically, botanically, and zoologically diverse land. Six
natural plant communities are found in the park, and the area supports
a diversity of wildlife species. Some animals documented in the Park
have not been documented elsewhere in the Country.
Crowders Mountain State Park is one of the best examples of Low
Elevation Rocky Summit natural communities in North Carolina.109 The
Park includes habitat for one of a few populations of bear oak (Quercus
ilicifolia) and dwarf juniper (Juniperus communis var. depressa) in the
State. A number of other rare plants occur here, including Bradley's
spleenwort (Asplenium bradleyi), Appalachian golden-banner
(7hermopsis mollis), and Piedmont indigobush (Amorpha schwerinii).
Several rare butterflies are present. North Carolina Department of Parks
and Recreation owns part of this site the remaining land is privately
owned.
92
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Staqecoach Road Granitic Outcrop is significant for its good quality
Granitic Flatrock natural community, the best in this section of the
Piedmont.>>� The gently sloping, smooth granite outcrop has bare rock
with vegetation mats of typical flatrock species. This site is privately
owned and located within the ICE Study Area. Stagecoach Road is
located south of the Detailed Study Alternatives (See Figure 8.1) and
within the ICE Study Area.
Peneaar is located adjacent to Crowders Creek. The bulk of this
floodplain forest has been destroyed by the erosion of woodland
pasture. However, a large, frequently flooded area still exists and has a
rich diversity of herbaceous aquatics. Penegar is located south of the
Detailed Study Alternatives (See Figure 8.1) and within the ICE Study
A re a.
8.3 Air Quality
The proposed project ICE Study Area is within the Charlotte-Gastonia-
Rock Hill 8-hour non-attainment area for ozone (as of October 10,
2007)>>>.The Charlotte-Gastonia area had been designated as non-
attainment for the 8-hour ozone designation. Both Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties are in attainment areas for Particulate Matter
(PM-10) and Particulate Matter (PM-2.5) and the other criteria pollutants
(carbon monoxide, oxides, nitrogen, etc.).
A project-level air quality assessment is a part of the environmental
review for this proposed project and is currently underway. The Gaston
Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization currently lists the
proposed Gaston East-West Connector project as a non-tolled facility in
the most recent air quality conformity report; the long-range
transportation plan is being amended to show this project as a tolled
facility.
8.4 Noise
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources
including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and
highway vehicles. The magnitude of noise is usually described by its
sound pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms
of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C or D) (NCDOT Noise Assessment).
93
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
A-scale levels are in current use in many community and city noise
ordinances and in state and city highway or traffic noise codes (FHWA,
1980). Several examples of sound pressure levels (dBA) are listed in Table
8.2.
Table 8.2 Common Outdoor Noises
Source: FH WA, Highway Noise W ndam entals, Noise W ndam entals Training Docum ent, 1980.
The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends
essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
• Data derived from Table 8.2 suggests that land use growth and
development generally increase the level of ambient noise. Any
community and/or wildlife habitat experiencing an increased
level of activity (commercial or residential development, vehicle
traffic) would have the potential to also experience an increased
level of ambient noise. The habitat of various species, particularly
birds, may be altered in an attempt to avoid areas with increased
noise levels.
Preliminary ambient noise levels within the ICE Study Area range from
the low 40's to high 60's in regards of dBA readings depending on the
location of the measurement. 112
8.5 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources may be encroached upon where indirect land use
effects occur. The assessment of the indirect effects must focus on the
presence of National Register listed or eligible sites in the areas where
induced development is anticipated to occur.
m
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
9.0 TRANSPORTATION (Step 3 continued)
Methodology Summary - This section provides information about the influences that past
transportation actions have had on the ICE Study Area and actions that are deemed likely to
occur that may have the potential to affect land use planning.
The completion of I-485 between I-85 South and I-85 North through
western, southern, and eastern Mecklenburg County in early 2004 has
strengthened the transportation network within the ICE Study Area. I-485
allows trucks to bypass central Charlotte and provides an alternate
route to the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.
Gaston County's transportation infrastructure includes three interstate
highways intersecting Gaston County, Interstates 40, 85 and 77. There
are also major US highways that run through Gaston County such as US
Highways 29, 74 and 321. Major state highways traversing Gaston
County include NC Highways 7, 16, 27, 161, 273, 274, 275, and 279.
Weaknesses in the current transportation infrastructure include:
• Excessive traffic volume through the City of Gastonia.
• Access to the interstate systems is limited.
• I-85 and US 321 interchange is poorly designed.113
• Need for additional crossings over Catawba River between
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties.
9.1 Transportation Actions
The following transportation actions, in addition to the Gaston East-West
Connector, proposed within the ICE Study Area are included in the
NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (2007-2013):
• TIP# U-3405, Bessemer City, Gaston County. NC 274 (Gastonia
Highway), SR 1484 (Maine Avenue) to NC 275. Widen to five lanes
with curb and gutter. This project is funded and scheduled for
construction in FY 09.
• TIP# U-2408, Gastonia, Gaston County. NC 274, NC 275 to US 29-
74. Widen to multi-lanes. This project is funded and scheduled for
construction in FY 07.
95
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
• TIP# U-2713, Gastonia, Gaston County. SR 1131 (Linwood Road),
Crowders Creek to US 29-74-NC 274 (Franklin Boulevard), Widen to
multi-lanes. This project is not currently funded
• TIP# R-2608 Gaston County, Garden Parkway, 1-85 west of
Gastonia to US 321. Four lane divided freeway on new location.
The Charlotte-Douglas International Airport is expected to expand by
adding a 9,000-foot runway at the western edge of the airport. This
expansion is needed to provide sufficient airfield capacity during peak
operating periods, and to also provide a means of reducing delay
during peak periods.114 The expansion is expected to lead to increased
employment, payroll, and expenditures due to expanded facilities and
ability to accommodate projected growth in air travel. The expansion is
expected to be completed in early 2010.115 The expansion of the airport
will eventually expedite transfers of rail, air, and truck shipments.>>b A
new intermodal facility and logistics park is currently under consideration
by both the City of Charlotte and the Charlotte-Douglas International
Airport, according the Resident Vice President for Norfolk Southern
Corporation. The City of Charlotte envisions closing the present Norfolk
Southern intermodal facility and replacing it with a new facility with
sufficient room to accommodate future expansion. >»
The Charlotte region, including Gaston and Cleveland counties, is an
inland port and among the top choices for major distribution operations
due to its ideal location for interstate and intrastate commerce.>>$ The
Charlotte Region's distribution network links not only to local and
regional markets but also to national and international ones. The region
is currently served by three major interstate systems: I-77 north-south, I-85
north-south, and I-40 east-west. It also hosts an international airport with
regional supporting airports in 15 surrounding counties, and is a hub to
over 27,000 miles of freight rai1.119
As part of the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Expansion, parts of
Old Dowd Road, Wallace Neel Road, and NC 160 will be moved. The
airport has proposed to build two lanes of the new NC 160 from I-485
and Garrison Road east to Byrum Drive. The road will run along the
existing Byrum Drive and connect to a new four-lane section from Byrum
Drive and Yorkmont Road to where the existing NC 160 hits Horseshoe
Lane.120
m
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
The primary focus of rail transportation in Gaston County is freight. The
main Norfolk Southern Rail line running between Atlanta and Baltimore,
and the Amtrak12� Crescent Line from New Orleans to New York
traverses Gaston County. The CSX line between Wilmington, North
Carolina and Louisville, Kentucky also traverses Gaston County.122
Amtrak maintains passenger rail service daily to Gastonia.123 The current
Amtrak station in Gastonia has been proposed as a station location in
the Macon-Charlotte Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Plan as part of
the proposed high-speed rail operation between Charlotte, North
Carolina and Macon, Georgia.124 The 2030 Long Range 7ransportation
Plan discusses a possibility of a high-speed rail project connecting
Gastonia with other cities in the southeast.125 The Macon-Charlotte
Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor is part of a rapidly growing corridor
with very good market potential for high-speed services. North Carolina
Passenger Rail future service routes show this high-speed rail project
passing through Gastonia.126 There is currently no federal source for the
capital funding of this segment of the proposed High-Speed Rail Project.
The Gastonia transit system has experienced a slight decline in ridership
over the past few years. From FY 2000 to FY 2004, annual ridership
dropped from 483,991 to 333,919. This decrease may be attributed to an
increase in bus fares and revisions to service routes. There is also reason
to attribute the decline as the result of higher unemployment rates in
Gaston County, coupled with the change in the location of publicly-
subsidized housing away from transit routes.127
97
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
1 O.O AGRICULTURAL LANDS/PRIME FARMLANDS �STEP 3 CONTINUED�
Methodology Summary - This section provides information about the influences of land use
change on agricultural land uses including prime farmlands.
ICE's on agricultural land, including farmland and undeveloped land
with prime agricultural soils, occurs whenever land use is converted from
farming to urban land uses. The conversion of farmland to urban land
use would be expected to change the agricultural density in the
southern portions of Gaston County. This change in density on a regional
scale would be expected to reduce soil productivity in terms of the
agricultural output process, but not to a notable degree. A map of
farmland and prime agricultural soils is shown in Figure 10.1.
When considered on a much smaller scale, such as an individually
owned farm, the loss of land due indirectly to urban development may
equate to a reduction of soil productivity. This may especially be the
case as land suitable for farming becomes a more valuable commodity
to land developers. Soil degradation may also be result of additional
urban development due in part to the cumulative effects of increasing
amount of impervious surfaces and other non-point pollution sources.
m
REVISED DRAFi INDIRECi
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
AND CUMULAiIVE EFFECiS ASSESSMENi
11.0 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS �STEP 3 CONTINUED�
Methodology Summary- Socioeconomic conditions in the ICE Study Area, including: population,
job growth rates, environmental justice issues, per capita income, housing, commuting
accessibility and tourism are discussed in detail in this section.
The following figures serve as a baseline for the discussion in subsequent
subsections. The source of this information was primarily the US Bureau of
the Census (2000 Census of the Population); 2007 (estimate) and 2012
(forecasted) figures were provided through the ESRI Business Center
license maintained by The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Demographic
profiles are provided for the following geographic areas:
• Gaston County, North Carolina;
• Cleveland County, North Carolina;
• Mecklenburg County, North Carolina;
• York County, South Carolina;
• All Four Counties Combined; and
• ICE Study Area (boundary shown on Figure 6.1).
Figure 11.1. Gaston County Demographics
Basic Demographic Profile
Population
Households
Families
Average Household Size
Owner Occupied HUs
Renter Occupied HUs
Median Age
Households
Families
Owner HHs
Median Household Income
73,936
53,327
2.53
50,901
23,035
36.2
U./"Jo
U..3"Jo
O.b�o
Z.y�o
78,291
55,156
2.50
54,987
23,304
38.2
� ..3"Jo
� .U"Jo
I .3�0
3.3�0
80,968
55,974
2.48
56,699
24,269
39.8
Fl7
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Age Cohorts, Year2000 and 2012 (forecastedJ
75 - 84
55 - 64
35 - 44
20 - 24
10- 14
0-4
207
15% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Racial Cohorts, Years 2000, 2007 (estimatedJ and 2012 (forecastedJ
iao,000 ,
i bo,000 ' � Z�o
i ao,000
i zo,000 � � 2��
i oo,000 ; ■ zoi z
80,000
60,000 ,
40,000 � �
20,000 �r� �
White Black American Other Two or Hispanic
Indian Race More Origin
Races
••
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Figure 11.2. Cleveland County Demographics
Basic Demoaraphic Profile
Population
Households
Families
Average Household Size
Owner Occupied HUs
Renter Occupied HUs
Median Aae
Households
Families
Owner HHs
Median Household Income
37,046
27,001
2.53
26,984
10,062
36.5
0.6%
U.1%
0.5%
1.S�o
Age Cohorts, Year2000 and 2012 (forecastedJ
75 - 84
55 - 64
35 - 44
20 - 24
10- 14
38,911
27,721
2.50
28,906
10,005
38.5
1.3%
� .U%
1.3%
3.3�0
40,01 1
27,987
2.49
29,642
10,369
0 4 I _--
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Racial Cohorts, Years 2000, 2007 (estimatedJ and 2012 (forecastedJ
90,000 �
80,000 ❑ 2000
70,000
60,000 0 2007
50,000 ■ 2012
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
White Black American Other Two or Hispanic
Indian Race More Origin
Races
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Figure 11.3. Mecklenburg County Demographics
Basic Demoaraphic Profile
Population 6YJ,4J4
Households 273,416
Fa m i I i es 1 75,063
Average Household Size 2.49
Owner Occupied HUs 1 70,393
Renter Occupied HUs 103,023
Median Aae 33.1
Households 3.0%
Families 1.S%
Owner HHs 3.0%
Median Household Income .3.6%
Age Cohorts, Year2000 and 2012 (forecastedJ
�s-sa
55 - 64
35-44
20 - 24
10-14
0-4
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15%
341,708
212,258
2.46
217,126
124,582
34.8
1 .3%
I .0"10
1 .3%
.3..3%
395,670
239,888
2.45
251,934
143, 736
35.8
Racial Cohorts, Years 2000, 2007 (estimatedJ and 2012 (forecastedJ
�oo,000
600,000 ❑ 2000
500,000 ❑ 2007
400,000 � pp�p
300,000
200,000
100,000
White Black American Other Two or Hispanic
Indian Race Nore Origin
Races
�!
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Figure 11.4 York County, S.C. Demographics
Basic Demoaraphic Profile
Population 164,614
Households 61,051
Families 44,915
Average Household Size 2.63
Owner Occupied HUs 44,629
Renter Occupied HUs 16,422
Median Aae 34.9
Households 3.2%
Families 1./%
Owner HHs 3.3%
Median Household Income 3.1%
Age Cohorts, Year2000 and 2012 (forecastedJ
�s - sa
55 - 64
35 - 44
20 - 24
10 - 14
0-4
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5%
77,676
55,375
2.57
58,109
19,567
37.3
1.3%
I .0"10
1.3%
.3..3%
10% 15% 20%
91,065
63,391
2.55
68,207
22,858
Racial Cohorts, Years 2000, 2007 (estimatedJ and 2012 (forecastedJ
zoo,000
180,000
160,000 ❑ 2000
140,000 ❑ 2007
120,000 � 2��2
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
White Black American Other Two or Hispanic
Indian Race More Origin
Races
103
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Figure 11.5. Gaston, Mecklenburg, Cleveland, York Demographics
Basic Demographic Profile
Populafion
Households
Families
Average Household Size
Owner Occupied HUs
RenterOccupied HUs
N�dian Age
Populafion
Households
Families
Owner HHs
fv�dian Household Income
1,146,720
445,449
300,306
2.52
292,907
152,542
34.1
2.40%
2.52%
201 %
251 %
3.47%
8,049,313
3,132,013
2,158,869
2.49
2,172,355
959,658
35.3
1J2%
1.83%
1.40%
1.82%
3.28%
1,357,582
536,586
35Q510
2.48
359,128
177,458
35.8
1.22%
1.27%
1.00%
1.29%
3.29%
Age Cohorts, Year2000 and 2012 (forecastedJ
�s - sa
55-64
35 - 44
20-24
10 - 14
0-4
20%
9,068,106
3,583,756
2,404,772
2.45
2,530,200
1,053,556
37.2
1,528,564
607,714
387,240
2.47
406,482
201,232
36.9
15% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 2�7
Racial Cohorts, Years 2000, 2007 (estimatedJ and 2012 (forecastedJ
i,zoo,000
i,000,000 � ❑ z000
soo,000 o zom
■ zoiz
600,000 +
400,000 i
200,000 I
White Black American Other Two or Hispanic
Indian Race Nbre Origin
Races
9,873,032
3,924,768
2,577,559
2.45
2,768,403
1,156,365
38.5
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Figure 11.6. ICE Study Area Demographics
Basic Demographic Profile
Population 309,245 8,049,313 349,634
Households 118,6C3 3,132013 136,569
Families 85,276 2158,869 95,401
Average Hous2hold Sze 259 249 253
GwnerOC�upied HUS 8L589 2V2355 96,387
RenterOC�upied HUS 37,014 959,658 40,181
Median,�qe 35.3 35.3 37.5
�� � -
��
Populatlon � 1.69� 172� L22�
Households 1.82� 1.83� 127�
Families 1.36� 1.40� 1.00�
GwnerHHS 1.�� 1.82� 129�
Median Household In�me 3A5� 328� 329�
Age Cohorts, Year2000 and 2012 (forecastedJ
75 - 84
55-64
35 - 44
20 - 24
10 - 14
9,0G3,106
3,5ffiJ56
2404J72
2.45
25'�,2�
1,053,556
372
330,121
149,488
102075
2.52
105,814
43,673
33.9
9,873,032
3924J68
2577,559
2.45
2768,403
1,1 56,365
38.5
---I
� - 4 -�� � �--
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Racial Cohorts, Years 2000, 2007 (estimatedJ and 2012 (forecastedJ
300,000
250,000 ❑ 2000
200,00o I o 2007
150,000 I � 2012
100,000 �
50,000
White Black American Other Two or Hispanic
Indian Race More Origin
Races
105
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
i l. l Population
Both Gaston County and Mecklenburg County experienced population
growth between 1990 and 2000. Gaston County's population of 190,365
persons in 2000 was second only to Mecklenburg County (695,454) in the
Charlotte MSA.128
Gaston County has seen a steady population growth over the last forty
years, but not as explosively as other Charlotte-area counties. This slower
rate of growth is due in part to the Catawba River, which serves as a
natural barrier to growth from the east. However, during the early 2000s,
residential building permits more than doubled since the 1990s. Gaston
County is beginning to see a sharp increase in growth due to the
relatively easy commute into downtown Charlotte, the less expensive
land cost, and one of the last areas available for significant growth in
the region.129 The City of Gastonia grew at a rate about equal to the
State.
Between 1990 and 2000, the largest increases in population generally
occurred south of Gastonia, along the edge of the municipal limits,
followed by southeast and southwest Gaston County, and the southern
districts in Mecklenburg County.130 Among the identified districts within
Gaston County, the population grew fastest between 1990 and 2000 in
the Southeast from 57,958 to 66,905 persons.13� This equated to a growth
rate of 15.4%. The northwest portion of Gastonia, which has the smallest
population in Gaston County, increased by 11.6%, mainly because of
the number of manufactured homes that were located there between
1990 and 2000. The Gaston County population is predicted to grow
approximately 8.0% between 2000 and 2010 to 205,600 persons.
York County's population grew from 1990 to 2000 by 33,1 17 persons. This
represents a 25% change gain in the total population over the span of
one decade. Much of this growth is believed to be a reflection York
County's proximity to the Charlotte region. Growth projections in York
County suggest that between 2002 and 2025, population in York County
may grow by over 100,000 persons.
11.2 Environmental Justice
Census data at the block, county and national level from 2000
indicated that there are higher-than-average black populations within
the ICE Study Area, located west of Bessemer City, west of Gastonia,
and around the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. These are
f�
REVISED DRAFi INDIRECi
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
AND CUMULAiIVE EFFECiS ASSESSMENi
generally the same locations where higher-than-average
Hispanic/Latino populations also are located.132 There do not appear to
be any general areas where the population composition has higher-
than-average senior or youth populations.133 The lowest reported
median incomes are generally located in the block groups
concentrated south and west of Bessemer City, west of Gastonia, and
around the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.
11.3 Job Growth Rate
Gaston County's economy has historically been heavily linked to the
textile industry. Decline in the textile industry over the past decade has
resulted in a significant loss in basic manufacturing jobs.134 Figure 11.7
indicates the existing employment composition of Gaston,
Mecklenburg, Cleveland, and York counties, and compares the
composition to the approximate ICE Study Area as a whole.
Figure 11.7 Employment Composition (2007 estimated)
Public Administration
Services
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
Information
Tra nsportati on/Uti I iti es
Retail Trade
Wholesale Trade
Manufaduring
Construdion
Ag ri cul ture/Mi ni ng
�
�
�
-
�
�
-
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ICEStudyArea Cleveland York,SC�Mecklenburg�Gaston�
Source: ESRI BusinessAnaiyst, December, 2007
As can be quickly seen from this figure, Cleveland is still in the very early
stages of the agriculture-to-services trend that has been seen in this
Region as well as many others in the rest of the country. Gaston's
economy is fairly evenly balanced, as is York County and the Region as
a whole. Mecklenburg County, not surprisingly, has nearly completed a
transition to a primarily service- and banking (or FIRE: Fire, Insurance, and
Real Estate) economy, with an important contribution from the
io�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
information technology sector. York and Gaston counties most closely
mimic the ICE Study Area.
Over the past decade, Gaston County has seen an increase in the
services and trade sectors while the manufacturing sector, largely tied
to the textile industry, has lost employment. Employment, especially in
the retail and service sectors, tends to follow new residential
development. Gastonia is moving away from an industrial economy
and shifting to service jobs, information-related jobs, and healthcare.
