20120285_Gaston_QualitativeICE_Report_031609_20101222

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
GASTON AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES

NORTH CAROLINA
STIP NO: U-3321

March 16, 2009

Prepared for:
North Carolina Turnpike Authority

THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC.
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400, Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.louisberger.com
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................5 
2.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................32 
3.0 DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................35 
3.1 DEFINITIONS ...........................................................................................................................................35 
3.2 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................37 
4.0 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES (STEP 1)...................................................................................................52 
5.0 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROFILES BY COUNTY (STEP 2)..................................................60 
6.0 LAND USE (STEP 3).................................................................................................................................74 
6.1 GASTON COUNTY ..................................................................................................................................74 
6.2 MECKLENBURG COUNTY........................................................................................................................79 
6.3 YORK COUNTY.......................................................................................................................................80 
6.4 CLEVELAND COUNTY .............................................................................................................................80 
7.0 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY (STEP 3 CONTINUED)................................................81 
7.1 WATERSHED ...........................................................................................................................................81 
7.2 WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS .................................................................................................................83 
7.3 WETLANDS .............................................................................................................................................84 
7.4 STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS ......................................................................................................................85 
7.5 STATE AND LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCES .............................................................87 
7.6 RIPARIAN BUFFER RULES .........................................................................................................................87 
7.7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ......................................................89 
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES (STEP 3 CONTINUED)....................................................................90 
8.1 NATURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................90 
8.2 NATURAL HERITAGE SITES .......................................................................................................................91 
8.3 AIR QUALITY ..........................................................................................................................................92 
8.4 NOISE ....................................................................................................................................................93 
8.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................................94 
9.0 TRANSPORTATION (STEP 3 CONTINUED).................................................................................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 
11.3 JOB GROWTH RATE ...........................................................................................................................107 
11.4 PER CAPITA INCOME .........................................................................................................................110 
11.5 HOUSING STOCK MIX AND VALUE .....................................................................................................111 
11.6 COMMUTING AND ACCESSIBILITY ......................................................................................................112 
11.7 TOURISM ............................................................................................................................................115 
12.0 IDENTIFY POTENTIAL INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (STEPS 4 & 5)...........................116 
12.1 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE LAND USE EFFECTS .................................................................................116 
12.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES AND AQUATIC HABITAT EFFECTS ..........................................................131 
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

3
12.3 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITY EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH INDUCED GROWTH AND LAND USE CHANGE..133 
12.4 EFFECTS TO THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ........................................................................135 
12.5 SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS ...............................................................................................................137 
12.6 AMBIENT NOISE ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................138 
12.7 AIR QUALITY EFFECTS .........................................................................................................................138 
12.8 INDIRECT EFFECTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................138 
12.9 INDIRECT EFFECTS TO PRIME FARMLAND .............................................................................................139 
13.0 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................151 
APPENDIX A. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLANS SUMMARY ..............................................................152 
APPENDIX B. LIST OF REVIEWED DOCUMENTS .............................................................................................167 
APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND LOCAL OFFICIALS ................................168 
APPENDIX D. NUMERIC RESPONSES FROM INTERVIEWEES ............................................................................189 
APPENDIX E. REPORT MAPPING .................................................................................................................194 
APPENDIX F. SCOPING COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES ...........................................................................195 
APPENDIX G. REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................201 