Gaston Memorial Hospital is the only hospital in the County and is also
one of the County's largest employers.135 Between 1990 and 1999,
Gaston County lost an estimated 7,702 manufacturing sector jobs, yet
conversely gained approximately 7,713 jobs in the service and trade
sectors.136 The service industry in Gaston County is forecasted to
represent 26.7% of the total employment for the County in 2010 with an
estimated 87,300 workers by 2010.137
Based on employment by sector projections between 1999 and 2010,
an additional 1.3 million square feet of office and 1.6 million square feet
of retail will be needed to meet the demand of the growing services
and trade sectors. These forecasts are based on current market trends
and do not reflect any major corporate or industrial relocation into
Gaston County.138
The employment projections for Gaston County presented in the 2030
Long Range 7ransportation Plan show a drop in employment growth
occurring between years 2000-2010 resulting from the many closings in
the last several years.139 According to GUAMPO projections, there will be
some rebounding in the employment sector by 2030, although it is
unlikely that the jobs will be in the textile industry.�ao
Gaston County's five largest economic resources, in order of percent of
total employment, are manufacturing; health care and social
assistance; retail trade; accommodation and food services; and
educational services.
f�Q.'-'
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Over 63% of the County's output and almost 43% of the employment in
Gaston County can be clustered in eight groups:
• Motor vehicles;
• Textile;
• Construction;
• Chemicals & plastics;
• Regional medical;
• Wholesale&warehouse;
• Machinery & tools; and
• Basic metals.14�
Gaston County has an excess of empty Class C industrial buildings
(mostly abandoned textile-related mills) which have little potential for
adaptive reuse except in urban areas like downtown Gastonia. More
Class A and B facilities may need to be developed for recruiting new
industry, and preserving undeveloped land for future industrial use
instead of it being subdivided into smaller parcels by uncoordinated
residential developments.142 Based on the industrial demand forecast
presented in the Cleveland-Gaston Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy (July 2003), approximately 138,000 square feet
annually between 2006 and 2012 could be required to accommodate
industrial growth.143 Industrial vacancy is directly tied to manufacturing
and wholesale trade job growth. The textile industry is projected to
continue shrinking, although at a significantly reduced rate from the last
decade. As a result, the Gaston County Class C office vacancy rate will
likely continue to climb, but at a slower pace than that of the previous
decade.144 According to the Cleveland-Gaston Comprehensive
Economic Development Strategy, Gaston County's overall office
vacancy rate is well within acceptable trade standards for
development. Gaston County could begin to emerge as a viable multi-
tenant office market by 2012 based in growth in transportation
infrastructure, including the proposed project, favorable market
conditions in Mecklenburg County, and increased levels of higher-
income households.145 The study has identified the following locations
that are likely to support new office development, with the type of
space described within the parentheses:
• I-85 and NC-273, near Belmont and Mt. Holly (regional
park);
• Gaston Memorial Hospital (medical); and
• Union Road between Hudson Boulevard and the Gaston
County Municipal Airport (small professional buildings).
�
REVISED DRAFi INDIRECi
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
AND CUMULAiIVE EFFECiS ASSESSMENi
Charlotte-Mecklenburg has a strong record of economic vitality, of new
jobs, and an expanding tax base.146 The employment boom has been
led by sales and services, which tend to lag behind other sectors when
comparing income. Mecklenburg County's Strategic Business Plan 2008-
2015 indicated that Mecklenburg County was experiencing positive net
growth in terms of employment, and that the job growth rate in
Mecklenburg for fiscal year 2006 had increased by 2.05 percent overall.
Mecklenburg County is very different from Gaston County due to the
presence of North Carolina's largest city, Charlotte. Mecklenburg
County's five major economic resources are retail trade; finance and
insurance; health care and social assistance; accommodation and
food service: and administrative and water services.147
York County has a higher percentage of its population in the labor force
when compared to other counties in South Carolina, and enjoys low
unemployment. Projected labor force data shows a growing labor force
for York County to 2025.148 York County's largest employment sector is
manufacturing, employing 15% of all workers in the County. Other large
employment sectors include retail trade; health care and social
assistance; accommodations and food service; and local government.
11.4 Per Capita Income
Per capita income in Gaston County has lagged behind most of the ICE
Study Area, with wage levels dropping, transfer payments2, and poverty
rates increasing (see Table 1 1.l ). Mecklenburg County is the only county
within the ICE Study Area with an above-state average per capita
income.�a9
Table 11.1 Per Capita Income
Per 20,307 18,795 19,225
capita
income in
1999
Source: AmericanFactFinder,Census2000
17, 395 I 27,352 I 20,536
� hansfer payment is a payment of money from a govemment to an individual forwhich no good or service is
required in refurn.
�
REVISED DRAFi INDIRECi
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
AND CUMULAiIVE EFFECiS ASSESSMENi
11.5 Housing Stock Mix and Value
The southeastern portion of Gaston County is estimated to surpass other
portions of the County in regards to housing units. By 2010 the southeast
portion of Gaston County is estimated to grow by 3,800 housing units.
This volume of housing stock is followed by the northeast portion of the
County that is estimated to grow to 1,900 units by 2010.�so
Outside the municipal boundaries, the land uses in southern Gaston
County are predominately rural, with residential subdivisions scattered
among large tracts of undeveloped and agricultural land. The shores of
the Catawba River and the South Fork Catawba River in both Gaston
and Mecklenburg counties have attracted high-end residential
development.15�
The Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization developed
future socioeconomic projections as part of the 2030 Long Range
7ransportation Plan. According to this Plan, projections for residential
development opportunities indicate that during the horizon years of
2020 and 2030, the proposed Gaston East-West Connector will be
instrumental in attracting housing units. It will also be instrumental in
decisions to provide water and sewer lines to the southeastern portion of
the County, specifically in Mount Holly, Belmont, and southeast
Gastonia.152
Median home values in York County have increased 23.5% over the six-
year period 2000 to 2006, with a median home now valued at
$129,575.153 York County's growing home values are expected to
continue. Only the figures for the Charlotte region topped York County's
median home values.
Mecklenburg County has reported in their 2015 Plan that Charlotte is
losing their historical edge on housing affordability. Charlotte has
become one of the most expensive southern cities in which to purchase
a house.154 Table 1 1.2 below indicates that Mecklenburg has the highest
median housing value in the ICE Study Area.
Table 11.2 Median Housing Value
• • 95,800 83,100 86,600
Source: AmericanFactfinder,Census2000
77, 600 I 139, 000 I 104, 9 00
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
11.6 Commuting and Accessibility
Knowing the number of people living and working in Gaston, as well as
their travel behavior to and from work, is useful to describe the level of
interaction between Gaston County and neighboring counties. The
level of commuting interaction in turn helps to describe a"catchment"
area or "commuteshed" for Gaston County residents and workers, an
important consideration for developing an ICE spatial boundary.
Table 11.3 contains information on the commuting characteristics of
Gaston County workers and residents.
Table 11.3 Commute Statistics for Gaston County, 1990 and 2000
•� ��� -
People Who Work in Gaston County 81,326 75,116 -8%
Live and Work in Gaston County 64,827 56,321 -13%
Live Someplace Else and Work Here 16,499 18,795 14%
%workforce commuting in 20% 25% 25%
People Who Live in Gaston County and Work Elsewhere 22,854 33,020 44%
% resident workers commuting out 26% 37% 42%
Counties Where Gaston Workers Live*' 1990 2000
Gaston County 64,827 56,321 -13%
Cleveland County 4,910 5,963 21%
Mecklenburg County 3,596 3,948 10%
Lincoln County 3,421 3,166 -7%
York County, SC 2,745 2,526 -8%
Counties Where Gaston Residents Work* 1990 2000
Gaston County 64,827 56,321 -13%
Mecklenburg County 16,624 23,101 39%
Cleveland County 2,108 2,442 16%
Lincoln County 1,458 1,868 28%
York County, SC 917 1,602 75%
� N� ir. �ny �aston ana tne next tour counties are inaicatea; tne counties �nntn tne next-nignest numoer ot
commuters were much lowerthan any of tYie counties shown here. Forexample, tYie county with tYie ne�A-
highest number of residents that worked in Gaston Couniy was Cabarrus Couniy witYi 400 commuters.
Source: US Census2000 and Knight-Ridder
�
REVISEO DRNfi �NOIRECi NNO CYMYLNiIVE EfiECiS ASSESSMENi
Ci0.5iON ENSi-WESi CONNECiOR
TIP No: LL3321
A�gus}, 2008
As demonstrated in Figure 11.8, Gaston County was a net exporter of
workers in the 2000 U.S. Census; that is, more people live in Gaston
County and work elsewhere �33,020) than commute into Gaston County
�18,795). Most of the workers recorded in the U.S. Census in 2000 actually
lived and worked in Gaston County �56,321), although that number
decreased from 1990 �64,827). The number of workers in Gaston County
actually declined between 1990 and 2000 which, combined with a
rapid �42%) increase in the percentage of residents that work outside of
Gaston County, may be indicative of a further trend towards a reliance
on external work locations for Gaston County residents. This opinion was
validated by some of the local expert interviews. For the purposes of this
study, the generally sharp increase of commuter interaction between
Gaston and surrounding counties supplies an important indicator of an
appropriate ICE Study Area.
Figure 11.8 also illustrates the same daily commuter flow information as a
"desire line" map; the thickness of the arrows indicates the proporfion of
commuters coming into and out of Gaston County each day, while the
color red represents increases in flow, and the color green represents
reductions in flows between the 1990 and 2000 census periods.
Figure 11.8 Daily Commuter Flows (2000) and Percent Change (1990 -
2000)
Daily Commuters (2000)
1, 000
2,000
5,000 �
20,000 �
%Change, 1990 to 2000
-20% .
-10%
+10%
+20% -
Lincoln
�—
�leveland - �
Gaston�
Mecklenburg
Source: US Census 2W0 and Knight-Ridder
York
113
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
A number of interviewees cited the increased land accessibility that the
proposed Gaston East-West Connector would offer as a primary benefit
of or concern associated with the project, including representatives of
the Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden, Crowders Mountain State Park, and
Charlotte-Mecklenburg transportation and planning staff.
A common technical method of considering changes in accessibility is
to use a gravity-based travel demand model (if available) that can
produce travel times from each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) to every other
TAZ (as well as the more typical product of forecasted traffic volumes on
major roadways). Gravity models assume that the willingness of travelers
to go to any destination in the modeled area is dependent on (A) the
distance, or impedance, between the origin and the destination; and
(B) the "attractiveness" of the destination, usually measured by number
of jobs, shopping, education opportunities, etc. in each TAZ. The
limitations of travel demand models, including the Metrolina Regional
Travel Demand Model (MRTDM) used for this assessment, are fairly well-
known: travel behaviors are assumed to be very similar to those that we
see today; the model is strongly calibrated against known, recent traffic
count data; and the socioeconomic data used in traditional four-step
travel models are subject to inaccuracies, particularly during the
attempt of forecasting new development. Nevertheless, these models
are commonly accepted by the transportation industry; represent a
considerable effort to obtain accuracy by a number of involved parties
in the Region (for example, over $2.5 million was invested to help
provide data inputs to the 2005-2006 version of the MRTDM);155 and are
the best tools available for considering land accessibility changes
produced by proposed transportation infrastructure improvements in
most regions of the country.
Two versions of the MRTDM were considered for this study: one is the
older 2006 model ("2006 MRTDM") and the newer 2007 MRTDM.
Although the newer edition is better calibrated in the vicinity of the
Gaston East-West Connector project, the former model has a longer
history and allowed a rapid build/no-build comparison of travel times to
be created, shown in Figure 1 1.9.
This figure suggests that the greatest travel time savings are in those
geographic areas where the transportation network is the least dense
and will offer the least east-west connectivity in the year 2030 under the
No-Build alternative, namely York County and southern Gaston County.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
However, some areas around interchanges will also see improved travel
time savings in the range of three to fifteen minutes. This map supports
the study framework concepts of including York County in the analysis
(although the travel time effects are probably overstated due to the
southern geographic limits of the MRTDM). Specifically, limiting the study
area limits to the west in Cleveland County; south of I-85 in Gaston and
Mecklenburg counties; and tightening the eastern extents of the study
area somewhat in Mecklenburg County.
Travel time isochrones — lines on a map that connect equal travel times
from a single origin point — are also useful in examining the effect radius
of mobility created by a proposed transportation project. In Figure
11.10, the 2007 version of the MRTDM was utilized to show the travel
times near the east end of the project, and another point near the west
end (shown as green dots). The maps shown in Figure 1 1.10 should only
be used to provide another qualitative piece of information relating the
potential effects of the proposed project to the surrounding
communities.
The average commute time for Gaston County (as well as Charlotte)
residents in 2000 was approximately 25 minutes; the average transit
rider's trip length was about 36 minutes. Hence, a reasonable, maximum
commuteshed would be at approximately the 40-minute isochrone
(marked in red dashes in Figure 11 .10). The travel time isochrones clearly
show some deformation around the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector project, indicating that the project is influencing mobility
levels in the 2030 model environment. The deformation is extended
along the interchange areas, providing justification for paying special
attention to those areas during the assessment of Indirect and
Cumulative Effects.
11.7 Tourism
The Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden is a 450-acre tourist attraction
located on NC 279 (New Hope Road) south of Belmont near Lake Wylie.
Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden has been in existence for 12 years,
attracting as many as 30,000 visitors per year before opening their new
gardens in 1999 with an investment exceeding $20 million. Since that
time, the Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden has attracted 50,000 to 75,000
visitors per year. According to Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden's
Executive Director, the Garden has the potential to attract as many as
500,000 visitors per year.156 Some of those interviewed noted that the
Garden management has been supportive of the Gaston East-West
115
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Connector project, noting that it would provide much better access to
the property than what currently exists.
Crowders Mountain State Park covers over 3,000 acres of
topographically, botanically, and zoologically diverse land and is a
tourist attraction of regional notability. Six natural plant communities are
found in the park, and the area supports a diversity of wildlife species.
Some animals documented in the Park have not been documented
elsewhere in the Country.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
12.0 IDENTIFY POTENTIAL INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS �STEPS 4& 5�
Methodology Summary - This section of the report addresses potential indirect and cumulative
effects of the No-Build (absence of the projectJ, and the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives.
12.1 Indirect and Cumulative Land Use Effects
The following discussion summarizes some of the information contained
in previous sections of this report, highlighting and detailing those
elements that would potentially influence (or be influenced by) the
Gaston East-West Connector Project. Speculation in the development of
these descriptions is kept to a minimum to reflect the emphasis on a set
of effects that are deemed likely to occur or effects. Primarily, the
descriptions rely on:
• local expert interviews;
• the policy context reviews conducted during this study as well
as the Community Characteristics Report conducted earlier
this year for this project by PBS&J (August, 2007) ;
• the review and inventory of community and habitat notable
features; and
• Spatial grid analyses and mapping
• Fiqure 12.1, Human and Natural Environment Sensitivity;
• Fiqure 12.2, Growth Potential;
• Fiqure 12.3, Composite of Growth Potential and
Human/Natural Environmental Sensitivity;
• Fiqure 12.4, Community Features;
• Fiqure 12.5, Public Utilities,
• Fiqure 12.6, Developable Land;
• Fiqure 12.7, Development OverTime; and
Fiqure 12.8, Alternative Interchanges.
The spatial grid analysis addresses two key aspects of indirect effects:
sensitivity of the area to change and potential for future growth as a
result of the proposed project. The methodology involved to graphically
illustrate and numerically calculate these aspects was to divide the ICE
Study Area into one-mile square grids, then use the grid cells to
summarize data layers that capture sensitivity and growth potential. We
first created two separate indices, one for natural and human
environment sensitivity; and one for growth potential. The data layers
that went into each index are listed in Table 12.1, and a complete
description of the methodology follows the table.
iv
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Table 12.1 Data Layers Used to Calculate Grid Indices
. - - - �. . . - . -. . -
Human and Natural Environment Sensitivity •
Community resources Vector point ESRI, Four counties Number 0 8
(schools, churches, (various) present
cemeteries, hospitals)
Historic places (sites and Vector point Number 0 6
districts) and polygon present
Above average � non- Vector U.S. Census Yes/no 0 1
white population polygon
Above average � Hispanic Vector U.S. Census Yes/no 0 1
population polygon
Lowest 20� of inedian Vector U.S. Census Yes/no 0 1
household income polygon
Prime agricultural soils Vector USDA (soils), Four � of 0 0.64
polygon counties (parcels) undeveloped
land area
Wildlife habitat (forest and Raster NLCD 2001, � of land area 0 0.98
grassland/shrub) corrected with 2005
and 2006 aerials from
four counties
Farmland Raster NLCD 2001, � of land area 0 0.43
corrected with
parcels from four
counties
Natural Heritage Element Vector point Natural Heritage Number 0 8
Occurrence* Program (NCDENR) present
303(d) listed stream or lake Vector line NCDENR, SCDNR Yes/no 0 1
Rivers Vector line ESRI, Four counties Miles 0 2.98
Critical habitat Vector NCDENR Yes/no 0 1
polygon
Watersupplywatershedll* Vector NCDENR Yes/no 0 1
polygon
WatersupplywatershedlV* Vector NCDENR Yes/no 0 1
polygon
Lakes Vector ESRI, Four counties � of area 0 0.74
polygon
Floodplain Vector NC Floodmap � of land area 0 0.35
polygon
Wetlands Vector National Wetlands � of land area 0 0.31
polygon Inventory
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Table 12.1 Data Layers Used to Calculate Grid Indices (Cont'd)
. - - .- �. . . - . -. . -
rowth Potential
Public water service (current Vector NC Center for � of land area 0 1
and proposed) polygon Geographic
Information &
Analysis, NC Rural
Public sewer service (current Vector Center, Gaston � of land area 0 1
and proposed) polygon County, York County,
City of Gastonia,
Towns of Clover and
Belmont, Carolina
Water Services
Developable parcels Vector Four counties � of land area 0 0.95
polygon
Difference in growth potential Vector Stakeholder Score 0.1 1.52
with and without roadway: by polygon interviews (see
district Appendix D)
Difference in growth potential Vector Stakeholder Score 0 1.45
with and without roadway: by polygon interviews (see
interchange Appendix D)
Recent development (average Vector Three counties Years 1939 2004
age of houses by parcel)* polygon (Gaston,
Mecklenburg,
Cleveland)
Primary roads Vector line NCDOT Miles 0 5.75
Projected population growth Vector Metrolina Travel People 0.26 5053
(difference between 2000 actual polygon Demand Model
nd 2030 projected populations)
Decrease in travel time with Vector Metrolina Travel Minutes 0.01 15.08
road polygon Demand Model
' Layers only appllcable to/avallable In North Carolma (absent m York CountyJ
To create the indices, values for each data layer were calculated for
the one-mile grid cells. Depending on the data layer, the resulting
values may be binary (e.g., "yes/no") or continuous (e.g., percentage
of land area designated as wetlands). Table 12.1 indicates for each
data layer both the units and the unscaled values. To compile the
index, each data layer was rescaled to have values of 0 to 1(i.e. the
maximum value was set equal to one, and other values were
calculated as percentages of the maximum value. For example, miles
of primary roads is part of the growth potential, so the maximum,
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
unscaled value of 5.75 miles was scaled to equal 1. A grid cell with an
unscaled value of two miles would then have a scaled value of 0.35. In
this way, data layers with diverse metrics can be combined to allow
valid comparisons.
The scaled values for environmental sensitivity and for growth potential
were then summed, and are shown in Figures 12.1, and 12.2,
respectively. Grid cells with higher index values indicate that more of
the data layers had high values in that area. For this initial analysis, the
various data layers were not weighted in any way — each layer has
equal weight in the overall value. The two indices were then separately
scaled again and combined to form the composite map in Figure 12.3,
again weighing the environmental sensitivity and growth potential
equally. Grid cells with high values in the composite map indicate areas
of relatively high sensitivity as well as high growth potential. These areas
may be considered at greater risk for effects from the proposed project.
Protected lands, such as Crowder Mountain State Park and Daniel
Stowe Botanical Gardens, are shown as white areas in Figures 12.2 and
12.3 because they cannot be developed (thus there is no growth
potential). Developed land is included in the analysis since it has the
potential to be redeveloped more intensively. Undeveloped land is
given priority over developed land in the analysis by inclusion of the
developable parcels layer, as well as the projected population growth
layer (which would give lower values for already-developed areas and
higher for those currently vacant).
With three exceptions, all data layers were available for the entire ICE
Study Area. Two exceptions are Natural Heritage Element Occurrences
and Water Supply Watersheds, which occur in North Carolina but have
no corresponding programs in South Carolina. Thus, there are no values
for these layers in York County. An additional exception is Recent
Development, which was calculated based on the year built contained
in the parcel databases. Although we have the parcel database for
York County, year built data was not available at the time this analysis
was conducted. As a result of the lower potential maximum value in
York County, steps were taken to avoid potential bias against that area.
In the display of Figures 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3, values for York County were
scaled separately from those of other counties. Therefore, the maximum
value in York County is shown as the same color/quantile as the
maximum value in other counties, although the numeric values may be
different.
i2o
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Each of the following descriptions is broken out into county-level indirect
effects; county-level cumulative effects; and district and interchange-
level effects and effects. For ease of reference, the county is used as
the starting point for the discussion.
12.1.1 York County
Indirect Effects. Of the entire study area, York County tends to be the
most rural in its northern reaches which, although in a different state, are
in closer proximity to the majority of the project than other, adjacent
North Carolina counties. The staff of the York County government
(interviewed on October 18, 2007) did indicate some concerns about
indirect effects, but generally stated that the project would not alter the
pace or character of development. Also noted was the change in
travel patterns, which might influence some travelers from North
Carolina to not drive through South Carolina for certain destinations.
However, in terms of ineasurable accessibility (2007 Metrolina Regional
Travel Demand Model), the project would influence regional travel
times in some areas in double-digit minutes saved.
The proposed Gaston East-West Connector is consistent with initiatives
established in York County including programs such as Pennies for
Progress in that it provides an improved transportation system for York
County residents and businesses that may want to travel into Gaston or
Mecklenburg Counties in North Carolina.
District and Interchange-Level Effects. While no interchanges are
located in York County, preliminary accessibility and mobility
assessments indicate that reductions in travel time will occur in
both of the two districts (Districts 9 and 10) in York County.
Conversations with the planning, engineering, and management
staff of York County suggested that the interchanges of the
proposed project are too distant to have much influence in York
County; this is especially true of the northern alignment options.
When asked if the study area could be reduced to the north side
of Clover, they responded that they could see no reason why that
would influence the quality of the ICE study.
Cumulative Effects. York County staff noted that other roadway
projects, such as improvements to US 321 and SC 49, were much more
responsible for influencing and contributing to secondary development
in the area. A surplus of water and sewer capacities (more the former)
121
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
have helped push growth in the few areas where public utilities are
available (e.g., Clover, South Carolina). York County's low tax rate and
quality of life aspects were felt to be strong attractors for new growth
and development. South Carolina and York County do have some tools
for managing growth, such as an Adequate Public Facility Ordinance
(APFO) that is being developed now. The County Manager made a
specific point of stating that concerns about development / stormwater
effects from development in York and Mecklenburg / Gaston counties
would contribute to water quality degradation in York County and the
Catawba River, specifically.
Water quality within the Catawba River Basin is likely to be affected
cumulatively as development contributes to the current trend of
increased impervious surfaces in the York County portion of the ICE
Study Area. Water resources having the potential to be cumulatively
affected by non-point source pollution resulting from other actions
associated with the proposed project includes the Catawba River, Lake
Wylie, and Crowders Creek, a Section 303(d)-listed stream.
12.1.2 Cleveland County
Indirect Effects. Interviews conducted during the project indicated that
those interviewed believed that Cleveland County would not be
influenced by the Project to any discernable degree in terms of
accelerating or changing development patterns. Cleveland County is
already undergoing a significant trend toward suburbanization. Travel
times from Cleveland County would be affected by the Project for
destinations to the east, particularly "long-haul" trips that would use the
entire project; for example, trips to and from the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport or Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden.
The proposed Gaston East-West Connector is consistent with Cleveland
County's Land Use Plan in that it would provide an improved
transportation network to residents traveling to and from destination to
the east of the county.
District and Interchange-Level Effects. None of the proposed
interchanges for any alternative alignment are within Cleveland
County, and the sole district that was considered as a part of the
ICE Study Area is too distant from the proposed project
(according to those interviewed that spoke about Cleveland
County) to feel any indirect economic effect.
122
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Cumulative Effects. This assessment did not identify any potential
cumulative impacts associated with other actions occurring or likely to
occur in portions of Cleveland County included in the ICE Study Area.
12.1.3 Mecklenburg County
Indirect Effects. Mecklenburg County, as it has done for several years,
continues to develop at a fast pace, which includes a greater
proportion of infill development as the outer limits of the County are
being reached. Historically, the west side of the County has been the
slowest to develop in part due to the presence of the airport. However,
growth produced from the Gaston East-West Connector is expected to
be very minimal, although the roadway would potentially accelerate
non-residential construction plans, again, most particularly in the area of
the airport.
The proposed Gaston East-West Connector is consistent with Charlotte-
Mecklenburg 2015 Plan and Mecklenburg County's 2008-2010 Strategic
Business Plan in that it will contribute to the accommodation of
transportation needs that are anticipated with expected growth in the
western portion of the county including non-residential construction
plans.
Cumulative Effects. The western side of Mecklenburg County has been
growing rapidly in recent years, as other parts of the County (particularly
the north and southeast) have reached near-capacity for the preferred
type of single-family, detached dwelling units and demand for
moderately-priced housing has pushed demand to the formerly slow-
growing west side. An important generator of cumulative effects is the
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, which is currently expanding (A)
roadway access points; (B) adding a fourth runway on the west side of
the facility; and (C) creating a new intermodal (rail switching area)
facility on the existing airport site. Additionally, new storage, flex-space,
and distribution facilities will be added with or without the presence of
the Gaston East-West Connector, contributing to passenger and freight
traffic; associated emissions; secondary support employment
opportunities; and demand for moderately-priced housing and retail
shopping opportunities.
Actions including the airport expansion, residential and commercial
development and infrastructure improvements in Mecklenburg County
have the potential to cumulatively impact water quality through
erosion and stream sedimentation in the absence of stormwater
123
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
management regulations requiring Best Management Practices.
Water resources having the potential to be cumulatively affected by
non-point source pollution include the Catawba River, Beaverdam
Creek; Legion Lake and Shoaf Lake and Section 303(d) listed streams
located in the southwest portion of the county. Section 303(d) streams
with the potentially to be cumulatively affected include:
• Irwin Creek;
• Little Sugar Creek;
• McAlpine Creek; and
• Dallas Branch.
Construction of the proposed project also has the potential to add to
forest fragmentation and wildlife habitat disturbance in the southwest
section of the County.
12.1.4 Gaston County
Indirect Effects. Growth and development is prevalent in Gaston
County. Historically, many of Gaston County's municipalities such as
Cramerton and Belmont have served as bedroom communities to
Charlotte. Development in these areas has been predominantly
residential and retail oriented. This growth trend has been carried into
the present. One notable reason for this growth trend is limited access
across the Catawba River. The construction of the Gaston East-West
Connector would provide another access route across the Catawba
River in the southeast portion of Gaston County, potentially facilitating
more growth and development in the southeast and southern portions
of the County. The project would also provide better access to the west
and northwest portion of the County, potentially changing the existing
growth pattern that today is primarily residential and commercial to
more light industry growth.
The Gaston East-West Connector is consistent with the stated need in
the 2030 Long-Range 7ransportation Plan to provide significant
infrastructure in Gaston County to accommodate existing and future
growth. The proposed Gaston East-West Connector has been included
in Gastonia's 2010 Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with land use
strategies to manage existing and anticipated new growth in Gastonia.
District and Interchange-Level Effects. Mecklenburg County has
two districts: District 5(north of I-85 and NC 74) and District 6(south
of I-85 to the county/state line). The northern-most district (5) was
124
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
cited as an area of rapid residential and commercial growth,
sponsored not by any anticipation of the proposed project, but
by other roadway improvements well to the north of the proposed
Gaston East-West Connector. District 6 is dominated by the
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, as discussed previously.
However, the demand for homes on the east side of the
Catawba River has increased, which may contribute more to
stormwater runoff contributions in this watershed.
The only service interchanges on the east (Mecklenburg) side of
the Gaston East-West Connector are Dixie River Road
Interchange and the I-485 Interchange. The interviewees did not
provide much distinction between the interchange options;
however, the additional access clearly would serve burgeoning
non-residential development around the interchange as well as
the high-end housing that is starting to appear around the
waterfront areas.
For the purposes of this report, Gaston County was split into districts
(shown in Figure 3.2). The potential effects of each district with and
without the proposed project are discussed below.
• District 2(north of I-85, includes Bessemer City) is an area
characterized by high residential and commercial development
north of I-85. According to planning officials, an industrial parkway
that would connect industrial development to Bessemer City is in
the planning stages. Gaston County's Economic Development
Council is currently working with Bessemer City to attract light
industry to the area. Construction of the proposed project would
benefit Bessemer City's attempts to attract industrial growth in the
City by improving access to the Charlotte Region.
Future growth patterns in Bessemer City in the absence of the
proposed project would likely follow existing patterns and consist
of mixed residential and commercial growth, particularly in the
Edgewood Road area.
• District 3(north of I-85, includes Lowell, McAdenville, Ranlo and
Spencer Mountain) has high residential potential, especially in the
vicinity of Spencer Mountain. The proposed Gaston East-West
Connector has the potential to improve roadway capacity on US
74 and I-85 to allow more development to occur in this District.
125
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Future residential growth patterns in this district in the absence of
the proposed project would likely occur adjacent to access roads
north and south of I-85.
• District 4(north of I-85 and west of the Catawba River) has existing
mixed use residential and commercial development. Future
growth in this district is restrained due to current sewer capacity
issues. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to have
negligible effects on this District.
• District 7(south of I-85 and west of the Catawba River, including
Belmont and Cramerton) is experiencing rapid residential growth,
especially near the waterfront and in coves of the Catawba River
and South Fork Catawba River. The proposed Gaston East-West
Connector would improve access to developable land in this
District and provide travel time savings for those wanting to live in
Gaston County and commute to the Charlotte Region. The
anticipated growth in this District would be predominantly
residential, but there is some opportunity for commercial and light
industry as well. Future growth in this District is relatively restrained
due to the need for utility infrastructure expansion and the need
for more schools.
This area is anticipated to continue to grow without the
construction of the proposed project, but not as rapidly.
• District 8(south of I-85, east of Crowders Mountain State Park and
south of Bessemer City) is experiencing rapid residential growth.
Industrial or commercial growth in this area is unlikely due to its
close proximity of segments in these Detailed Study Alternatives to
cultural resource sites. Crowders Mountain State Park and the
desire of community leaders to keep this area more pristine. The
proposed project site is near Crowders Creek, a 303(d) listed
stream, and wetlands which could restrain future development.
This area is anticipated to continue to grow without the
construction of the proposed project, but not as rapidly.
The interviewees did not provide much distinction between
interchange options in most cases, which allowed the grouping of
126
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
interchanges when assessing potential effects. The potential indirect
effects associated with the proposed interchanges follows.
• Interchange A(HIA; H2A, I-85 Interchange) has some existing
commercial land use and areas that are being redeveloped (see
Figure 12.10). If the proposed project is constructed, this
interchange area is anticipated to develop more commercially
then it is currently.
• Interchange B(HIA; H2C; H3, Interchange NC 29/NC 74) has
experienced some recent residential development near the
interchange locations stemming from Bessemer City (see Figure
12.10). If constructed, the Gaston East-West Connector could
change land use in the future from predominately residential to
more commercially oriented land use. Construction of an
interchange in this area may affect water resources, including
wetland areas and Crowders Creek, a Section 303(d) listed
stream.
• Interchange C(Hl A; H2C; H3, Linwood Road) has some residential
development and adequate utility infrastructure (see Figure
12.1 1). It is unlikely that any development other than residential
will occur here in the future due to these interchange areas being
a part of the scenic landscape of Crowders Mountain State Park.
Currently, zoning regulations accommodate residential
development in these areas. Construction of the proposed
project may hasten the rate in which residential development
occurs due to improved access. Construction of an interchange
in this area would improve access to Crowders Mountain State
Park.
• Interchange D(Hl C, Lewis Road) has high end residential
development (see Figure 12.12). Much of the developable land is
zoned residential due to its proximity to Crowders Mountain State
Park. Construction of the proposed Gaston East-West Connector
may hasten the rate in which residential development occurs due
to improved access to the Charlotte Region. Construction of an
interchange in this area would improve access to Crowders
Mountain State Park.
• Interchange E(JIA; J4A, Interchange NC 321) area land use
consists of some single family residential developments; numerous
mobile home parks and industrial development (see Figure 12.12).
Much of the existing development is adjacent to US 321. Areas in
the vicinity of the proposed interchange of the Gaston East-West
Connector and US 321 south of Gastonia are suitable for infill
127
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
development and redevelopment that enhances existing
industrial uses.157 With the opening of the interchange, traffic
patterns will shift and accessibility to the area will improve. New
development that includes a variety of office, distribution and
light industrial space could be strengthened in this area as an
employment center.158
County officials indicated during interviews that there was a
planned mobile home park near the interchange area.
Construction of the proposed Gaston East-West Connector may
accelerate the rate in which residential development occurs due
to improved access.
• Interchange F(J1C; J2C/J2D, Robinson Road) is located amongst
developable land parcels (see Figure 12.13). The potential for
residential development is moderate due to sewer pumping
issues, which may limit residential and commercial development.
A poultry processing plant is located southeast of proposed JIC,
which may limit development in areas that are downwind of the
plant. Construction of the proposed Gaston East-West Connector
may accelerate the rate in which residential development occurs
due to improved access.
• Interchange G(J2D; Jl C, Bud Wilson Road) is sparsely developed
for residential use (see Figure 12.13). Development in the future
with or without the construction of the Gaston East West
Connector is limited due to difficulty in getting public water and
sewer services provided in the area.
• Interchange H(Kl C; K3A; K2A, Union Road) is experiencing rapid
growth with mixed use, residential, commercial and residential
land uses (see Figure 12.14). The development trend is anticipated
to continue in the future with or without the proposed project due
in large part to this area being a gateway into Daniel Stowe
Botanical Gardens. Gaston County recently approved a large site
plan (residential) in the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives.
Construction of an interchange in this area would improve access
to Daniel Stowe Botanical Gardens. The expected increase in
tourism is likely to add additional pressure in this area for
additional retail and other commercial commerce.
• Interchange I(K2A; K3A; Kl C, New Hope Road) is experiencing a
notable amount of new residential development, especially
adjacent to US 279 (see Figure 12.15). A small portion of this
development is believed to be in anticipation of the proposed
East-West Connector. By and large, the recent residential
ff�.E•'
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
development trends in this area have been spurred by other
transportation improvements, such as the recent completion of I-
485. Future development with or without the project is
anticipated to be mixed use, residential and commercial,
although the proposed project would hasten the rate of
development in this interchange area. Construction of an
interchange in this area has the potential to affect water
resources, including wetland areas and Catawba Creek, a
Section 303(d) listed stream.
• Interchange J(K4A; Kl D; Kl X, South Point Road) is experiencing
rapid residential development adjacent to New Hope Road (see
Figure 12.15). With or without the Gaston East-West Connector,
future development is anticipated to be mixed-use. Proposed
interchange Kl D may promote potential commercial uses.
Cumulative Effects. The northwest, south and southeast portions of Gaston
County have historically grown in a sprawl-like pattern branching out from
the City of Gastonia. Recent growth along US 273, NC 274 and NC 279
provides evidence of this pattern. Residential development has been
relatively strong near the waterfront and coves of the Catawba River and
South Fork Catawba River. In addition to the availability of developable
land, an important generator of cumulative effects in Gaston County is its
proximity to the Charlotte Region and the Charlotte-Douglas International
Airport. The proposed project would improve accessibility to potentially
developable land in the southern and western portions of the County. If
constructed, the Gaston East-West Connector would reduce travel times
from those potentially developable parcels of land to the Charlotte Region
and hence is anticipated to attract more residential development to the
County.
The effect of growth and development is putting increased pressure on the
County's water and sewer infrastructure and school system. According to
planning officials, Gaston County is currently looking at potential build sites
for at least one new school in the southern portion of the County.
Actions including residential and infrastructure improvements in Gaston
County have the potential to cumulatively impact water quality through
erosion and stream sedimentation in the absence of stormwater
management regulations requiring Best Management Practices.
Increasing levels of non-point source pollution associated with increasing
impervious surfaces and land disturbing activities are anticipated with the
construction of the proposed project. Water resources having the potential
129
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
to be cumulatively affected by non-point source pollution include the
Catawba River and the following Section 303(d) streams:
• Abernathy Creek;
• Catawba Creek;
• Crowders Creek;
• McGill Creek; and
• Blackwood Creek.
The construction of the proposed intermodal facility at Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport would also support such land use. Construction of a
proposed inter-modal facility at Charlotte-Douglas would be expected to
increase truck traffic and automotive traffic in the vicinity of the Airport,
especially between the inter-modal facility and the I-485/West Boulevard
Interchange and the proposed Gaston East-West Connector. Other
cumulative effects such as increased noise levels from rail, truck and
automobile traffic would be possible.
Construction of the proposed project also has the potential to add to forest
fragmentation and wildlife habitat disturbance in both the southern and
western portions of the County.
12.2 Surface Water Resources and Aquatic Habitat Effects
Non-Point Source Pollution
Indirect Effects. Potential direct effects to riparian buffers may have indirect
effects on the functionality of a riparian buffer system as a whole. Riparian
buffers help to preserve water quality and aquatic habitats by filtering
nutrients and sediment from non-source pollution that would otherwise
reach a water resource. Interrupting the contiguity of the riparian buffer
system will reduce the nutrient and sediment removal efficiency range
depending on the amount of buffer that is modified or removed.
Indirect effects to wetlands associated with the proposed Gaston East-W est
Connector are likely to be caused by land use modification within
contributing drainage areas to wetlands. 159 Both upland development and
downstream crossings could change the hydrologic regime of a wetland,
resulting in a greater magnitude of non-point source pollutants than
predevelopment or existing conditions. �bo
Detailed Study Alternative number 58; 64; 65; 68; 76; 77; 78; and 81 (shown
in Figure 1.3) would have comparable levels of indirect effects on water
quality and aquatic habitat as a result of induced development. The
proximity of segments H2A, H3 and H2B to portions of Crowders Creek in the
130
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
west area (generally west of US 321) of proposed alternatives would be
expected to have the greatest amount of stormwater runoff effects in the
absence of Best Management Practices for Detailed Study Alternative
numbers 4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24 and 27. The longevity of indirect impacts is
dependent on the magnitude and duration of upstream hydrologic events
including sediment inputs (in absence of local stormwater ordinances and
BMPs), flooding, land use change (including changes in land use
regulations) and, ultimately, watershed stability.
Detailed Study Alternatives with segment K4A in the eastern portion of
Gaston County, (generally east of NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba River)
upstream of York County, have a greater potential to indirectly affect
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) areas. These Detailed Study Alternative
numbers are 5; 23; 64; and 77.Detailed Study Alternative numbers 4; 6; 9; 22;
24; 27; 58; 65; 68; 76; 78; and 81 would have comparable level of indirect
effects and cumulative effects to NWI wetlands.
Residential and commercial/retail development is anticipated to continue
within the ICE Study Area in the absence of the proposed project; thus it is
likely that the No-Build alternative (absence of the project) would involve
future degradation of water quality, but not as quickly or to the magnitude
of any one of the Detailed Study Alternative scenarios.
Cumulative Effects. Anticipated growth associated with the construction of
the Gaston East-West Connector is expected to increase the amount of
impervious surfaces within the ICE Study Area. Water quality of the
Catawba River is likely to be affected cumulatively as development reveals
a pattern of increased impervious surfaces through the construction of
buildings, parking areas and roadways. �b� The volumes of non-point source
pollution expected from the anticipated increase in impervious surfaces
can be quantitatively analyzed to determine the significance of this effect.
A quantitative analysis is outside the scope of the current study, yet the
effect of increased impervious surfaces is believed to be substantial based
solely on the amount of land having the potential to be developed as
identified in this report.
The proposed project and associated growth and development in the ICE
Study Area will increase the amount of soil disturbing activities, thus
increasing the risk of stream sedimentation and turbidity from construction-
related erosion.
131
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Atmospheric deposition from increased vehicle traffic and hydrocarbon
and chemical runoff from the proposed project that are deemed likely to
occur in the ICE Study Area will add cumulatively to non-point source
pollution in the south and southwestern portions of Gaston County. The
anticipated relief of traffic congestion within the municipal boundaries of
Gastonia may lessen the effects of non-point source pollution from vehicle
traffic in Gastonia.
Increased non-point source pollution from impervious surface runoff and
atmospheric deposition could overload a water resources assimilative
capacity and consequentially result in the deterioration of water quality
and aquatic habitat. �62
Detailed Study Alternative number 58; 64; 65; 68; 76; 77; 78; and 81 (shown
in Figure 1.3) would have comparable level of cumulative effect to water
quality and aquatic habitat as a result of other actions increasing the level
of impervious surfaces. The proximity of segments H2A, H3 and H2B to
portions of Crowders Creek in the west area (generally west of US 321) of
proposed alternatives would be expected to have the greatest amount of
stormwater runoff effects in the absence of Best Management Practices for
Detailed Study Alternative numbers 4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24 and 27.
12.3 Terrestrial Community Effects Associated with Induced Growth and
Land Use Change
Indirect Effects. Indirect effects to terrestrial communities include forest
fragmentation and the conversion of forest habitat due to land use
changes.163 Fragmentation refers to the process of intact forest landscapes
being divided into smaller pieces. In some cases, fragmentation is used to
describe the effects of a species being isolated or cut off from one another
or from new habitats. Fragmentation is assumed to have the potential to
occur where a Detailed Study Alternative is proposed on new location in
forested areas and other terrestrial communities that provide habitat for
wildlife species.
Approximately 40% of the land area in Gaston County and the
southwestern portion of Mecklenburg County remain undisturbed as woods
or forest.164 As discussed in the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR)
for this project seven terrestrial communities were identified within the
project area:
• Agricultural;
• Clearcut;
• Hardwood forest;
132
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
• Mesic mixed hardwood forest;
• Mixed pine-hardwood forest, pine forest, pine plantation;
• Successional; and,
• Disturbed.
Each build Detailed Study Alternative has the potential to indirectly affect
terrestrial communities through fragmentation. The degree of effect would
vary depending on the various species specific factors including their
modes of mobility and range of habitat. This fragmentation is anticipated
to be the product of road construction and associated land use change.
The degree of effect associated with fragmentation is based on the
amount of habitat edge that is added to an intact forest landscape.
Introduction of additional habitat edge may alter the composition of
natural communities and the wildlife species that inhabit those
communities. While the alteration of a forest landscape may benefit some
species residing in a community (i.e. predatory species) it can be
detrimental to other species and may lead to the loss of their foraging and
breeding habitats. Animal species may also be displaced into surrounding
communities. 165 These effects are anticipated to be both long term and
short term.
Detailed Study Alternatives with segments Hl C, Jl C, Kl A and K4A have a
greater potential to indirectly affect upland species due to fragmentation
in that they are located the farthest distance away from previously
fragmented forestland. These Detailed Study Alternatives are: 5; 6; 23; 24;
27; 58; 64; 65; 68; 77; 78; and 81 (shown in Figure 1.3). Detailed Study
Alternative numbers 4; 9; 22; and 76; would have comparable level of
indirect effects due to habitat fragmentation.
Residential and commercial/retail development is anticipated to continue
within the ICE Study Area in the absence of the proposed project; thus it is
likely that the (absence of the project) Alternative would involve future
degradation of wildlife habitat, but not as quickly or to the magnitude of
any one of the Detailed Study Alternative scenarios.
Cumulative Effects. Habitat lost to wildlife is a result of not only
transportation actions but also timber harvesting, agricultural conversion
and urban and residential development and other actions. Considering
that much of the ICE Study Area has some degree of fragmentation due to
existing roadways, utility corridors and residential, industrial and commercial
development, it is likely that the proposed project and its associated
development will substantially affect terrestrial communities in the ICE Study
133
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Area when added cumulatively to other land altering actions (see Figure
12.16).
12.4 Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species
Indirect Effects. An assessment of potential effects to threatened and
endangered species was completed as part of the environmental/NEPA
review of the proposed project and included in the project's Natural
Resources Technical Report (NRTR, August 2007). Federally listed
threatened or endangered species in the ICE Study Area include:
• Bog turtle;
• Carolina heelsplitter;
• Michaux's sumac;
• Schweinitz's sunflower; and
• Smooth coneflower.
This assessment indicated that out of the five species on record of
occurring within NRTR study area boundaries, only one, the Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) had the potential to be directly affected
by the proposed project, yet not adversely.�bb One population of
Schweinitz's sunflower was found within the study boundary of one project
Detailed Study Alternative segment (K2A).�b� The habitat for this species
includes power line easements, roadsides and open areas. Implementation
of the Detailed Study Alternatives may indirectly modify existing habitat for
the Schweinitz's sunflower through land use change and/or may create
new habitat areas along side of the proposed roadway or other roadways
association with anticipated growth and development. Detailed Study
Alternatives with segment K2A have a greater potential to indirectly modify
existing habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower through land use change and
/or may create new habitat areas along side of the proposed roadway or
other roadways associated with anticipated growth and development.
These Detailed Study Alternatives are: 5, 6, 9, 23, 24, 27, 64, 65, 68, 77, 78,
and 81 (shown in Figure 1.3).
The No-Build Alternative has the potential to affect the habitat of the
Schweinitz's sunflower but not as rapidly or to the degree of any one of the
Detailed Study Alternatives.
Cumulative Effects. The potential exists for the bog turtle to be affected by
the proposed build Detailed Study Alternatives to an equal degree due to
the cumulative effects of habitat fragmentation and cumulative effects of
land use change. Bog turtles require open wetland habitats. According to
the project's NRTR, potential habitat exists for this species in the NRTR study
134
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
area. When added cumulatively with past land use change from wetlands
to agricultural and other land uses, construction of the proposed project
and related land use change poses a threat to the existing conditions of
waterways and wetland complexes that may serve as habitat for the bog
turtle. The No-build alternative has the potential to cumulatively affect the
habitat of the Bog turtles but not as rapidly or to the degree of any one of
the Detailed Study Alternatives.
The project NRTR indicates that the Carolina Heelsplitter does not occur in
the project vicinity. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
does not list any known populations up or downstream of the proposed
project site. There are no known occurrences in the Catawba River and
Beaverdam Creek. Therefore, no ICE on the Carolina Heelsplitter are
anticipated to occur with any one of the Detailed Study Alternatives or the
No-build alternative.
Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac occurs throughout the ICE Study
Area. No population of Michaux's sumac was found during biological field
assessments conducted as part of the project NRTR. NCNHP records did not
document the location of any known populations of the sumac in or
immediately adjacent to the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives.
According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the 100 years following its
discovery in 1895, half of all the historic occurrences were extirpated,
largely due to habitat conversion to agriculture and other uses. Other on-
going threats include the nearly universal suppression of natural fires within
this species' range, hybridization with other species, geographic
fragmentation and isolation of small, single-sex populations, and the
potential for accidental destruction of roadside and other vulnerably
situated populations.�b$ Implementation of any one of the Detailed Study
Alternatives has an equal potential to cumulatively affect this species when
considered with other actions that have adversely affected the sumac
habitat. These effects are anticipated to be negligible in terms of severity.
The No-build alternative has the potential to affect Michaux's sumac
habitat in a cumulative fashion but not as rapidly or to the degree of any
one of the Detailed Study Alternatives.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is present in the project area, yet this
plant was not found during field investigation conducted as part of this
project's NRTR. NCNHP records did not document the location of any
known populations of the smooth coneflower in or immediately adjacent
to the NRTR project area. The proposed Detailed Study Alternatives have
the potential to cumulatively affect this species to an equal degree when
135
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
considered with other actions that have adversely affected the smooth
coneflower habitat. These effects are anticipated to be negligible in terms
of severity. The No-build alternative has the potential to affect smooth
coneflower habitat in a cumulative fashion, but not as rapidly or to the
degree of any one of the Detailed Study Alternatives.
12.5 Socioeconomic Effects
Indirect Effects. Indirect economic effects include the economic effects of
potential land use changes, the potential economic gains of various
communities and the economic travel time savings to residential and
business users in the ICE Study Area.
Gaston County is likely to continue to see sharp increases in growth with or
without the construction of the proposed project. Municipal sewer service
and water infrastructure has not been extended too many unincorporated
areas in Gaston County. The unincorporated areas that have public water
and sewer services include multiple locations along the southern side of the
Garden East-West Connector and north of Mount Holly. Although the type
of growth and the areas that grow are likely to be substantially different in
consideration of the Build and No-Build Detailed Study Alternatives. This
growth is likely to place pressure on the existing infrastructure and
community systems.
Cumulative Effects. As Gaston, Mecklenburg and Cleveland Counties
continue to grow, there will be more of a burden placed on local school
systems and Emergency Management Services. Currently, Gaston County
is in the planning stages of constructing new schools for the southern
portions of the County.
The proposed project is likely to bring with it more opportunities for
economic growth. The Charlotte Region's distribution network links not only
to local and regional markets but also to national and international ones.
The region is currently served by three major interstate systems: I-77 north-
south, I-85 east-west, and I-40 east-west. Construction of the proposed
project would better support the established network links by providing an
additional link across the Catawba River. The proposed project is
expected to benefit municipalities such as Bessemer City that are actively
seeking to attract commercial and industrial growth.
12.6 Ambient Noise Assessment
Indirect Effects. Construction of the proposed Gaston East-West Connector
on new location in southern Gaston County and in the southwestern
136
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
portions of Mecklenburg County is expected to introduce larger volumes of
traffic then current traffic volumes that are being experienced today.
Increased traffic volumes would be expected to generally increase
ambient noise levels within the ICE Study Area.
Cumulative Effects. Future land use development would also be expected
to change the current rate of activity within the ICE Study Area and would
also be expected to increase ambient noise levels. Project level noise
assessments will be completed to evaluate the assessment noise effects
associated with the Detailed Study Alternatives for the project in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in
accordance with FHWA guidance. �69
12.7 Air Quality Effects
The proposed Gaston East-West Connector is included in GUAMPO's 2030
Long-Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) 2007-2013.
A regional conformity analysis covering the ICE Study Area for ozone, PM-
10, PM-2.5 and the other critical pollutants (carbon monoxide, oxides,
nitrogen) was carried out that includes the Gaston East-West Connector
and all reasonably foreseeable and financially constrained regional
projects for at lease 20 years from the date that the analysis was started.
Based on the results of the 2007-2013 TIP Conformity Determination Report,
the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plans for GUAMPO, RPO and MUMPO,
and their latest, representative Transportation Improvement Programs are in
conformance with North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 2030
LRTPs were adopted by the Gaston Urban Area MPO on May 25, 2007 and
by Mecklenburg-Union MPO on May 16, 2007.170
12.8 Indirect Effects to Cultural Resources
Indirect Effects. The assessment of the indirect effects on identified cultural
resources focuses on the presence of National Register listed or eligible
sites.
Detailed Study Alternatives 58, 64, 65, and 68 have the highest potential to
indirectly affect sites that are listed on the National Register or eligible to be
listed. These alternatives have the highest potential impact due to the close
proximity of segments in these Detailed Study Alternatives to cultural
resource sites that are located in areas having the potential to experience
future growth associated with the proposed project and other likely
foreseeable actions. The remaining Detailed Study Alternative numbers 4,
137
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
5, 6, 9, 22, 23, 24, 27, 76, 77, 78, and 81 have the potential to indirectly
affect cultural resources, but at a lower rate and magnitude then those
listed above.
Cumulative Effects. Future growth and development in the ICE Study Area
in the absence of the proposed project has the potential to indirectly
affect cultural resources, but at a lesser rate and/or magnitude than any
one of the Detailed Study Alternatives.
12.9 Indirect Effects to Prime Farmland
Indirect Effects. Farmland located within the ICE Study Area is already
beginning to be converted to other uses, primarily residential development.
This trend is anticipated to continue even without the construction of the
Gaston East-West Connector but at a slower rate then what is expected
with the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives. Indirect farmland effects
may result from the potential conservation of farmland, not protected
through a conservation easement, to developed land uses due to induced
growth around the proposed highway and its interchanges. Generally, all
Detailed Study Alternatives currently under consider would make areas
where development is already occurring more accessible to an equal
degree.
Cumulative Effects. The ICE Study area is experiencing an increased
demand for housing and is anticipated to_negatively impact farmland and
contribute to the cumulative impact of farmland in the area. Residential
development along US 273, NC 274, NC 279 and near waterfronts and
coves of the Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River have the
potential to reduce the amount of farmland in the project area.
Findings
The summations of findings for this ICE report are provided on a county, District
and Interchange level in Tables 1.3 through 1.8. Findings on a Detailed Study
Alternative level are provided in Table 1.7. The findings provided in this report
evaluate the indirect and cumulative effects of the Detailed Study
Alternatives for the project in compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
ff�.E-'
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
• • - • • ' • - • • - • • • - - • •
County in ICE Potential for Potential for Potential for Detailed Study
Study Area accelerated cumulative improved Alternatives which
growth as a effects mobility, contribute to indirect
result of the related to access and and cumulative
project land use connectivity effects
change
Gaston, NC High Moderate High 4, 5, 6, 9, 22, 23, 24,
27, 58, 64, 65, 68, 76,
77, 78, 81
Mecklenburg, NC Moderate Moderate High 4, 5, 6, 9, 22, 23, 24,
27, 58, 64, 65, 68, 76,
77, 78, 81
Cleveland, NC Low Low Low None
York,SC Low Low Low None
139
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Indirect Effects
The rate of development in York County is not anticipated to change
due to the construction of the proposed Gaston East-West Connector.
There would be no discernible difference in development rates
between the construction of any one of the Detailed Study Alternatives
and the No-Build Alternative.
In terms of ineasurable accessibility (2007 Metrolina Regional Travel
Demand Model), the project would influence regional travel times in
some areas in double-digit minutes saved.
On a more local level, interchanges of the proposed Detailed Study
Alternatives are too distant to have much influence in York County.
The No-Build Alternative would not offer any travel time saving or
improve accessibility for those traveling from or to portions of York
County included in the ICE Study Area.
Cumulative Effects
In the absence of local stormwater ordinances and BMPs in York
County and upstream locations including Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties, effects to water quality in York are anticipated to be greater
with the construction of any one of the proposed Detailed Study
Alternatives than with the No-Build Alternative. The longevity of indirect
impacts that contribute cumulatively to water quality degradation in
York County when considered with other actions is dependent on the
magnitude and duration of upstream hydrologic events including
sediment inputs (in absence of local stormwater ordinances and BMPs),
flooding, land use change (including changes in land use regulations)
and, ultimately, watershed stability. There has been water quality
degradation in the portions of York County that have been included in
the ICE Study Area as evidenced by the amount of 303(d)-listed water
resources that have the potential to be affected by this proposed
project.
Water resources having the potential to be cumulatively affected by
non-point source pollution occurring upstream of and within York
County include the Catawba River, Lake Wylie and Crowders Creek, all
of which are Section 3031d1-listed streams.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Detailed Study Alternatives numbered 58; 64; 65; 68; 76; 77; 78; and 81
would have comparable levels of indirect effects and cumulative
effects to water quality and aquatic habitat as a result of induced
development. These potential effects would be greater than those
associated with the No-Build Alternative, but less than potential effects
associated with Detailed Study Alternative numbers 4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24
and 27(see Figurel .3).
The proximity of segments H2A, H3 and H2B to portions of Crowders
Creek upstream of York County (generally west of US 321) would be
expected to have the greatest amount of stormwater runoff effects in
the absence of Best Management Practices for Detailed Study
Alternatives numbered 4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24 and 27.
Detailed Study Alternatives with segment K4A in the eastern portion of
Gaston County, (generally east of NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba
River) upstream of York County, have a greater potential to indirectly
affect National Wetland Inventory (NWI) areas. These Detailed Study
Alternative numbers are 5; 23; 64; and 77. Detailed Study Alternatives
numbered 4; 6; 9; 22; 24; 27; 58; 65; 68; 76; 78; and 81 would have
comparable level of indirect effects and cumulative effects to NWI
wetlands.
No direct or indirect effects to water resources are expected under the
No-Action Alternative.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Indirect Effects
Rates of development in Cleveland County are not anticipated to
change in correlation to the construction of the proposed Gaston East-
West Connector. There are no distinguishable difference in development
rates anticipated between the construction of any one of the proposed
Detailed Study Alternatives and the No-Build Alternative.
Implementation of any one of the Detailed Study Alternatives would
improve accessibility to the Charlotte Region, especially in the
easternmost portion of the County.
The No-Build Alternative would not offer any accessibility benefits for
Cleveland County.
Interchanges of the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives are too distant
to have much influence in District 1, yet offer more in regards to
accessibility and travel time savings than the No-Build Alternative. The
level of traffic modeling conducted under the scope of this qualitative ICE
assessment did not indicate any conspicuous differences between the
proposed Detailed Study Alternatives, yet it is reasonable to assume due
to proximity of the proposed interchange that Detailed Study Alternatives
numbered 58; 64; 65; and 68 (shown in Figure 1.3) have the potential for
the greatest influence on accessibility and travel time savings, followed by
Detailed Study Alternative numbers 76; 77; 78 and 81. Detailed Study
Alternatives numbered 4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24; and 27 would have the least
effects on accessibility and travel times.
The No-Build Alternative would not offer any travel time saving for those
traveling from or to portions of Cleveland County included in the ICE
Study Area.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects, associated with the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector and the No-Build Alternative, were not identified in Cleveland
County as part of this assessment.
ff�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Indirect Effects
Development related to the proposed Gaston East-West Connector is
expected to be only minimally greater that what would occur with the No-
Build Alternative. The proposed roadway could potentially accelerate non-
residential construction plans, most particularly in the area of the
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. As District 6 continues to develop
there will be more of a burden places on local school systems and
Emergency Management Services. There were no apparent differences
identified between the 16 various Detailed Study Alternatives.
The proposed Gaston East-West Connector would provide improved
accessibility to Gaston, York and Cleveland Counties especially in the
western portion of the County.
The No-Build Alternative would not offer any accessibility benefits for
Cleveland County.
The additional access provided by the Detailed Study Alternatives in
Districts 5 and 6(see Figure 3.2) would serve increasing levels of non-
residential development around the proposed interchange as well as the
high-end housing that is starting to appear around the waterfront areas in
Mecklenburg County. There is no distinction of effects between the various
Detailed Study Alternative interchange options.
Cumulative Effects
In the absence of local stormwater ordinances and BMPs, water quality
effects are likely to occur. Water resources having the potential to be
cumulatively affected by non-point source pollution includes the Catawba
River, Beaverdam Creek, Legion Lake, Irwin Creek, Little Sugar Creek,
McAlpine Creek and Dallas Branch. There is no discernible difference in
the potential for water quality effects between the Detailed Study
Alternatives.
143
REVISED DRAFi INDIRECi
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
AND CUMULAiIVE EFFECiS ASSESSMENi
Detailed Study Alternatives with segment K4A in the eastern portion of
Gaston County, (generally east of NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba
River) upstream of York County, have a greater potential to indirectly
affect National Wetland Inventory (NWI) areas. These Detailed Study
Alternative numbers are 5; 23; 64; and 77. Detailed Study Alternatives
numbered 4; 6; 9; 22; 24; 27; 58; 65; 68; 76; 78; and 81 would have
comparable level of indirect effects and cumulative effects to NWI
wetlands.
No direct or indirect effects to water resources are anticipated with the
No-Action Alternative.
Increased traffic volumes in the southern portions of Mecklenburg County
would be expected to generally increase ambient noise levels to a greater
degree than the No-Build Alternative within the ICE Study Area. There
would be no discernible differences in ambient noise levels between the
Detailed Study Alternatives.
The assessment of the indirect effects on identified cultural resources
focuses on the presence of National Register listed or eligible sites in the
county where induced growth and other land use change is anticipated
to occur. Construction of any one of the proposed Detailed Study
Alternatives has the potential to affect cultural resource sites to a greater
degree than the No-Build Alternative. There is no appreciable difference
between the Detailed Study Alternatives in regards to the effects to
cultural resources because the noted cultural resource sites are in the
vicinity of the proposed interchange of the Gaston East-West Connector
with I-485.
f�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Indirect Effects
All Detailed Study Alternatives provide equal access across the Catawba
River. The construction of the Gaston East-West Connector would provide
another access route across the Catawba River into the southeast porfion
of Gaston County, potentially facilitating faster growth and different kinds
of development in the southeast and southern portions of the County. The
proposed project would also provide better access to the west and
northwest portion of the County, potentially changing the existing growth
pattern in Bessemer City that is primarily residential and commercial to
more light industry growth. As the County continues to grow there will be
more of a burden placed on local school systems and Emergency
Management Services.
The No-Build Alternative would not offer any accessibility benefits for
Gaston County.
Habitat fragmentation within the ICE Study Area is anticipated to continue
correspondingly with land use change. The proposed project and its
associated development are anticipated to affect terrestrial communities
to a greater degree than what would be expected to occur with the No-
Build Alternative.
Detailed Study Alternatives with segments Hl C, Jl C, Kl A and K4A have a
greater potential to indirectly affect upland species due to fragmentation
in that these segments are located the farthest distance away from
previously fragmented forestland. The Detailed Study Alternatives
including these segments and having the greatest potential for habitat
fragmentation are: 5; 6; 23; 24; 27; 58; 64; 65; 68; 77; 78; and 81 (shown in
Figure 1.3). Detailed Study Alternatives numbered 4; 9; 22; and 76; would
have comparable level of indirect effects due to habitat fragmentation.
The proposed project and its associated development will affect habitat
of the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), a federally
endangered species, to a greater degree than what would occur with
the No-Build Alternative. Detailed Study Alternatives with segment Kl A
have a greater potential to indirectly modify existing habitat for the
Schweinitz's sunflower through land use change and /or may create new
habitat along side of the proposed roadway or other roadways
associated with anticipated growth and development. Detailed Study
Alternatives including segment Kl A are 5, 6, 9, 23, 24, 27, 64, 65, 68, 77, 78,
145
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
and 81.
The potential exists for the smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), a
federally endangered species, to be affected to a greater degree by the
Detailed Study Alternatives than the No-Build Alternative due to the
cumulative effects of habitat fragmentation and land use change.
Potential habitat for this species occurs throughout the ICE Study Area.
The potential exists for the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) a federally
threatened species, to be affected to a greater degree by the Detailed
Study Alternatives than the No-Build Alternative due to the cumulative
effects of habitat fragmentation and land use change.
The potential exists for Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) a federally
endangered species, to be affected to a greater degree by the Detailed
Study Alternatives than the No-Build Alternative due to the cumulative
effects of habitat fragmentation and land use change. Potential habitat
for this species occurs throughout the ICE Study Area.
Significant Natural Heritage Areas in Gaston County that are threatened
by existing and future development pressures associated with the
proposed Detailed Study Alternatives include Crowders Mountain State
Park, Stagecoach Road Granitic Outcrop and Penegar. Detailed Study
Alternatives numbered 58; 64; 65 and 68 have the greatest potential to
indirectly affect SNHAs due to their close proximity of these sites.
The No-Build Alternative is not anticipated to have indirect or cumulative
effects on Natural Heritage Sites.
The assessment of the indirect effects on identified cultural resources
focuses on the presence of National Register listed or eligible sites in the
County where induced growth and other land use change is anticipated
to occur. Construction of any one of the proposed Detailed Study
Alternatives has the potential to affect cultural resource sites to a greater
degree than the No-Build Alternative. Detailed Study Alternatives
numbered 58; 64; 65; and 68 have the highest potential to indirectly affect
sites that are listed on the National Register or eligible to be listed due to
the close proximity of segments in these Detailed Study Alternatives to
cultural resource sites. These sites are located in areas having the
potential to experience future growth associated with the proposed
project and other likely foreseeable actions. The remaining Detailed
Study Alternatives numbered: 4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24; 27; 76; 77; 78; and 81
f�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
have the potential to indirectly affect cultural resources, but at a lower
rate and magnitude then those listed above.
Construction of any one of the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives in
District 2 would provide improved access between Bessemer City and the
Charlotte Urban Area which is supportive of the City's desire to attract
commercial/industrial growth to the area. Construction of any one of the
Detailed Study Alternatives is likely to increase the rate of development in
the County, especially in the southern and southeastern portions when
compared to the No-Build Alternative. There would be no distinguishable
difference in development rates between any one of the Detailed Study
Alternatives.
City officials have expressed noted concerns with any Detailed Study
Alternative that would remove interchange access to Edgewood Road,
which currently serves as a gateway to the City and is used by local
residents. Growth patterns in District 2 in the absence of the proposed
Gaston East-West Connector (No-Build Alternative) would likely follow
existing patterns and consist of mixed residential and commercial growth,
particularly in the Edgewood Road area.
When compared to the No-Build Alternative, the proposed Gaston East-
West Connector has much greater potential to increase roadway
capacity on US 74 and I-85 in District 3 allowing more growth to occur in
this District. Future residential growth patterns in this district in the absence
of the proposed project would likely occur adjacent to access roads
north and south of I-85. There would be no distinguishable difference in
roadway capacity improvements among the Detailed Study Alternatives.
Areas in District 7& 8 are anticipated to experience continued land use
change and residential development without the construction of the
proposed Gaston East-West Connector (No-Build Alternative), but not as
rapidly as with construction of any one of the Detailed Study Alternatives.
There would be no distinguishable difference in development rates
between the Detailed Study Alternatives. Construction of any one of the
Detailed Study Alternatives would discernibly increase the suitability for
infill development and redevelopment that enhances existing industrial
uses. Commercial and residential development near Robinson Road and
Bud Wilson Road may be slowed due to the level of difficulty in getting
public water and sewer services provided in those areas (see Section
12.1 .4).
147
REVISED DRAFi INDIRECi
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
AND CUMULAiIVE EFFECiS ASSESSMENi
Cumulative Effects
The proposed Gaston East-West Connector would provide greater access
to potential developable land in the southern and western portions of the
County when compared to the No-Build Alternative. Detailed Study
Alternatives numbered 58; 64; 65; and 68 would provide the greatest
access to the southern and western portions of Gaston County. Access to
potential developable land to the western portion of Gaston only would
be improved to an equivalent degree through the construction of any
one of the following Detailed Study Alternative numbers: 58; 64; 65; 68; 76;
77; 78; and 81. Access to potential developable land to the southern
portion of Gaston only would be improves to an equivalent degree
through the construction of any one of the following Detailed Study
Alternative numbers: 58; 64; 65; and 68. The remaining proposed Detailed
Study Alternatives (4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24 and 27) would offer the least
improvement to potential developable land located in the southern and
western portions of Gaston County.
The growth and development related to the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector is expected to add cumulatively to existing pressures on
Gaston County's infrastructure as the County struggles to keep pace with
recent growth and development.
In the absence of local stormwater ordinances and BMPs, effects to water
quality are anticipated with the construction of the proposed Gaston
East-West Connector. Water resources having the potential to be
cumulatively affected by non-point source pollution includes the following
303(d) listed water resources: Catawba River, Abernathy Creek, Catawba
Creek, Crowders Creek, McGill Creek, and Blackwood Creek.
Detailed Study Alternative numbers: 58; 64; 65; 68; 76; 77; 78; and 81
would have comparable level of indirect effects and cumulative effects
to water quality and aquatic habitat as a result of induced development.
The proximity of segments H2A, H3 and H2B to portions of Crowders Creek
in the west area (generally west of US 321) of proposed alternatives would
be expected to have the greatest amount of stormwater runoff effects in
the absence of Best Management Practices for Detailed Study Alternative
numbers: 4; 5; 6; 9; 22; 23; 24 and 27.
Detailed Study Alternatives with segment K4A in the eastern portion of
Gaston County, (generally east of NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba
River) upstream of York County, have a greater potential to indirectly
affect National Wetland Inventory (NWI) areas. These Detailed Study
fQ:
REVISED DRAFi INDIRECi
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Alternative numbers
numbers 4; 6; 9; 22;
comparable level of
wetlands.
AND CUMULAiIVE EFFECiS ASSESSMENi
are 5; 23; 64; and 77.Detailed Study Alternative
24; 27; 58; 65; 68; 76; 78; and 81 would have
indirect effects and cumulative effects to NWI
No direct or indirect effects to water resources are anticipated with the
No-Action Alternative.
Anticipated cumulative effects associated with the construction of any
one of the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives may include terrestrial
community alteration effects relating to land use change, including
fragmentation and wildlife habitat loss beyond that which has already
occurred in the ICE Study Area and the No-Build Alternative.
Increased traffic volumes in the southern portions of Gaston County would
be expected to generally increase ambient noise levels within the CIA
Study Area to a greater degree than the No-Build Alternative. There would
be no discernible differences in ambient noise levels between the
Detailed Study Alternatives.
Future growth in the ICE Study Area in the absence of the proposed
project (No-Build Alternative) has the potential to convert important
farmlands that are protected through a conservation easement but at a
lesser rate and /or magnitude of any one of the Detailed Study
Alternatives.
Construction of the proposed project would improve access to
developable land in both District 7 and 8, and provide travel time savings
for those wanting to reside in Gaston County and commute to the
Charlotte Region. The level of traffic modeling conducted under the
scope of this qualitative ICE assessment did not indicate any conspicuous
differences between the proposed Detailed Study Alternatives, yet it is
reasonable to assume that since Detailed Study Alternative numbers 58;
64; 65, and 68 follow a more southeasterly direction than the other
Detailed Study Alternatives that the travel time savings would be slightly
less than that experienced with the other Detailed Study Alternatives.
There is no distinction of effects between the various Detailed Study
Alternative interchange options.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
13.0 Appendices
iso
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Appendix A. Transportation Improvement Plans Summary
Gaston County
Location-Descnption- Mileage
Funtling � Estimate � Schetlule
N IMPROVEMENTSTOINTERCHANGE.
PLANNINGiDESIGN
RIGHT-0FWAV IM
CONSTRUCTION IM
TOTAL PRQIECT COST
Ib00'1 MILEPOST24TOMILEPOST2].
N PAVEMENTREFWBILITATION.3Miles(s)
CONSTRUCTION S(M)
PB REPAVMENTOFGARVEEBOND
AMOUNT. CONSTRUCTION IM
GARVEE BOND FUNDING $5265
MILLION, CONSTRUCTION�, PAVBACK FV
900]- F V 901 fr TOTAL PRQIECT COST
153L1 R2608' GHHUtNI'HHKVVHY,I-kfSVVt51 OF HIGHI-0E-VVHY I
ASTON GASTONIATOUS321NORTHOF
GASTONIA.FOURL4NEDIVIDED CONSTRUCTION T
HIGHWAV ON NEW LOCAT ION. ].5
TRATEGIC HIGHWAV CORRIDOR Mile(s) TOTAL PROJECT COST
dC16 R2206 SDUTHOFWCIAINGASTONWUNTV
ASTON TO SR 1895 W CATAWBACOUNTV.
WCOW FOURLANESDIVIDEDONNEW
ATAWBA LOCP,TION.169Mi1e(s)
A SDUTH OF WCIAIN GASTON WUNTV CONSTRUCTION
TO NORTH OF NC ]3 W LIN W W
WUNTV. GRADING AND STRUCTURES.
AA SDUTH OF WCIAIN GASTON WUNTV CONSTRUCTION
TO NORTH OF NC ]3 W LIN W W
WUNTV. PAVING.
B NORTHOFNC]3TONORTHOFSR CONSTRUCTION STP
1386(EGVPT ROA6ST.JAMESCHURCH
BA PAVING,NORTHOFNC]3TONORTH CONSTRUCTION HP
OFSR1386ANDCONSTRUCTIONOF CONSTRUCTION STP
C NORTH OF SR1386 W LWCO W CONSTRUCTION STP
WUNTVTO NORTH OF SR 1895IN
CATAW&4 WUNTV. GRADING AND
CA NORTH OF SR13861N LINCOW CONSTRUCTION STP
COU NTY TO NORTHV OF SR 1�5 NEAR
CHRONICLE IN CATAWBA
TRATEGIC HIGHWAV CORRIDOR TOTAL PROJECT COST
C2]9 R310] CHERRWILLETOUS321.WIDENTO
ASTON MULTFLP,NES.11.1Mile(s)
A CHERRWILLETOSR1626(BFAMROAD) RIGHT-0FWAV STP
CONSTRUCTION STP
B SR 1626 (BEAM ROAD)TO SR 1461 RIGHT-0FWAV STP
(L4KESIDE STREET). CONSTRUCTION STP
C SR1461(LAKESIDESTREEf)TOUS321. RIGHT-0FWAV STP
CONSTRUCTION STP
TOTAL PRQIECT COST
EWROUTE R2]20 NC2]3TONC16.TWOLANE RIGHT-0FWAV STP
ASTON WNNECTORWITHTWOFOOTPAVED CONSTRUCTION STP
SHOULDERS ON NEW LOCATION.O]
200]
4,]00 FV13
23]00 UNFUNDED
2Q400
5&5 FVO]
],64] FV0]
]6$00 UNFUNDED
1015]8 PRIORVEARS
COMPLEfE
IN PROGRESS
] 206 IN PROGRESS
1,462 FV 08
11,838 FV08
9,085 IN PROGRESS
14,800 FV 08
500 UNFUNDED
5,500 UNFUNDED
6,]00 UNFUNDED
35,600 UNFUNDED
800 UNFUNDED
3400 UNFUNDED
52,500
310 UNFUNDED
2,150 UNFUNDED
ECKLENBURG LOOP,NC2]WESTOFMOUNTHOLLV CONSTRUCTION STP 42,650 UNFUNDED
4STON TOTONC2]EASTOFMOUNTHOLLV.
MULT FL4NES ON NE W LO CATION. 4
Mile(s)
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 4Q]50
1MONT U3608 NC],I�STOUS29-]4.WIDENTORVE RIGHT-0FWAV STP 1,300 UNFUNDED
4STON LP,NES.04Mile(s) CONSTRUCTION STP 2300 UNFUNDED
TOTAL PROJECT COST 3.600
�5�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
4STON
4STONIA U
4STON
A
B
4STONIA U
4STON
4STONIA U
1ARLOTTE
4STON
ECKLENBURG
STRATEGIC HIGHWAV CORI
3ASTONIA U3425
3ASTON
3ASTONIA U3806
3ASTON
3ASTONIA U-0]36
3ASTON
dOUNTHOLLV U3633
3ASTON
Feasibility Stutlies
3R24]8(TITMAN FS-011:
20AD) AND SR 22Q9
CRAMERTON
Location -Descnption
Brea
NC 2]Q NC 2]5 TO US
MULTI-LANES.
2.8 Mile(s)
Milea e- Funtlin Estimate Schetlule
9 9
NbrkType Source (Thou) (FiscalVears)
DENTO 10,416 PRIORVEARS
PLANNING/DESIGN IN PROGRESS
RIG HT-0FWAV COMPLEf E
CONSTRUCTION STP 16,Q99 FVO]
DALL4S. WIDEN TO MULTI�AN ES.3 6
Mile(s)
NC](OZARKAVENUE)TONORTHOF CONSTRUCTION
SR T2]5 (ROBWSON-CLEMMER ROAD).
NORTHOFSR22]5(ROBINSDN- RIGHT-0FWAV STP
CLEMMERROAD)TOWESTOFNC2]5 CONSTRUCTION STP
IN DALLAS
TOTAL PRQIECT COST
SR1131 (LINWOODROAD),CROWDER'S
CREEKTOUS2&]4NC2]4(FRANKLIN RIGHT-0FWAV STP
BOULEVARD).WIDENTOMULTFLANES, CONSTRUCTION STP
SDME RELO CATI ON .2 2 M ile(s)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
GARDEN PARKWAV, I-&5 WEST OF
GASTONIATONC1601N PLANNING/DESIGN
MECKLENBURGCOUNTV. MULTI- RIGHT-0F`JVAV
LP,NESONNEWLOCATION.215Mi1e(s) CONSTRUCTION T
T
PROJECT CURREMLV UNDER STUDV
BV THE NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE
AUTHORRV- TOTALPRQIECTCOST
SR1138(MVRTLESCHOOLROAD),US RIGHT-0F`JVAV STP
29-]4TOSR1255(HUDSDN CONSTRUCTION STP
BOULEVARD). WIDENT TO MULTI-
LP,NES.1 8 Mile(s)
TOTAL PRQIECT COST
US2�]4(FR4NKIJNBOULEVARD),SR RIGHT-0F`JVAV STP
T200(COXROAD)TOSR2339(CHURCH CONSTRUCTION STP
STREET). ADD AN ADDITIONAL LANE IN
TOTAL PRQIECT COST
UPGRADE GASTO N IA COMPUT ERIZED
SIGNAL SVSTEM. CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION L
TOTAL PRQIECT COST
NC 2]3 (SOUT H MAW STREET), SOUTH
OFCATAWBADRNETOHIGHLAND RIGHT-0FWAV STP
STREETAT RANKINAVENUE.WIDEN CONSTRUCTION STP
TORVELP,NES.1 Mile(s)
AVENUE.WIDEN TOTHREELANES,
PART ON NEW LOCATION.
Feazibility Stutly in Progress
I Bntlge Projects
S B-051] CROVeDER'SCREEK.REPLACEBRIDCE
N NO. Q9 RIGHT-0FWAV NFA
CONSTRUCTION NFA
TOTAL PRQIECT COST
1 B-0519 LRTLELONGCREEK.REPLACE
N BRIDGE N0.155 RIGHT-0FWAV NFA
CONSTRUCTION NFA
TOTAL PRQIECT COST
1 B-011] CREEK.REPLACEBRIDGEN0.1]3
N RIGHT-0FWAV NFA
CONSTRUCTION NFA
16,0]5 PRIORVFARS
COMPLETE
5,200 UNFUNDED
5,800 UNFUNDED
2,500 UNFUNDED
15 500 UNFUNDED
18,146
8,626 PRIORVEARS
28,000 IN PROGRESS
- UNFUNDED
419,000 UNFUNDED
11300 UNFUNDED
2400 UNFUNDED
3250 UNFUNDED
5,]36
4,]]9 PRIORVEARS
IN PROGRESS
306 FV 0] 08
SA85
2]4 PRIORVEARS
]00 UNFUNDED
4,100 UNFUNDED
100 FV 08
1,000 FV09
1p00
100 PRI01
30 FV 08
300 FV 09
430
100 PRI01
90 FV 08
1 200 FV 09
�52
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
cost
Location-Descnption- Mileage- Funtling Estimate Schetlule
Route/CityCOUnty ID.NO./Break Break NbrkType Source (Thou) (FiscalVears)
SR2014 B-0]52 SDUTHFORKCATAWBARNER. 600 PRIORVEARS
GASTON REPLACEBRIDGEN0.6 RIGHT-0FWAV NFA 500 FV11
CONSTRUCTION NFA 5,000 FV12
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 6,100
SR2439 B-0]53 DUHART'SCREEK.REPLACEBRIDGE 160 PRIORVEARS
GASTON N0.15 RIGHT-0FWAV NFA 120 FV11
CONSTRUCTION NFA 1200 FV12
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 1 80
Muniupal Bntlge Pmjects
BESSEMERCITV B-05]5 MICKLEVAVENUEOVERNORFOLK 160 PRIORVEARS
GASTON SDUTHERN RAILROAD. REPL4CE RIGHT-0FWAV C 16 FV08
BRIDGEN0.165 RIGHT-0E-WAV NFAM 64 FV08
CONSTRUCTION C 160 FV09
CONSTRUCTION NFAM 640 FV09
TOTALPRQIECTCOST �A40
GASTONIA B-0344 TULIPDRNEOVERKAVLORBRANCH. 236 PRIORVEARS
GASTON REPLACEBRIDGEN0.16] RIGHT-0FWAV — INPROGRESS
CONSTRUCTION C 360 FVO]
CONSTRUCTION NFAM 1,200 FVO]
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 1,]36
GASTONIA B-0860 WESTDAVIDSONAVENUE.REPLACE 65 PRIORVEARS
GASTON BRIDGENOA210VERKAVLOR RIGHT-0E-WAV C 8 FVO]
BRANCH RIGHT-0FWAV NFAM 32 FVO]
CONSTRUCTION C 80 FV08
CONSTRUCTION NFAM 320 FV08
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 505
Mitigation Projects
VARIOUS EE-0912 ECOSVSTEMENHANCEMENT 1,26] PRIORVEARS
CLEVELAND PROGRAMFORDIVISION12PROJECT INPROGRESS
GASTON MITIGATION. MRIGATION
LWCOW
ALEXANDER
IREDELL
CATAW&4
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 1z6]
Bicycle antl Patlestnan Projects
CRAMERTON EBb016 DOWNTOWNCRAMERTONSOUTH CONSTRUCTION STP 3]5 FV08
GASTON FORKRNERGREENWHVEXTENSION.
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGESANDTR4IL.
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 3]5
GASTONIA EB-501] AVONLATAWBACREEKGREENWAV CONSTRUCTION STP 215 FVO]
GASTON TRAILEXTENSION.
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 215
Congestion NA'tigation Projects
GASTONIA C-0934 NC2]9(NEWHOPEROAD), RIGHT-0FWAV CMA� ]5 FV09
GASTON BURTONWOODDRNETOSR2466 RIGHT-0FWAV L 19 FV09
(GARRISONBOULEVARD). WIDENTO CONSTRUCTION CMA� 1562 FV10
MULTFL4NES. CONSTRUCTION L 390 FV10
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 2A46
Enhancement Call Pro'ects
BELMONT E-45]2 STREETSCAPEIMPROVEMENTSALONG 285 PRIORVEARS
GASTON US29-]4,CATAW&4RNERTOTHE CONSTRUCTION INPROGRESS
INTERSECTION. OF WILKWSON
BOULEVARD, CATAW&4 STREET,AND
HAZELWEAVENUE.
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 285
CRAMERTON E-49fi4 EIGHTHAVENUE,NINTHSTREEf,AND 233 PRIORVEARS
GASTON CENTERSTREET.STREEfSCAPING. CONSTRUCTION INPROGRESS
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 233
DALLAS E-4959 PHASEII�.TRADE,COLLEGE,HOFFMAN 14 PRIORVEARS
GASTON ANDWILKWSSTREETS. CONSTRUCTION 0 2] FVO]
STREETSCAPING. CONSTRUCTION STP 106 FVO]
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 14]
153
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
cost
Location-Descnption- Mileage- Funtling Estimate Schetlule
Route/CityCOUnty ID.NO./Break Break NbrkType Source (Thou) (FiscalVears)
Hazartl Elimination Pro'ects
I�5 W-0&10 CLEVEL4NDCOUNTVLWETOTHE 103 PRIORVEARS
GASTON MECKLENBURGCOUNTVLWE.WSTALL CONSTRUCTION INPROGRESS
MILLED RUMBLE STRIPS ON THE
MEDIAN AND OUTSIDE SHOULDERS.
TOTALPRQIECTCOST ��
US321 W-0838 GGRIERBFAMBOULEVARDW 218
CATAW&4 GASTON COUNTV TO US ]0 W CONSTRUCTION
GASTON CATAW&4WUNTV. WSTALLMILLED
LWCOW RUMBLESTRIPSONTHEMEDWNAND
OUTSIDE SHOULDERS.
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 218
Public Trans ortation Pro rzm GREEN TEXT INDICATES DELNERABLE STIP PRQIECT 'Indicatas Iritrzstffie P bt
Location-Descnption- Mileage- Cost
Break Funtling Estimate Schetlule
Route/CityCOUnty ID.NO./Break NbrkType Source (Thou) (FiscalVears)
Publk Tran ortation Pm'ects
GASTONIA TA-092G 1{;;p,qNSIONBUS CAPRAL FED 320 FV12
GASTON CAPRAL L 40 FV12
CAPRAL STAT 40 FV12
UNFUNDEDPROJECT TOTALPRQIECTCOST 400
GASTONIA TG-0]44 ADASERVICEWSTS,PREVENTNE CAPRAL FUZ 495 FVO]
GASTON MAINTENANCEANDROUTWECAPITAL CAPRAL L 124 FVO]
REMS
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 6�9
GASTONIA TG-0]45 ADASERVICEWSTS,PREVENTNE CAPRAL FUZ 495 FV08
GASTON MAINTENANCEANDROUTWECAPITAL CAPRAL L 124 FV08
REMS
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 6�9
GASTONIA TG-0]46 ADASERVICEWSTS,PREVENTNE CAPRAL FUZ 519 FV09
GASTON MAINTENANCEANDROUTWECAPITAL CAPRAL L 130 FV09
REMS
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 6Q9
GASTONIA TG-0]4] ADASERVICEWSTS,PREVENTNE CAPRAL FUZ 544 FV10
GASTON MAINTENANCEANDROUTWECAPITAL CAPRAL L 136 FV10
REMS
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 6�
GASTONIA TG-0911 ADASERVICEWSTS,PREVENTNE CAPRAL FUZ 544 FV11
GASTON MAINTENANCEANDROUTWECAPITAL CAPRAL L 136 FV11
REMS
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 6�
GASTONIA TG-0912 ADASERVICEWSTS,PREVENTNE CAPRAL FUZ 544 FV12
GASTON MAINTENANCEANDROUTWECAPITAL CAPRAL L 136 FV12
REMS
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 6�
GASTONIA TO-0]11 FEDERALOPERATINGASSISTANCE OPERATIONS FUZ ]03 FVO]
GASTON ANDSTATEMAINTENANCE OPERATIONS L ]03 FVO]
OPERATIONS SMAP 310 FV0]
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 1,]16
GASTONIA TO-0]12 FEDERALOPERATINGASSISTANCE OPERATIONS FUZ ]38 FV08
GASTON ANDSTATEMAINTENANCE OPERATIONS L ]38 FV08
OPERATIONS SMAP 310 FV08
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 1,]86
GASTONIA TO-0]13 FEDERALOPERATINGASSISTANCE OPERATIONS FUZ ]]5 FV09
GASTON ANDSTATEMAINTENANCE OPERATIONS L ]]5 FV09
OPERATIONS SMAP 310 FV09
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 1,860
GASTONIA TO-0]14 FEDERALOPERATINGASSISTANCE OPERATIONS FUZ 814 FV10
GASTON ANDSTATEMAINTENANCE OPERATIONS L 814 FV10
OPERATIONS SMAP 310 FV10
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 1,938
GASTONIA TO-0909 FEDERALOPERATINGASSISTANCE OPERATIONS FUZ 814 FV11
GASTON ANDSTATEMAINTENANCE OPERATIONS L 814 FV11
OPERATIONS SMAP 310 FV11
TOTALPRQIECTCOST 1,938
154
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Cleveland County
Location - Cost Schedule
Route/City ID. Description - Funding Estimate (Fiscal
Count NO./Break Milea e- Break Work T e Source Thou Years
US 74 R-2222 Dixon Ave, US Right of Way NHS 715 Unfunded
74 Bus West of
Shelby to US 74
Business East of
Shelb
Construction NHS 29,350 Unfunded
US 74 R-4005 Mooresboro to Planning/Design 100 Prior Years
Proposed Shelby in Progress
Bypass(R-2707)
Upgrade to Full
Control of
Access
Right of Way NHS 1200 Unfunded
Construction NHS 15000 Unfunded
US 74 R-2707* SHELBY. FOUR NHS 20,393 Prior Years
BYPASS LANE DIVIDED PLANNING/DESIGN 10,6667 in Progress
FREEWAYON MITIGATION
NEW
LOCATION.
A WEST OF SR RIGHT-OF-WAY HP 2,580 FY 08 FY
1162 RIGHT-OF-WAY NHS 5,420 08
(PEACHTREE
ROAD)TO
WEST OF SR
1314 (HOYLE
ROAD.
AA WEST OF SR CONSTRUCTION NHS 24,700 FY 12
1162
(PEACHTREE
ROAD)TO
WEST OF SR
1161
(PLEASANT
RIDGE ROAD).
GRADING,
STRUCTURES,
PAVING.
AB WEST OF SR CONSTRUCTION NHS 10,100 FY 12
1161
(PLEASANT
RIDGE ROAD)
TO WEST OF
SR 1314
(HOYLE ROAD).
GRADING AND
STRUCTURES.
B WEST OF SR RIGHT-OF-WAY NHS 4,300 FY 09 FY
1314 (HOYLE CONSTRUCTION NHS 31,700 11
ROAD)TO
WEST OF NC
226. GRADING
155
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Location - Cost Schedule
Route/City ID. Description - Funding Estimate (Fiscal
Count NO./Break Milea e- Break Work T e Source Thou Years
AND
STRUCTURES.
C WEST OF NC RIGHT-OF-WAY NHS 13,000 FY 12
226 TO WEST CONSTRUCTION NHS 43,200 UNFUNDED
OF NC 150.
GRADING AND
STRUCTURES.
D WEST OF NC RIGHT-OF-WAY NHS 17,500 UNFUNDED
150 TO CONSTRUCTION NHS 28,000 UNFUNDED
EXISTING US 74
WEST OF SR
2238 (LONG
BRANCH
ROAD).
GRADING AND
STRUCTURES.
E US 74 WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY NHS 8,900 UNFUNDED
OF SR 2238 TO CONSTRUCTION NHS 32,800 UNFUNDED
WEST OF SR
1001 (STONEY
POINT ROAD).
GRADING,
STRUCTURES,
PAVING.
F WEST OF SR CONSTRUCTION NHS 15,900 UNFUNDED
1161
(PLEASANT
RIDGE ROAD)
TO WEST OF
NC 226.
PAVING.
G WEST OF NC CONSTRUCTION NHS 18,500 UNFUNDED
226 TO WEST
OF NC 150.
PAVING.
H WEST OF NC CONSTRUCTION NHS 15,800 UNFUNDED
150 TO
EXISTING US 74
WEST OF SR
2238 (LONG
BRANCH
ROAD).
PAVING.
Shelby U-2221 NC 180, NC 226 WIDEN TO MULTI- NHS 15,839 PRIOR
TO NC 150. LANES. YEARS
A NC 226 TO SR RIGHT-OF-WAY STP 1,200
2200. CONSTRUCTION STP 6,100 UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
B SR 2200 TO SR CONSTRUCTION
2052. COM PLETE
C SR 2052 TO NC RIGHT-OF-WAY STP 1,400 UNFUNDED
150. CONSTRUCTION STP 7,400 UNFUNDED
156
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Location - Cost Schedule
Route/City ID. Description - Funding Estimate (Fiscal
Count NO./Break Milea e- Break Work T e Source Thou Years
SHELBY U-2567 US 74-NC 150 RIGHT-OF-WAY NHS 5,500 UNFUNDED
(DEKALB
STREET).
CONSTRUCT
INTERCHANGE.
CONSTRUCTION NHS 6,200 UNFUNDED
VARIOUS EE-4912 ECOSYSTEM 1,267 PriorYears
ENHANCEMENT in Progress
PROGRAMFOR
DIVISION 12
PROJECT
MITIGATION.
MITIGATION
I-85 W-4839 SOUTH 44 Prior Years
CAROLINA in Progress
STATE LINE TO
THE GASTON
COUNTY LINE.
INSTALL
MILLED
RUMBLE
STRIPS
ON THE CONSTRUCTION
MEDIAN AND
OUTS I DE
SHOULDERS.
US 74 W-4841 I-26 IN POLK CONSTRUCTION HES 10280 Prior Years
COUNTY TO US FY 07
74 BUSINESS
IN CLEVELAND
COUNTY.
INSTALL
MILLED
RUMBLE
STRIPS ON THE
MEDIAN AND
OUTS I DE
SHOULDERS.
NC 150 SF-4912A SR 1253 CONSTRUCTION HES 10 100 PRIOR
(CHARLES YEARS FY
ROAD). 07
CONSTRUCT
LEFT TURN
LANE.
157
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Mecklenburg County
PRIOR
COST YEARS
ID. NO. / WORK TYPE ESTIMATES SCHEDULE
LOCATION -
DESCRIPTION - (FISCAL
ROUTE/CITY BREAK MILEAGE - BREAK (THOU) YEARS)
W C W DES I-4722 -
ENTIRE PROJECT
CONSTRUCTED TOTALPROJECT
UNDER I-4721 A COST 2510.00
CHARLOTTE, 5TH
STREETIN
CHARLOTfETO NC
73 (SAM FURR PRIOR
ROAD�. ADDITIONAL YEARS
I-77 13311 LANES. 14.4 Mile�s) PLANNING/DESIGN 98470.00 2008
I-85 TO NORTH OF I-
485 (CHARLOTTE
A OUTER LOOP�. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
NC 73 (SAMFURR
ROAD�, WEST OF I-77
TO EAST OF I-77; SR
2136 (GILEAD
ROAD�, WEST OF I-77
AA TO EASTOF I-77. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
I-485 (CHARLOTfE
OUTER LOOP) TO NC
73�SAMFURR CONSTRUCTION UNFUNDED
B ROAD�. CONSTRUCTION 16,7792Q220 UNFUNDED
5TH STREET TO I-85.
HIGH OCCUPANCY
VEHICLE (HOV)
C LANES. CONSTRUCTION 29,000 UNFUNDED
I-485 (CHARLOTfE
OUTER LOOP) TO SR
2136 (GILEAD
D ROAD�. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
NORTH OF I-277/NC
16 (BROOKSHIRE
FREEWAY) TO SOUTH
E OFI-85. CONSTRUCTION 16,000 FY13
TOTALPROJECT
RIDOR COST 180469.00
I-277 (EXIT9) TO THE
SOUTH CAROLINA
STATE L W E.
RESURFACE WITH
I-77 I-4720 NOVACHIP. 9.3 Mile s 350.00 FY07
REPAYMENTOF
GARVEE BOND
PB AMOUNT. 4218.00 FY07
GARVEEBOND
FUNDING $3. 7 5
MILLION,
CONSTRUCTION;
PAYBACKFY2007- TOTALPROJECT
FY2018 COST 4568.00
PLANNING/DESIGN PRIOR
RIGHT-OF-WAY YEARS IN
CORNELIUS,SR5544 RIGHT-0E-WAY PROGRESS
(WEST CATAWBA RIGHT-0E-WAY FY 10 FY 10
AVENUE�. MODIFY RIGHT-0E-WAY 784 1,290860 FY 10 FY 10
I-77 I-4733 INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTION 4,3005027,000 UNFUNDED
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
PRIOR
COST YEARS
ID. NO. / WORK TYPE ESTIMATES SCHEDULE
LOCATION -
DESCRIPTION - (FISCAL
ROUTE/CITY BREAK MILEAGE - BREAK (THOU) YEARS)
C H AR LOTTE
WESTERN OUTER
LOOP, WEST OF I-77
TO I-85 NORTH. PRIOR
FREEWAY ON NEW YEARS IN
LOCATION.28 PLANNING/DESIGN PROGRESS
I-485 R-2248* Mile�s) MITIGATION 50Q545 1,082 FY 11
WEST OF I-77 SOUTH
A TOUS29-74. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
NORTH OF US29-74
(WILKINSON
BOULEVARD) TO
BA NORTHOFI-85. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
NORTH OF I-85 TO
BB NORTH OF NC 27. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
NORTH OF NC 27
(MOUNT HOLLY
ROAD) TO EASTOF
SR 2042 (OAKDALE
C ROAD�. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
EAST O F SR 2042
(OAKDALE ROAD)
TO EAST O F N C 1 15
(OLD STATESVILLE IN
D ROAD�. CONSTRUCTION 30,350 PROGRESS
EASTOF NC 115 RIGHT-0E-WAY
(OLD STATESVILLE RIGHT-0E-WAY FY 10 FY
ROAD) TO I-85 CONSTRUCTION 2,500 16,000 10 FY 13 FY
E NORTH. CONSTRUCTION 3,000122,600 13
WEST O F I-77 TO
ARROWOOD ROAD-
BROWN GRIER
F ROAD. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
INTERCHANGE WITH
SR 2042 (OAKDALE
G ROAD�. CONSTRUCTION 400.00 Unfunded
TOTALPROJECT
RIDOR COST 676477.00
US521 (JOHNSTON PRIOR
ROAD) TO I-77 YEARS IN
SOUTH OF PROGRESS
CHARLOTfE WIDEN 2,000 100 FY 11 FY
I-485 R-4902* TO SIX-LANES. b.b Mile�s) NHS NHS NHS 80042,500 12 FY 13
RIDOR 45,400
CORNELIUS,
CATAWBA AVENUE.
INTERSECTION RIGHT-0E-WAY 1,650
US21 R-4059 IMPROVEMENTS. 0.4Mile�s) CONSTRUCTION STPSTP 1,175
TOTALPROJECT
COST 2825.00
NATIONAL
H I G H WAY SYSTEM
GUARDRAIL
REHABILITATION.
UPGRADE
SUBSTANDARD
GUARDRAIL, END
TREATMENTS AND
US 52, US 74, BRIDGE ANCHOR
NC49 R-4413 UNITS. CONSTRUCTION 340 FY07
159
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
PRIOR
COST YEARS
ID. NO. / WORK TYPE ESTIMATES SCHEDULE
LOCATION -
DESCRIPTION - (FISCAL
ROUTE/CITY BREAK MILEAGE - BREAK (THOU) YEARS)
US 29-74
(WILKINSON
BOULEVARD) AND
SR 5901 (BILLY
GRAHAM
PARKWAY�. AREA PRIOR
Urban Area IMPRO VEMENTS. 0.8 YEARS
Charlotte LL2704 Mile�s) MITIGATION 600171 UNFUNDED
CHARLOTfE, US 29-
74 (WILKINSON
BOULEVARD) AND
US 521 (BILLY
GRAHAM RIGHT-OF-WAY UNFUNDED
B PARKWAY�. CONSTRUCTION 3,7005,500 UNFUNDED
PROGRAMMED FOR
PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL TOTALPROJECT
STUDY ONLY COST
NC 160 (WEST
BOULEVARD)
RELOCATION, EAST
OF I-485 (CHARLOTfE
OUTER LOOP) TO
HORSESHOE LANE.
MULTI- LANES ON RIGHT-0E-WAY
UrbanArea NEWLOCATION.23 CONSTRUCTION 50016,400 FY07FY
Charlotte U-3411 Mile�s) CONSTRUCTION 1,700 07 FY07
CONSTRUCTION BY
OTHERS - NCDOT TO
CON7RIBU7E $7 J M
TOWARDS
CONSTRUCTION TOTALPROJECT
COST COST 18600.00
NC 27 (ALBEMARLE
ROAD�, PIERSON
DRIVETO REDDMAN
ROAD.ADD
ADDITIONAL PRIOR
EASTBOUND LANE CONSTRUCTION YEARS FY
U-3603 0.8Mile�s) CONSTRUCTION 5503101,240 07FY07
TOTALPROJECT
RIDOR COST
I-277 (JOHN BELK
FREEWAY�. ADD
WESTBOUND LANE
Urban Area THROUGH I-77 FY 11 FY
Charlotte U-3850 INTERCHANGE 0.5Mile�s) 6002,400 11
PLANNINGAND
DESIGN BY CI7Y 3,000
SR 2804 (REEDY
CREEK ROAD) AND
SR 2805 PRIOR
(HARRISBURG PLANNING/DESIGN YEARS IN
ROAD�. REALIGN RIGHT-OF-WAY PROGRESS
U-4401* INTERSECTION. CONSTRUCTION 1506002,800 FY08FY10
TOTALPROJECT
COST 3550.00
BICYCLHPEDESTRIAN
CONNECTIONS TO
U-4441 TRAILSYSTEM.STUDY STUDY
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
PRIOR
COST YEARS
ID. NO. / WORK TYPE ESTIMATES SCHEDULE
LOCATION -
DESCRIPTION - (FISCAL
ROUTE/CITY BREAK MILEAGE - BREAK (THOU) YEARS)
TO ID ENTI FY
NEIGHBORHOOD
CONNECTIONS FOR
NON-MOTORIZED
TRANSP O RTATIO N.
TRANSPORTATION
AND COMMUNI7Y
AND SYSTEMS
PRESERVATION TOTALPROJECT
GRANT COST 396.00
N O RTH-SO UTH
CORRIDOR
TRANSITWAY
PROJECT. STUDY TO
REVIEW AREA'S
LAND USE PATTERNS
TO CONNCENTRATE
DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN MAJOR
TRAVEL CORRIDORS
TO ENHANCE HIGH PRIOR
CAPACITYTRANSIT YEARS IN
U-4442 SERVICE. STUDY PROGRESS
SR 3440 (MCKEE
ROAD) EXTENSION,
SR 3457 (CAMPUS
RIDGE ROAD) TO SR
3448 (PLEASANT
PLAINS ROAD�. TWO
LANES ON MULTI-
LANE RIGHT OF WAY
ON NEW LOCATION.
MATfHEVJS U-4713 1.1 Mile�s)
STP RIGHT-OF-WAY
A SR 3448 STP CONSTRUCTION 3,9002,900
CRIGHT-0E-WAY
STPDA RIGHT-OF-
WAY
CCONSTRUCTION
STPDA
B SR 1009 CONSTRUCTION 3401,3602601,040
PLANNING
AND DESIGN
OFSEGMENT TOTALPROJECT
B BY TOWN COST 9,800
NC51,US74
(INDEPENDENCE
BOULEVARD) TO SR
3128 (LAVJYERS
ROAD�. W1DEN TO
MATTHEVJS MULTI-LANES 5.5 STPRIGHT-0E-WAY UNFUNDED
MINTHILL LL5007 Mile�s) STPCONSTRUCTION UNFUNDED
TOTALPROJECT
COST 58,500
NC5I,SOUTH
CAROLINA STATE
LWETO SR 3645 PLANNING/DESIGN PRIOR YEARS IN
(DOWNS CIRCLE�. RIGHT-0E-WAY PROGRESS IN
WIDEN TO MULTI- STPMITIGATION PROGRESS FY
PWEVILLE U-3447 LANES.I Mile�s) STPCONSTRUCTION 08FY09
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
PRIOR
COST YEARS
ID. NO. / WORK TYPE ESTIMATES SCHEDULE
LOCATION -
DESCRIPTION - (FISCAL
ROUTE/CITY BREAK MILEAGE - BREAK (THOU) YEARS)
TOTALPROJECT
COST 8,087
SOUTH SOUTH BOULEVARD CCONSTRUCTION
BOULEVARD LL5014 SIGNALSYSTEM. DPCONSTRUCTION FY07FY0708
PROJECTTO
�
ADMINISTERED
BY C17Y OF TOTALPROJECT
CHARLOTiE COST 1,368
STPDA IN
MECKLENBURG-
UNION
METROPOLITAN
PLANNING CCONSTRUCTION
ORGANIZATION STPDA
VARIOUS U-4744 (MUMPO�. CONSTRUCTION FY 12 FY 12
TOTALPROJECT
COST 200
MECKLENBURG-
UNION
METROPOLITAN
PLANNING
ORGANIZATION S�M) ENGWEERING FY091011 12
(MUMPO) PLANNING STPDA 13 FY0910 11
VARIOUS U-9999C (PL�SUPPLEMENL ENGWEERING 1213
TOTALPROJECT
COST 3,900
ORIGHT-OF-WAY
WEDDINGTON CCONSTRUCTION
WEDDINGTON ROAD,TRADESTREET OCONSTRUCTION FY07FY07FY
ROAD U-5025 TOI-485 SCONSTRUCTION 07FY07
S
REPRESENTS
MOVING
AHEAD" TOTALPROJECT
FUNDS COST 4,808
FEASIBILITY
STUDIES
5TH STREET IN
CHARLOTfETO NC
73 (SAM FURR
ROAD�. ADD HOV
I-77 FS-0510A LANES. 14.4 Mile�s)
FEASIBILI7Y
STUDY IN
PROGRESS
SR 1520 (FAIRVIEW
ROAD-INDIAN TRAIL
SR 1501 ROAD) TO I-485.
IDLEWILD UPGRADE EXISTING
ROAD FS-0210B ROADWAY. 1.4 Mile�s)
FEASIBILI7Y
STUDY IN
PROGRESS
FEDERAL
BRIDGE
PROJECTS
MALLARD
B-4779 US 29 CREEK.
SOUTHBOUND REPLACE FARIGHT-0E-WAY
LANE BRIDGENO. FACONSTRUCTION 4003003,000
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
PRIOR
COST YEARS
ID. NO. / WORK TYPE ESTIMATES SCHEDULE
LOCATION -
DESCRIPTION - (FISCAL
ROUTE/CITY BREAK MILEAGE - BREAK (THOU) YEARS)
147
MCINTYRE CREEK. FARIGHT-OF-WAY PRIOR YEARS
REPLACE BRIDGE FAMITIGATION FY08 FY08 FY
SR 2025 B-4579 NO. 134 FACONSTRUCTION 09
PURCHASE
ORDER
CONTRACT TOTALPROJECT
(POCJ COST 336
GAR CREEK.
REPLACE BRIDGE FARIGHT-0E-WAY PRIOR YEARS
SR 2120 B-4200 NO. 100 FACONSTRUCTION FY 10 FY 11
TOTALPROJECT
COST 540
REEDY CREEK.
REPLACE BRIDGE NFARIGHT-0E-WAY PRIOR YEARS
SR 2804 B-4580 NO. 177 NFACONSTRUCTION FY09 FY 10
TOTALPROJECT
COST 850
IRVINS CREEK.
REPLACE BRIDGE FARIGHT-0E-WAY PRIOR YEARS
SR3135 B3677 N0.36 FACONSTRUCTION FY07FY08
TOTALPROJECT
COST 1,240
GREASY CREEK.
REPLACE BRIDGE FARIGHT-0E-WAY PRIOR YEARS
SR 3168 B-4201 N0.38 FACONSTRUCTION FY 10 FY 11
163
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
York County
1 SC161
]]4] CHERRVROTOIN�IAHOOKR�
1]333 I N�IA H OOK R� T0901 SEG G'Li
1]335 PENNINGTONROTOMTGALLANTR�WEST 2�549C
-- SEGB-2
23149 SC161/SC9011NTERSECIION
I NTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT (EAST MAI N/
25935 F]]/U521(AN�ERSONRO)INTERCHANGE(E%IT]]) 4�OOOC
SC 49 (W I �EN FROM CROW �E25 CREEK TO SC 55) (CATAW BA
i8W0 COGGUI�ESHAREPROJECT)
REGENT PARKWAV CON NECTOR (U S 21 TO �ORMAN R�)
�oeve�oveR Fu mom vROdecT7
snFerv vROd ecTS �v, R, a c7
PAVEMENT MARKIN G& SI GNI NG PROJEClS
ITS Q NTERSATE)
WCI�ENTRESPONSEPROGRAM
PAVEMENTPROJECTS
BW�GEREPIACEMENT&REHABPRQIECTS
l:l�f ��YFii�f RFi�i�R�-�1i1'1
row coumrv
SAFETEAW M4890'
34]5 C
SEE 200] STI P PR�RAM SU MMARIES
SEE 200] STI P PR�RAM SU MMARIES
SEE 200] STI P PR�RAM SU MMARIES
SEE 200] STI P PR�RAM SU MMARIES
SEE 200] STI P PR�RAM SU MMARIES
SEE 200] STI P PR�RAM SU MMARIES
I YiJU:� � 9{4!A� � 9`JI(:� � 9`JRx� �Y{�J➢ U� �Y{�J➢ f��Y{�J➢Y]
RN p CMAQ Pro'sK° FY 2(IOG FV 200] FV 2(I� FV 2(109 FY 2(110 FY 2(111 FY 2(112
TRAFFICSIGNALCCNTROLL62UPGRA�ES(SC161, U521, 500
sc�2nmosci22
SOUTH POINIE TRAIL 383
(SI�EWPLK CONNECTION)
(MATCHING SOU RCE- VORK C W NTV, CITV, RHS�)
anwumsom Rono mni�-vHnse i aoo
�TRni� comm ecn om7
(MATCHING SOU RCE- GTV OF ROCK H ILL)
ALIERNAIIVEFUELVEHICLES 34
�vuRCHnse cnRTS nm o HraRio uvcanoes7
(MATCHING SOU RCE- GTV OF ROCK H ILL)
ROCK HILLTROLLEV TOW N TOURIST LOOP 1,216
�oeve�ov nm o oveaanTe TROUFr seRVice7
(MATCHING SOU RCE- GTV OF ROCK H ILL)
�AVE LYLE BOULEVAR� 28
�TRnFFi c sTU or7
(MATCHING SOU RCE- GTV OF ROCK H ILL)
I�LE RE�UCTION AWARENESS PROGRAM P➢
(AT SCHOOLS IN NON-ATTAI NM ENT AREA)
(C4TAW BA COG. SCEO. MU SEUM OF VORK COUN iV1
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
I PINp I EnM1ancanartP�olecE I FT9106 I FT2W] I FT91C8 I FT91� I FT9110 I FT91fl I FT9112 I
RFATSENHPNCENENTPROGRAM 166 166 166
eaevEZeaao�ooTSOmTOO�ovoimTE7 eszc
SC2]A (SC 161 TO SC55)
(VORKCOUNTV1A41LOCPLLVFUN�E�PROJEC� 5�90.3C 6�A�C 3]82C
SC901 (SCRT01-0]) 838R
338AC 5�W6C 2}38C
SCR(BIACKSTTOHECKIE) 296P 2�]4C 1�635C
]31R
CHERRVROM(VORKTOHECKLEI ���p 2JAAC A29C
1]2R 29R
PoRTMILLSOUrHERNBVPASS �p A16P 2830C A�&51C A�AA]C
903 R 113 R
TEGhC4VG0.�HILLCONN(SC160T0(TIIDHILLR�) ABP ]P 4AC
81 R 163R
4AC
PINp FMxalTrznsl[Ntlminlz[2EOn FT9106 FT2W] FT91C8 FT91� FT9110 FT9111 FT9112
GTVOFROCKHILL 61A 660
VORKCOUNTV COUNCIL ON PGING (CAl
VORKCO �SN BJ4R� (CAl
- �ffvaoosmo5ynene��FUrvoirvo�mereervi�vnvaine� eesuvirvo FeoM Fvmos
- as(aeodecieoqi�a��FOeesnMn[au voses�
-wcwoes urvaeooenMMeo eFnisrvorvniiarvMervi Furvos ryayeopi a� FeoM wmos a wmoc
18610 SC0.9(WI�HJFROMCROVMHiSCREECTO5C55) 252AC
KeY
wNrvirvo,as uewwseoFSeeNCe�vn �rvlc�enmmsiiiorv
- �ffvaoos2nay.ncne�FUrvoirvo wRre[rvi�vnvw�Pe� R[su�iirvo FROM Fvmos
ecs�eodecieo�nieS�FOeesiiMA eau voses�
SEFVICE, KINGS
MOUNTNN
N4TIOIWL
MWTPRVPARK
165
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
,aai�Prroaec, To�ai-s�zs
CROW�ER BWRT,BCBTATEPARKBH2VICE-KINCBMOVMAINBTATE Fetleal-$5H
CONNECTOR PARK ToAI-$/2
TF91L
NATONFOM Yo�k�urAy Fetleal-$13
OREEJWAY ToAI-$16
Eama�k
SPFETEAW
MATqI-02133fi5
BCHIOHNAY C9TAWBA 5 549�3fi 2]�000 P�000 2Ri000 881fi000 FE�EF9L-81ifi00,000
BYPA885 MATqI-0341 384
BEfWEEN
WI�ENBC C9TAWBA 5 ii3]3,840 fi80i000 fi80i000 fi80i000 02i040,000 FE�EF9L-B4ifi00,000
HIOHW9Y 5 MATqI-889,4fi0
BYPA55
Key�. - fR5ffn0SA�
NRREMLVAVqLfHIEl�SIILiINO ROMFV305AM]➢06ANJIIPLfYPROPRIAiIONPCiS.FVAN309FI1N�IN091BJECiiOFllilll�PPPROPRIAiION
iS�ROJEClE� Ai 85%FORESIMAiE PuRPOIISJ
Projeck I MPO/COG I FTIDO6 I Estmalletl I Nppmprialion I Ngenry9
CIttOFROCK RFATB 39fii000 039fii000FE�ERAL-B400i000 ROCKHLL
HILLIROLLEY MATCH-899i000
21 (EXIT82)
BCifill122 ]3399 LANC93�ER C9TAW99 WI�ENT05LANEBFROMBC ]ll.]4 333]
E:.TENBION YORK RFAIb ifi118C1211NY0RKWWlY
TO V8521 IN IAN W BTEii
coomx
BC5E:.TENBION ]3395 q1EROKEE APPAIAq11ANl PINBE WI�ENT05LANE8 8]➢ 1319 15i000C 10i000C
RFAIb FROMI-85TOE.OFV829AN�
CONBTRVCT NPN BW �OEOVEii
NORFOLH BOVTIERN RAlIROA�
emsEZwioENro s iaNEs
FROM E. OF V 829TO YORK CO
LINE.ALBJ INCLV�EBA4LAI�E
�IVI�E-0BECT.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Appendix B. List of Reviewed Documents
Guidance forAssessing Indirect and Cumulative Effects ofTransportation Projects in North Carolina, Volumes
GasYonia Ciiy Council Meeting Minutes forJune 19, 2007
Resource Guidebook for Residential and Commercial De
2015 Plan, Planning for Our Wiure, November, 1997
Strateaic Business Plan. Mecklenbura CounN. 200&2010
GasYon
GasYon
Hazard
P
f�ADZ!
2002
f�DI01
Watershed Restoration Plan forthe Catawba River Basin, 2001
Protecting our Lake Watersheds, Ciiy of Mount Holly, 2004
Mecklenburg Couniy Water Qualiiy Program Land Use and EnvironmentalServices Agency, Protecting our
York County, Strategic Economic
Cleveland Couniv land Use Deve
2015 Planning For Our Wh
PertormanceReoort Mec
Plan, 2007
2005
f�DDL1
1997
Conformity Analysis and Deferminafion Repori for ihe CabarrusRowan MPO, ihe Gasion Urban Area MPO,
and ihe Mecklenburg-Union MPO 2030 Long Range Transporiafion Plans and ihe FY 2007-2013 Siafe
Transportation Improvement Programs and for Non-MPO Areas of Lincoln Couniy, Iredell County, Gaston
County, and Union County areas, Appendix D:201Q 2020, and 2030, June 8, 2005
Amendmeni2: Conformity Analysis and Deferminafion Repori for ihe CabarrusRowan MPO, ihe Gasion
Urban Area MPO, and ihe Mecklenburg-Union MPO 2030 Long Range Transporiafion Plans and ihe FY2007-
2013 Siafe Transportafion Improvemeni Programs and for Non-MPO Areas of Lincoln County, Iredell Couniy,
Siafewide
m 2007 - 2012 Revision 7, December 5, 2007.
167
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Appendix C. Summary of Interviews with Stakeholders and Local
Officials
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport October 17, 2007
5501 Josh Birmingham Parkway
Charlotte, NC 28208
704.359.4932
Aftendees:
Jack Christine (Planner)
Jerry Orr (Director)
Ike Reeves (Associate Planner)
J. Scott Lane (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Lisa Murphy (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Follow-up Items:
Mr. Reeves will send GIS files for the new road alignments and airport layout. Nelson
Ahrens is the CAD manager and he sent those files (neahrens@charlotteairporf.com,
704.359.4821).
Individual Comments:
Mr. Christine noted that he had been with the airport and a resident of the area for over
10 years; Mr. Reeves said that he started his current position in February 2007 but has lived
in Gaston all of his life; and Mr. Orr noted that he was a fifth-generation resident and had
lived in the area almost all of his life.
The airport is building a new runway, immediately west and parallel to current runways, to
be open in early 2010. The new runway will require relocation of several roads, which will
be done within a year from now.
While many of the road relocation projects are on airport property and will be done by the
airport, NCDOT is obligated to relocate West Blvd (the southern border of airport property).
This will go to partial bid in spring 2008. Ultimately, West Blvd will be 4-lane divided, like Billy
Graham Parkway. There will eventually be an interchange at West Blvd. and Billy Graham
to remove the stoplight. NCDOT does not currently have funding to make West Blvd four-
lane. The airport is okay with leaving it two-lane, but DOT wants a four-lane cross section.
The freight intermodal facility will be located within the airport, between the current and
new runways.
Existing housing near the airport is mostly 1960s and starter homes to the south, mobile
homes west, with some nice houses along river. Those nicer houses will remain even with
nonresidential development in the area west of the airport, because the nonresidential will
have to stay farther away from the river and on higher elevations anyway. East of the
airport is lower income housing; South Blvd is Little Mexico. In general, there is substantial
Hispanic population in the area around airport.
fCi
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
There is a noise overlay disclosure zone - people can still build houses, but they can't sue
for noise issues. Comments related to future growth in the area follow.
All land south of the airport to Shopton Rd. will be industrial. Some is currently residential
but it will convert; there is a lot of undeveloped land in that area. South of Shopton Rd. will
be a combination of industrial and office.
All land inside the Dixie River Rd. loop will be industrial - distribution, manufacturing, flex
space. Garrison Road is expected to be extended to reach Dixie River Rd.
Berewick is a mixed use development with 1,000 houses, currently under construction. It is
south of Dixie River Road.
West of 485, between 74 and the railroad, will be industrial land use. West of 485, between
the railroad and Dixie River Rd. will be nonresidential but probably not industrial.
Crescent Resources (Duke Power) owns 1,600 acres of undeveloped land along the river.
They may want to put a manufacturing/research park there. It is difficult to get
water/sewer to that area, so hard to do residential. For this specific project, there is much
bigger potential with the road - rate 1 with the road, three or four without the road. No
difference with the toll in place on the proposed project.
The peninsula is currently being developed as a high-value residential neighborhood
called The Vneyard.
Three interchanges will provide local access to the 5,000 acres of industrial/nonresidential
development west of the airport. These are Garrison Rd/485; 74/485; and the K/Dixie River
Rd. interchanges. People can also go on the smaller roads around airport to access that
land.
J1 is too close to the Botanical Garden - rich people will object to that location. J2 will
have to deal with Duke Energy.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Gaston County Chamber of Commerce October 17, 2007
601 West Franklin Boulevard
Gastonia, NC 28053
704.864.2621
Aftendees:
William Gary, Chamber of Commerce (Director of Public Policy)
Bob Austell, City of Cherryville
Joe Carpenter, Gaston County Commission
Allan Farris, Bessemer City (City Manager)
Jim Long, Bessemer City (Council)
Don Lowe, Gastonia
Barry Webb, Belmont City (Manager)
Rebecca Yarbrough, Centralina Council of Govemments
Eric Davis, City of Mount Holly
Kathryn Harrington, Prudential Realty
Donna Lockett, Gaston Together (Executive Director)
J. Scott Lane (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Lisa Murphy (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Follow-Up Items:
The project team will follow-up with additional information for Elyse Hillegass (Gaston
County Chamber of Commerce) to obtain location-specific input on the survey form.
The project team will follow-up with Carolina Thread Trail.Org (Ann Browning) for GIS data
that identifies trails and trail crossings.
Send 10 maps to Chamber Staff for distribution, and one to Kathryn Harrington, pending
approval from NCTA.
Individual Comments:
The northern continuation of the Gaston East-West Connector was too close to Bessemer
City; the group noted that the A2 alignment was preferred. Concerns were expressed that
the Northern Section of the Gaston East-West Connector should be included as a part of
the current study.
There was a concern at Edgewood Road about the need for an interchange; however,
the spacing was too close to allow the interchange to be included in the design of the
Gaston East-West Connector.
Bessemer City rezoned a large industrial area to the south of the City.
From Kings Mountain to Edgewood Road is the best area for future industrial development
in Gaston County. District 2 would receive a"P' for industrial development.
District 7 has a high potential for residential along the route with supporting retail; closer
the airport there is a future potential for industrial development.
In District 8, the only commercial development would be along US 321 (which would
receive a"2" for commercial, whereas the remainder of the District would receive a"4").
170
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
There is high residential development north of I-85 and a planned industrial parkway that
would connect industrial development to Bessemer City.
B1 and B2 interchanges have wetlands; less effect in the B2 area. There are many auto
salvage operations in this area that would have to be mitigated before redevelopment
could occur. Because of restrictions imposed by both factors, there is less potential for
development in this area.
Near I and J interchanges, there is a planned, mixed-use residential and commercial
development. The location of the interchange would probably hinge on the
environmental effect to the Catawba River and floodplain area.
Near Kl and K2 interchanges, there would be mostly industrial development due to the
intermodal facility that is proposed along I-85.
J1, J2, and Kl interchanges have more residential potential than K2 and J3 interchanges.
J1 and J2 would be preferred by residential development over J3, especially.
District 1 has lots of commercial growth without the roadway happening; some of this is in
anticipation of the Shelby Bypass.
District 3 has high residential potential, especially around Spencer Mountain. The proposed
Gaston East-West Connector would free up capacity on US 74 and I-85 to allow more
development to occur in this District.
There would be little effect on District 5, since this District would likely be built out prior to
the proposed Gaston East-West Connector being constructed.
Interchanges C1, C2, and C3 are sparsely populated now, but have a high residential
potential, due in part to some existing public water and sewer service provisions in the
area.
Interchanges C and D have less potential for rezoning due to the desire to keep the
Crowders Mountain State Park area less intense; this is why the industrial development has
tended to stay north of I-85. The development, especially residential, has a much greater
potential with the proposed Gaston East-West Connector than without it.
There would be more density with the closer route that includes C3 and E2, rather than the
longer route including C1, D1, and E1. The longer route would likely lead to sprawling
development and is therefore less preferred by this group.
Interchanges Fl and F2 have high residential growth potential, but the same for both
interchanges and the same potential with or without the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector.
The group would like to see office development in the vicinity of I and J interchanges in
order to keep people commuting to destinations in Gaston County (as opposed to
Charlotte).
171
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Gaston Urban Area MPO October 18, 2007
150 South York Street
Gastonia, NC 28053-1748
704.854.6663
Aftendees:
Hank Graham (Senior Transportation Planner)
Randi Gates (Transportation Planner I)
J. Scott Lane (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Lisa Murphy (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Follow-Up Items:
Ms. Gates will send GIS files for: recently developed parcels, new FIRM dataset, location of
new proposed C interchanges.
Individual Comments:
Mr. Graham has been with the MPO for 4 years and is a native of the area. Ms. Gates has
been with the MPO for 2 years and is also a native of the area.
A1 and A2 - there is some redevelopment and commercial development on a small scale
right now. This is not in anticipation of the road.
There will be issues with relocating existing I-85 interchanges with either the A1 or A2
alignment. There would be more takings with A2.
They get inquiries daily for nonresidential development near A and B interchanges. People
have heard about the road and want to build, but are waiting for the alignment to be
announced.
The County economic development office is pushing industrial growth north of 85. There
was a state grant for the Dole Plant.
B1 and B2 will have significant environmental effects due to wetlands.
There are lots of new subdivisions being built currently between B and C.
They have an existing functional design for extending Hudson Blvd to loop around to I-85.
They are re-doing this due to the Gaston East-West Connector plans. They have proposed
to the Turnpike Authority that the C interchanges be moved to the Hudson Blvd extension
rather than the current Lynwood Road. The takings situation is better with the Hudson Blvd.
interchanges.
There are sewer pumping issues in the area around the F interchange and points east.
There are existing mobile home parks and new approved/underway residential
development near E2.
The railroad corridor parallel to 321 will be an issue with the Gaston East-West Connector.
The existing intersection is already a problem with safety and grade separation.
172
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
The "stink plant° affects development near E and F. The road may be a catalyst to move
the plant, which would increase potential development in those areas.
I and H are high growth areas even without the road.
They only get one thoroughfare funded per year in the MPO due to budget constraints.
2003 was the last demographic forecast, they are redoing it now. They did assume the
Gaston East-West Connector in those forecasts. In general, the factors used in creating
those projections have come true, and they are still valid to use.
The attitude toward development is generally "bring it on° but it depends on who the
developer is. Some developers have gotten approval for development that others would
not have been able to accomplish. 90% of subdivisions use a conditional use process.
People will use the road regardless of tolls because I-85 is currently gridlocked.
173
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
City of Gastonia Planning Department October 17, 2007
150 South York Street
Gastonia, NC 28053-1748
704.854.6632
Aftendees:
Jack Kiser (Director)
J. Scott Lane (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Lisa Murphy (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Follow-Up Items:
The Utilities Dept has water and sewer GIS files. Contact Mike Bynum at City of Gastonia.
Individual Comments:
In general, much of this area will be built out before the road is ever built, especially
considering the budget challenges that may delay the project. However, the character
and dynamic of development may change with the road. A toll road would have less
impact/challenges.
There is generally plenty of water/sewer capacity - if a developer wants to build, they just
extend the lines. There are some localized short term issues with getting water/sewer to
particular areas, but these will be resolved before the road gets built. Generally
water/sewer would not be an impediment to development on any alignment.
The growth hot spots are B1, H1, H2, 12. There is some potential in other places. There
would be a lot of redevelopment potential with the road because there is lots of
development now in these areas. Without the road, would get primarily residential
development.
Development in anticipation of the road is very little. There is some but it is not driven by
the road. 5's for all sectors.
B1 will be commercial development due to proximity of 74 and 85.
Industrial development will occur at A1 /A2, E1 /E2.
D1 - the development form would be different with and without the road, but amount is
likely the same.
There could be residential development at F1 and F2, but the smell from the animal
processing plant is the constraint on development right now. The road wouldn't
necessarily change anything unless it can get rid of that plant in the process, if so could
see lots of development there.
G1 G2 will develop within 4-5 years with or without road. The road would change the
dynamic.
174
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
H will develop ahead of the road, won't be affected. H1 and H2 are currently developing
commercial unrelated to the road. There is a big mixed use development (Presley) that
has been approved near there.
H and I(all) - in an area requiring pumping stations for sewer service so that limits the
growth there. Eventually they will build another wastewater treatment facility in that part
of the county, and this won't be an issue.
I will be mixed use, may be affected by the road with possible redevelopment in that area
if the road comes through. Expects I1 and 12 to develop commercial, specifically the
hospitality industry. Without the road there will be more residential, with the road less
residential more commercial.
J- higher end residential, already developing.
Section in Mecklenburg is still shown on their maps with at-grade crossings, no toll. Is that
current?
Road won't affect district 3.
Rates City of Gastonia a 3 on allowing new development. The unincorporated county is
less restrictive on growth, but there no water/sewer. Areas must be annexed to get
water/sewer.
There is a new comp plan for 2020. Developers do follow the land use plan most of the
time. The board/council is becoming increasingly picky about what they will approve, but
few projects go through conditional use process.
They are working on a common UDO for Gaston city and county. Belmont is not part of
the UDO -they are the most progressive in land use policies
Phase II stormwater rules will be adopted by the City in the next few months. The county
already adopted them. The City is also going to third stage stormwater detention. They
currently require 20% open space on development, not counting floodplains.
There are concerns about draining retail from downtown; it requires discipline to promote
sustainable land use patterns.
With the toll road - less likely to have regional retail centers, more through traffic.
175
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
City of Belmont Planning Department October 18, 2007
37 North Main Street
Belmont, NC 28012
704.901.2067
Aftendees:
Elson F. Baldwin (Planning Director)
Adrian T. Miller (Senior Planner)
J. Scott Lane (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Lisa Murphy (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Follow-Up Items:
Contact Don Simpson at HNTB for GIS files for the land use layer of the new comprehensive
plan.
Individual Comments:
Mr. Baldwin stated that he had grown up in Gastonia and had worked for the Planning
Department for 11 years; Mr. Miller stated that he had only been working in Belmont for
about six months. The familiarity with the study area varied by location for each
participant.
A comprehensive land use plan was recently completed for Belmont, but the digital copy
is not yet available (waiting for two months from consultant for digital versions). Also, the
City of Belmont has previously adopted Phase II stormwater control rules.
The District 4 area has sewer capacity issues due to long distance that sewage must be
pumped from southern end of Gaston County.
District 10 is growing because of river-related development with very expensive homes.
Both men thought that interchange J1 would develop as commercial uses; whereas J2
and J3 would be less commercially-oriented.
There is more potential for commercial traffic at Kl and K2 with the Gaston east-West
Connector project in place.
The I1 and 12 interchanges are already high-growth areas without consideration of the
Gaston East-West Connector.
The "H° interchanges would develop as more mixed-use (residential-retail) than other
areas.
The "G° interchanges will have more difficulty in getting public water/sewer services
provided to this area.
The "D° interchange is already developing as higher-end residential due to the views
afforded of Crowders Mountain; starter homes are also entering this area due to the lower
prices of land.
The "A", "B", and "C' interchanges would develop more commercially with the Gaston
East-West Connector in place.
176
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
York County Government October 18, 2007
1070 Heckle Boulevard
Rock Hill, SC 29732-2863
803.909.7222
Aftendees:
Rebecca Bowyer (Asst. County Engineer)
Phil Leazer (Transportation Manager)
Mark Kettlewell (County Engineer)
Allison C. Love (Transportation Planner)
Anna Wilson (Asst. County Manager)
Susan Britt (Director of Planning & Development)
Jim Baker (County Manager)
J. Scott Lane (The Louis Berger Group, Inc.)
Follow-Up Items:
Mr. Leazer and Mr. Kettlewell will provide Berger with water/sewer information via FTP site
(supplementing material purchased, probably more recent)
Ms. Love will provide Berger with information about the Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance and site development guidelines.
Individual Comments:
The individuals were generally familiar with Districts 9 and 10, but not familiar with other
areas (with the exception of Ms. Britt, who had worked in Davidson for five years
previously). Hence, most of the discussion centered on Districts 9 and 10, which were the
only areas evaluated.
A general discussion opened after Mr. Lane explained the purpose of the meeting and the
role of the discussion in the Environmental Effect Statement for the Gaston East-West
Connector. Ms. Britt and others noted that, in general, the northern reaches of York County
are growing without regard to the Gaston East-West Connector, fueled by a favorable
climate, other roadway projects (e.g., SC 49 widening to five lanes), lower tax rates than
North Carolina (property taxes were recently cut nearly in half), and quality of life issues.
Some felt that the Garden Parkway (their term) will reduce North Carolina traffic coming
through the area, and the acceleration or rate of growth will be influenced by the Gaston
East-West Connector in some areas, but that it would not be a major contributor to that
growth.
Some developers are aware of the Gaston East-West Connector, but there is a low level of
awareness on the part of the public and media at this point in time.
The Gaston East-West Connector may pull traffic away from local roadways in Clover, SC.
When prompted, Mr. Lane described some of the information that he had heard from
other interviewees about development proposals and trends in Gaston County and in the
proximity of Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.
The [Catawba] River has been a"huge° barrier to growth and development on the west
side. District 6 is growing fast now, but is not related to the Gaston East-West Connector.
177
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
While water supplies have traditionally had large surplus capacity (until the recent
drought), wastewater capacity is smaller.
An Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) is being developed to match the pace of
development along with school and water/sewage treatment capacities. The former
(schools) is limiting growth to some degree.
District 10 is already growing; it was noted that 40% of York County commuters travel to
Charlotte each day. The [Charlotte-Douglas International] Airport and US 321
improvements are driving these changes. District 9 feels less influence from the Gaston
East-West Connector than District 10 due to its greater distance. However, some
development would be redirected to the north of Clover, SC instead of to the east. Mr.
Lane asked if there was any reason that the southern edge of the study could not be
moved north to align with the southern edge of Clover; the group did not see any problem
with making that change. Clover has been aggressive in its annexation policy.
The group did not believe that there would be any development effect felt from the
interchanges; they are generally too far away. This fact is especially true for the northern
alignments.
When asked, the group did not think that there would be any difference in the pace or
patterns of development if the road were tolled or not.
Without public water and sewer services, densities are seldom greater than one unit per
acre.
The group had concerns about both air and water quality issues from development and
traffic that would occur in Gaston and Mecklenburg counties as a result of the Gaston
East-West Connector. They generally perceived that North Carolina had less stringent
controls on stormwater runoff than their own. Mr. Lane mentioned that Gaston County
may be adopting Phase II stormwater controls soon, and that Belmont had already done
so.
ffiLE-�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department October 19, 2007
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
704.336.8315
Aftendees:
Bob Cook
Tim Manes
Alberto Gonzalez
Claire Lyte-Graham
Kent A. Main
J. Scott Lane (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Follow-Up Items:
Contact the LUESA department of Charlotte-Mecklenburg County to determine current
regulatory and site mitigation requirements for new development.
Individual Comments:
All of the attendees had either worked or lived in the area (or both) for at least five years.
The focus of the discussion was only on Districts 3, 5, 6, and 7.
District 6(southwest Mecklenburg) is a predominantly rural area of the County, and is part
of a water supply watershed. The area is riddled with creeks, steep topography and
resulting water/sewer supply problems. These factors will inhibit growth initially. There is a
general awareness of the Gaston East-West Connector but the proposed project is not
propelling growth in the area. Other projects in the vicinity are, however, inducing growth,
especially the improvements associated with the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
and intermodal rail terminal. The land use plan calls for flex space, offices, and distribution
facilities with neighborhood retail around Western Boulevard. Hotel developers have
become interested in the Western Boulevard and Kl/K2 interchanges as well. Currently,
the Gaston East-West Connector is an inhibitor to new development in close proximity to
the alternatives, due to the uncertainty associated with its effects.
District 7 is already "exploding,° and may see more flexible (office-warehouse) space as a
result of the construction of the Gaston East-West Connector.
The group thought that the J1, J2, and J3 interchange areas are developing and will
continue to develop anyway, with or without the Gaston East-West Connector. However,
the type and intensity of development may be influenced by the project.
The proximity of the Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden will, in combination with the Gaston
East-West Connector's improved access, influence the development of that area towards
tourism-related industries. The group agreed that the Botanical Garden has been a long-
time supporter of the Gaston East-West Connector due to the vastly improved access that
it would afford the property. Mr. Cook stated that the Gaston East-West Connector was
not going to be constructed to help a few hundred tourists, and that the roadway is
considered an economic development tool.
The group generally gave moderate scores to the ease of development variances
granted to private property developers. Members of the group suggested contacting the
Land Use and Environmental Services Agency (LUESA,
www.charmeck.ora/Departments/LUESA/Home.htm) of Charlotte-Mecklenburg County to
get more information on development restrictions and regulatory policies in the
Mecklenburg portion of the study area.
179
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Gaston Economic Development Commission October 19, 2007
PO Box 2339
Gastonia, NC 28053-2339
704.825.4046
Aftendees:
Donny Hicks (Executive Director)
J. Scott Lane (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Follow-Up Items:
The consultant has requested a copy of a confidential economic development study
commissioned by the CEdC to look at development potential at every proposed
interchange location along the Gaston East-West Connector.
Individual Comments:
Mr. Hicks noted that he has worked at the CEdC for his entire career: 23 years total and 21
years as Executive Director. He is highly familiar with "every square inch° of much of the
Gaston East-West Connector due to a corridor study that the CEdC completed
approximately six months ago.
District 1(Cleveland County) has potential for growth primarily because of the cheaper
land in that District.
District 4(Mt. Holly) has development that is more closely tied to the improvements of NC
16 (four-lane divided, median-controlled with limited access) than with the Gaston East-
West Connector.
Development is somewhat constrained by the uncertainty of the location of the
alignments and interchanges of the proposed Gaston East-West Connector, otherwise,
development is generally occurring without much consideration / anticipation of the
project. This may change when the final alignment is chosen.
District 6 development depends on the progress of the new intermodal rail terminal and
other expansions associated with Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. Flex and office
space as well as distribution and manufacturing will occur, not office space or corporate
headquarters due to many other, better located office locations in the region (e.g.,
Morrisville, northern Mecklenburg County).
Residential development will occur in the vicinity of interchanges I1, 12, and 13 but not
anything else due to a lack of proximity to major markets.
Large lots and master planned developments can occur in J1 and J2 that would permit
mixed-use developments, but J3 vicinity has smaller lots that would be more difficult to
assemble and develop.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition October 19, 2007
2923 Audrey Drive
Gastonia, NC 28054
704.867.4826
Aftendees:
Elizabeth K. Barnhardt, Charlotte Regional Realtor Association
Jerry Campbell (Regional Director)
Ann G. Drum (CEO)
Lamar Kellar
J. Scott Lane (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Follow-Up Items:
Obtain copy of draft Unified Development Ordinance from Gaston County.
Obtain copy of Black and Veatch study from Jerry Campbell.
Individual Comments:
All of the attendees have worked and/or lived in the Gaston area for at least 10 years;
several for the majority of their lives (more than 20 years).
Members of the group stated that a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) would be
adopted by the majority of the Gaston County's 13 municipalities by March of 2008. There
are plans for 'bverlays° along the Gaston East-West Connector, and plans for trails along
its length from Crowders Mountain State Park to the Daniel Stowe Botanical Gardens.
Mr. Kellar stated that Gaston County is five years behind the development curve of other
counties in the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in terms of large, master-planned
developments, growth moratoriums, etc. The [Catawba] River is the major impediment to
growth, and has provided a strong, physical barrier separating Gaston from the rest of the
Region. Within the past five years, large developers (e.g., Ryan Homes, KB Homes,
Crosland) are now entering the Gaston market as they perceive it to be increasingly
desirable. In order to help finance growth, a$175 million school bond is expected to pass
in November, and may be followed by a sales tax increase to help keep pace with school
capacity issues. The area wants to learn from the experience of other counties in the
Region with regard to staying in advance of the growth-related needs of the County.
The Gaston East-West Connector is, generally, an impediment to growth due to the
uncertainty of its exact location. This is producing less development in the area and
lowered property values. As soon as the exact alignment is known, then the properties will
begin to develop and values increase.
Gastonia is thinking more about master planning now then it used to in the past.
Regardless of the desires of some to find replacement industries for the textile businesses
lost, Gaston is becoming a bedroom community for Charlotte, and its economy is
changing towards services and retail commodities.
Mr. Campbell stated that public utilities will be coming first to Districts 3, 4, and 5; followed
by District 8 then District 2.
There is a lot of golf course development already occurring in the Crowders Mountain and
King's Mountain areas. District 1 is growing near the I-85 corridor, but may not see much
influence from the Gaston East-West Connector.
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
District 2 will be influenced by the possibility of expanding the existing Dole plant to include
a frozen food plant.
District 4 growth is being fueled b proximity to I-85; similarly, District 5 already has good
access from other roadway facilities and thus will not be much influenced by the
construction of the Gaston East-West Connector.
The growth and development of Districts 6 and 7 will be affected in terms of timing, not
intensity.
District 8 does not have public water/sewer anticipated in the near future and hence will
develop at a later date and with a lower potential for new development. District 8
development is also hampered by rocky subsurface that is expense to grade.
District 10 will develop rapidly regardless of the construction of the Gaston East-West
Connector.
District 9 is influenced more by the growth policies of the Town of Clover, not by the
proposed Gaston East-West Connector.
Several in the group thought that tolling the Gaston East-West Connector would change
the quality of the development towards higher-end housing and retail opportunities, but
not affect the quantity of development or development potential.
fE�
REVISED DRAFi INDIRECi
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Bessemer City Planr
City Hall
132 W. Vrginia Ave.
704-476-8000
AND CUMULAiIVE EFFECiS ASSESSMENi
ent
Aftendees:
Kevin L. Krouse
Kim Bereis (PBS&J)
J. Scott Lane (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Julie Flesch-Pate (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Individual Comments:
November 7, 2007
Mr. Krouse lives in Charlotte and works for Bessemer City Planning Department.
He is most familiar with District 2 which he explained is just starting to feel economic
growth. The majority of this grow is due to residential growth but the City has been working
with local EDC to attract commercial/industrial entities.
The proposed Gaston E/W Connector would benefit the City of Bessemer to attract more
industry and commercial entities but at the same time it has the possibility of '9osing°
Edgewood Road due to project implementation. Edgewood Road is a gateway to the
City. Over 500 acres of land has recently been rezoned along I-85 and Edgewood Road.
Mr. Krouse believes that District 2 will experience residential pressure regardless of the
proposed project. The implementation of the project would mean that there would be a
possibility that commercial industrial growth would add to that pressure.
The proposed Northern Loop is likely to affect US 321 interchange according to Mr. Krouse.
Bessemer City offers administrative review on mixed use development and it has worked
very well. Elected officials trust staff. Some variances are allowed at a staff level.
McAdenville, Cramer ton and Lowell are currently experiencing growth without the
proposed project.
Stormwater management is under the jurisdiction of Gaston County.
Mr. Krouse believed that BMP's would be different for residential and commercial
development.
Bessemer City approved a new land use plan in August of 2007. According to Mr. Krouse
the plan rezoned the entire City.
Mr. Krouse stated that the "No Build° altemative would have no effect on Bessemer City.
�'-�'
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Riverkeepers/CD Collins November 7, 2007
Aftendees:
CD Collins
Kim Bereis (PBS&J)
J. Scott Lane (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Julie Flesch-Pate (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Individual Comments:
Mr. Collin's primary concem was the potential cost of the project. He was also concemed
that developers are building in the path of the corridors which may drive costs and
relocations up. He recommends that that a preferred alternative be selected as soon as
possible.
Due to constructability issues Mr. Collins prefers interchanges A1-B1-C1-D1. The other
alternatives in this area have the potential to affect Crowders Creek.
Areas near H2/H1 are planned for immediate construction in anticipation of the proposed
project.
The northern routes of all alternatives near 13/J3 are preferred due to constructability issues.
Lake Wylie is the 131h worst lake in the nation in regards to water quality according to Mr.
Collins.
Mt. Holly has proposed to construct a new wastewater treatment facility with a 25M gallon
capacity.
Mr. Collins feels that there are not enough infrastructures of public services to support the
amount of growth that the proposed project is likely to bring with its implementation.
�'-'i
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Crowders Mountain State Park, Mr. Larry Hyde November 16, 2007
522 Park Office Lane
Kings Mountain, NC 28086
(704) 853-5375
Aftendees:
Larry Hyde
Jill Gurak (PBS&J)
Julie Flesch-Pate (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Individual Comments:
Mr. Hyde stated that there are known state and federal protected species near
interchange sections C1 and D7.
He greatest concerns regarding the natural resources at the Park are:
• Air pollution generated from the proposed road,
• Urban growth associated with proposed project leading to a fire hazard for the
Park,
• Noise pollution, and
• Aesthetics (views affected by the roadway)
Mr. Hyde also believes that if constructed the proposed project would increase the access
to the Park which would be good for tourist but may over tax the infrastructure at the Park
and wildemess trails and other attractions. He fears that the "Park would be loved to
death°. He anticipates that if constructed the increased access could increase the
numbers of visitors the Park by as much as 50%.
A stream located near Linwood Road that is owned by the Park service is showing signs of
degradation. Mr. Hyde believes that more of this stream degradation is likely with
urbanization especially if the most southern alternatives are chosen for construction.
Mr. Hyde spoke of some cultural resources in the area; Linwood College and All Health
Spring.
f '��"
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Allen Tate Realty, Ms. Ann Finke November 16, 2007
1 17 N. Main Street
Belmont, NC 28012
(704) 829-1207
Aftendees:
Anne Finke (Allen Tate)
Julie Flesch-Pate (The Louis Berger Group Inc.)
Individual Comments:
Ms. Finke has lived in the Cramerton area for approximately 20 years and has worked in
residential real estate for five of those years.
She is very familiar with the Cramerton, southern portions of Gaston County, and the south
western portions of Mecklenburg County. She located several new residential
developments in these areas that are either already under construction on the verge of
construction.
She is seeing a trend of people that are relocation to Gaston County from Mecklenburg
County due to good access to the airport, I-85 and the short commute times to Charlotte.
She believes that that trend will continue into the future.
Union Road is one good example of the growth that is happening in Gaston County prior
to a project alternative selection.
She believed that future development is being hampered due to the fact that there has
not been a decision made in regards to where the Gaston East-West Connector may
eventually go. She also believes it is critical to know where the proposed project may go
so that schools, utilities and other infrastructure can accommodate the expected growth.
Ms. Finke believes that the proposed Gaston East- West Connector is contributing to the
growth in the southern portions of Gaston County, Mecklenburg County and Cramerton,
but it is not the only reason for development in this area. She cited that US 485 has
attracted new residential development in the Cramerton and Belmont areas and the
western portions of Mecklenburg County near the River. Likewise, the proposed SC 321 is
anticipated to attract development in southern Gaston County and areas in northern
South Carolina.
fE�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Gaston East-West Connector Community Characteristics Report-Local Interviews,
Conducted by PBS&J on July 11 and 12, 2007:
Donna Lockett, Executive Director of Gaston Together:
• Ms. Lockett does not have any project concerns as it relates to consistency
with the Gaston Together mission. She sees the project as having a
potentially positive effect, as it will enhance access across the county to
community resources such as health services (hospital care, health
department services for the underserved and elderly care).
• Ms. Lockett also sees the project supporting the goals/objectives of the
Gaston 2012 initiative.
David Williams, Planning Director, Gaston County Planning Department:
• Mr. Williams noted project concerns not only for neighborhoods adjacent to
or "in the Path° of the Detailed Study Altematives, but project induced land
use change in the area and increased traffic on area roadways.
• There are no major employment centers in the area within and near the
Detailed Study Alternatives.
• There is a large annexation/mixed use development planned for the
vacant property in the area of Wilson Farm Road/New Hope Union Road.
Jack Kiser, Planning Director, City of Gastonia:
• Mr. Kiser has some concerns related to land use changes associated with a
"bypass° of Gastonia. He believes that the project may act as a catalyst for
retail development in the study area.
• Gastonia is moving away from an industrial economy and shifting to service
jobs, information related jobs, and healthcare (the hospital is a large
employer) with people working all over the region. Gaston County is
probably the dominant employer in the region.
Kevin Krouse, Planning Director, Bessemer City, and Jim Long, TAC Chairperson and
Councilman (GUAMPO):
• Mr. Krouse and Mr. Long believe that the Southern Parkway project and the
widening of NC 274 from 2 lanes to 5 lanes will have a heavy influence on
economic development in the area.
• A cargo air strip is planned near Crowders Mountain Road.
Michael Peoples, Cramerton Town Manager. and Steve Baucon, Director of
Planning/Zoning/Code Enforcement, Cramerton:
• One of Cramerfon's concems related to the project in the area of the Town
is the potential increase in traffic through Cramerton on New Hope Road.
The Town believes that this will necessitate upgrading New Hope Road to
four lanes. The town also is concerned about increased traffic on Armstrong
Road.
• The Town is concerned with the proposed project's potential effect on the
Greenway Master Plan.
• The Town sees its municipal boundaries expanding on the east side (of New
Hope Road).
• The Town estimates that at least half of the residents commute to Charlotte
or outside of Gaston County for work.
�'-I
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
• As with other areas of the state, the Town has lost textile industry jobs and
has seen an increase in other industries (service, government, schools, auto
distribution, and steel specialty).
• The town recently lost Joanne Fabrics due to bankruptcy.
Barry Webb, City Manager, City of Belmont:
• Belmont serves as a bedroom community to Charlotte and Gastonia, with
most of the City's residences commuting outward. The City has a mill
presence still, but it is very small. Those residents that live closer to town are
mill workers.
• The largest employers within the City are Stowe Mills and Belmont Abbey
College.
• The City noted the potential for the ETJ to expand, particularly in the
Peninsula and Garden areas.
• The City is considering the project in future planning and growth/
development within the City. The City feels that the project will benefit
communities in its area because it will essentially decrease traffic on South
Point Road.
Jim Parks, Executive Director, Gaston County Schools:
• Growth and development is prevalent in the study area, which is driving the
need for the expansion and addition of educational institutions.
• Gaston County Schools is seeking potential new school sites to address the
demand for new schools in the area, including in the project vicinity. It was
noted that water and sewer infrastructure costs would play a role in which
site is ultimately chosen. Sites currently under consideration are not served
by water and sewers.
ff�„'-'E
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U-3321
AugusY, 2008
Appendix D. Numeric Responses from Interviewees
In addition to the comments by interviewees recorded in the meeting summaries, interviewees gave numeric responses to
several questions directed at specific districts and interchanges of the proposed Gaston East-West Connector (shown in Figure
3.2). The raw numeric responses are shown below. These responses were weighted based on the respondenYs level of
knowledge of each area, then averaged. The weighted average for each district and interchange was then used as part of the
spatial grid analysis.
Gaston City of
Chamber of Gastonia
Commerce
1. Lived here longer than
__ years 31
2. Worked here longer than
_ years 31
3. Familiarity with: (1=highly familiar, 5=not familiar at all)
District 1 2
District 2 1
District 3 1
District 4 2
District 5 2
District 6 2
District 7 1
District 8 1
District 9 3
District 10 3
Continued on next page
Gaston Real Estate Char-Meck
MPO and Building Planning
Industry Dept.
20 20 11
4 28 5
Gaston York
Economic County,
Development SC
38
23
Belmont Bessemer Anne
Planning City Finke-
Dept. Planning Tate
Realty
19 7
11 6
rzn
F.
Crowder
State
Park-
Larry
Hyde
15
2
4 1 2 1 4 5 5 3
2 1 1 3 3 1 3 3
2 1 2 1 3 3 2 5 3
2 1 1 3 3 2 3 3
3 1 1 2 3 4 2 3 3
4 1 1 1 2 4 3 5 3
2 1 2 1 2 1 4 5 1
2 1 1 2 3 3 5 1
4 1 2 1 5 5 5 3
4 1 2 1 5 5 3 3
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U-3321
AugusY, 2008
Append'nc D. Numeric Responses from Interviewees Cont'd
Gaston City of Gaston Real Estate Char-Meck Gaston
Chamber of Gastonia MPO and Building Planning Economic
Commerce Industry Dept. Development
4. Potential for new development with road: (1=very high potential/ongoing and 5=very low potential/constrained)
District 1 0 1 4 1 0 4
District 2 2 1 2 2 0 1
District 3 1 2 4 3 0 3
District 4 0 1 4 1 0 2
District 5 0 2 1 1 2
District 6 3 1 1 3 2
District 7 2 1 1 2 0 1
District 8 2 1 2 3 0 4
District 9 2 2 2 0 2
District 10 2 2 1 0 1
A1 1 1 1 2 0 1
A2 2 1 1 2 0 2
B1 4 1 2 3 0 3
B2 4 1 1 3 0 3
C1 2 1 1 3 0 3
C2 2 1 1 3 0 3
C3 2 1 1 3 0 3
D1 2 1 1 3 0 4
E1 4 1 2 2 0 3
E2 4 1 3 2 0 3
F1 1 1 2 0 1
F2 1 1 2 0 1
G1 2 1 1 2 0 1
G2 2 1 1 2 0 1
H1 2 1 1 2 0 4
H2 2 1 1 0 0 4
11 3 1 1 2 1
12 3 1 1 1 2 3
13 3 1 1 2 3
J1 3 1 1 1 1
J2 3 1 1 1 1
J3 3 1 1 1 3
K1 0 1 1 2 2
K2 2 1 1 2 2
York
County,
SC
2
1
Belmont Bessemer Anne
Planning City Finke-
Dept. Planning Tate
Realty
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Crowder
State
Park-
Larry
Hyde
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U-3321
AugusY, 2008
Append'nc D. Numeric Responses from Interviewees Cont'd
Gaston Real Estate Char-Meck Gaston Belmont Bessemer Anne Crowder
City of Gaston York Finke-
Chamber of and Building Planning Economic Planning City State Park-
Commerce Gastonia MPO Industry Dept. Development County, SC Dept. Planning Tate Larry Hyde
5. Potential for new development without road: (1=very high potential/ongoing and 5=very lowpotential/constrained)
District 1 1 4 4 2 0 4 4 1 0 3
District 2 0 3 3 4 0 2 4 1 0 3
District 3 0 2 4 3 0 3 4 4 0 3
District 4 0 1 3 1 0 2 3 4 0 3
District 5 0 2 2 1 2 2 4 0 3
District 6 0 2 1 1 2 4 1 0 3
District 7 0 1 1 3 0 4 3 5 0 5
District 8 0 2 4 4 0 4 4 5 0 5
District 9 1 3 3 0 3 3 5 0 3
District 10 1 3 1 0 2 1 3 5 0 3
A1 0 1 3 2 0 2 3 4 0 3
A2 0 1 1 2 0 2 3 4 0 3
B1 0 1 3 4 0 4 3 2 0 3
B2 0 1 2 4 0 4 3 2 0 3
C1 0 1 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 5
C2 0 2 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 3
C3 0 3 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 3
D1 0 1 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 5
E1 0 2 2 3 0 4 0 0 0 3
E2 0 2 3 3 0 4 0 0 0 3
F1 0 3 3 0 4 0 0 0 3
F2 0 3 3 0 4 0 0 0 3
G1 0 1 3 3 0 4 0 0 0 3
G2 0 1 3 3 0 4 0 0 0 3
H1 0 1 2 3 0 4 2 0 2 3
H2 0 1 2 3 0 4 2 0 2 3
11 0 2 3 4 4 2 0 2 3
12 0 2 3 4 4 2 0 2 3
13 0 2 3 4 4 2 0 2 3
J1 0 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 3
J2 0 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 3
J3 0 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 3
K1 0 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
K2 0 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
�'
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U-3321
AugusY, 2008
Append'nc D. Numeric Responses from Interviewees Cont'd
Gaston City of Gaston Real Estate Char-Meck Gaston York
Chamber of Gastonia MPO and Building Planning Economic County,
Commerce Industry Dept. Development SC
6. Howmuch development is in anticipation ofthe road? (1=very high potential/ongoing and 5=very lowpotential/constreined)
District 1 5 5 0 5
District 2 5 5 0 5
District 3 5 5 0 5
District 4 5 5 0 5
District 5 5 5 5 5
District 6 5 1 5 3
District 7 5 1 0 1
District 8 5 5 0 5
District 9 5 5 0 5 5
District 10 5 5 0 5 5
A1 5 5 0 5
A2 5 5 0 5
B1 5 5 0 5
B2 5 5 0 5
C1 5 5 0 3
C2 5 5 0 3
C3 5 5 0 3
D1 5 5 0 5
E1 5 5 0 5
E2 5 5 0 5
F1 5 5 0 5
F2 5 5 0 5
G1 5 5 0 5
G2 5 5 0 5
H1 5 5 0 5
H2 5 5 0 5
11 5 5 0 2
12 5 5 0 2
13 5 5 0 2
J1 5 5 0 3
J2 5 5 0 3
J3 5 5 0 3
K1 5 5 5 3
K2 5 5 5 3
Belmont Bessemer Anne
Planning City Finke-
Dept. Planning Tate
Realty
3
3
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Crowder
State
Park-
Larry
Hyde
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
�
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U-3321
AugusY, 2008
Append'nc D. Numeric Responses from Interviewees Cont'd
Anne Crowder
Gaston Real Estate Char-Meck Gaston York Belmont Bessemer State
Chamber of City of Gaston and Building Planning Economic County, Planning City Finke- park-
Commerce Gastonia MPO Industry Dept. Development SC Dept. Planning Tate Larry
Realty Hyde
7. Likely to grent variance (1=almost always, 5=almost never)
Gaston County 1
City of Gastonia 3
Ch arlotte-Mecklen burg
York County
Mt. Holly
Belmont
Other towns
8. Difficulty of development review process (1=very difficult, 5=very easy)
Gaston County 4
City of Gastonia 4
Charlotte-Mecklenburg 3
York County
Mt. Holly 2
Belmont
Other towns 3
9. Rank importance for new development (1=highest; RES = Residential; NONRES = Nonresidential)
Public water RES
Public water NONRES
Public sewer RES
Public sewer NONRES
Roadway capacity RES
Roadway capacity NONRES
General economic climate
RES
General economic climate
NONRES
Quality of school system RES
Quality of school system
NONRES
Crime rete RES
Crime rete NONRES
Other RES
Other NONRES
Other (specify)
4
3
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
5
2
Air quality
4
4
2
193
R E V I S E D D R A F i I N D I R E C i A N D C U M U L A i I V E E F F E C i S A S S E S S M E N i
GASiON EASi-WESiCONNECiOR
TIP No: U3321
AugusY, 2008
Appendix E. Report Mapping
'�,'