List of Tables
TABLE 1.1 WATER SUPPLY STREAMS...............................................................................................13
TABLE 1.2 CORRIDOR SEGMENTS COMPRISING EACH DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVE ........................16
TABLE 1.3 SUMMERY OF POTENTIAL INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS BY COUNTY ......................17
TABLE 1.4 POTENTIAL ICES IN YORK COUNTY ................................................................................18
TABLE 1.5 POTENTIAL ICES IN CLEVELAND COUNTY .......................................................................20
TABLE 1.6 POTENTIAL ICES IN MECKLENBURG COUNTY ..................................................................21
TABLE 1.7 POTENTIAL ICES IN GASTON COUNTY ...........................................................................23
TABLE 1.8 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ICES AT THE DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVE LEVEL .......................28
TABLE 2.1 CORRIDOR SEGMENTS COMPRISING EACH DETAILING STUDY ALTERNATIVE ......................33
TABLE 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY METHODS & PRIMARY DATA RESOURCES ....................................44
TABLE 3.2 NOTABLE FEATURES ......................................................................................................46
TABLE 5.1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES FOR FY 08..........................................................68
TABLE 6.1 MUNICIPAL LAND USE INFORMATION, GASTON COUNTY ................................................75
TABLE 6.2 CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PASSENGERS AND MAIL TONS,
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS ............................................................79
TABLE 7.1 WATERSHED PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................84
TABLE 7.2 WETLAND LOSSES (ACRES) 1995-2000.........................................................................84
TABLE 7.3 WATER SUPPLY STREAMS...............................................................................................86
TABLE 7.4 STREAM LOSSES (LINEAR FEET), 1997-2000....................................................................87
TABLE 7.5 S.W.I.M. BUFFER .........................................................................................................89
TABLE 8.1 NATURAL HERITAGE SITES OF GASTON COUNTY..............................................................91
TABLE 8.2 COMMON OUTDOOR NOISES ......................................................................................93
TABLE 11.1 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT INCLUDED IN THE ICE STUDY AREA ..............................110
TABLE 11.2 PER CAPITA INCOME .................................................................................................111
TABLE 11.3 MEDIAN HOUSING VALUE ..........................................................................................112
TABLE 11.4 COMMUTE STATISTICS OF GASTON COUNTY, 1990-2000 .............................................112
TABLE 12.1 DATA LAYERS USED TO CALCULATE GRID INDICES ........................................................119
TABLE 12.2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS BY COUNTY ....................140
TABLE 12.3 POTENTIAL ICE’S IN YORK COUNTY.............................................................................141
TABLE 12.4 POTENTIAL ICE’S IN CLEVELAND COUNTY ...................................................................143
TABLE 12.5 POTENTIAL ICE’S IN MECKLENBURG COUNTY...............................................................144
TABLE 12.6 POTENTIAL ICE’S IN GASTON COUNTY ........................................................................146
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

4
List of Figures
FIGURE 1.1 NCDOT’S 8-STEP ICE ASSESSMENT PROCESS.................................................................6
FIGURE 1.2 FOUR COUNTY STUDY AREA ...........................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 1.3 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES…….………..APPENDIX E
FIGURE 1.4 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR TIPS ............................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 3.1 NCDOT’S 8-STEP ICE ASSESSMENT PROCESS .............................................................. 38
FIGURE 3.2 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR STUDY AREAS ..............................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 4.1 TEMPORAL BOUNDARY………………………………………………………………….. ..59
FIGURE 6.1 ICE STUDY AREA ............................................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 6.2 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVE SEGMENTS ..........................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 7.1 ELEVATION AND WATERSHEDS..........................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES..............................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 10.1 FARMLAND AND PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS....................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 11.1 GASTON COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................100
FIGURE 11.2 CLEVELAND COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS .......................................................................101
FIGURE 11.3 MECKLENBURG COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS...................................................................102
FIGURE 11.4 YORK COUNTY, S.C. DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................................103
FIGURE 11.5 GASTON, MECKLENBURG, CLEVELAND, YORK DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................104
FIGURE 11.6 ICE STUDY AREA DEMOGRAPHICS ..............................................................................105
FIGURE 11.7 EMPLOYMENT COMPOSITION (2007 ESTIMATED)..........................................................107
FIGURE 11.8 DAILY COMMUTER FLOWS (2000) AND PERCENT CHANGE (1990-2000).....................113
FIGURE 11.9 TRAVEL TIME CHANGES (2030) WITH AND WITHOUT THE
GASTON EAST–WEST CONNECTOR ..................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 11.10 10-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME ISOCHRONES FOR WEST SIDE AND
EAST SIDE 2030..............................................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.1 HUMAN AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT SENSITIVITY .............................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.2 CUMULATIVE GROWTH POTENTIAL ...................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.3 CUMULATIVE GROWTH POTENTIAL AND HUMAN AND
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT SENSITIVITY .................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.4 COMMUNITY FEATURES....................................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.5 PUBLIC UTILITIES ..............................................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.6 DEVELOPABLE LAND .......................................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.7 DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME ..............................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.8 ALTERNATIVE INTERCHANGES ...........................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.9 INTERCHANGE K.............................................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.10 INTERCHANGES A &B.....................................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.11 INTERCHANGE C............................................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.12 INTERCHANGES D AND E.................................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.13 INTERCHANGES F AND G.................................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.14 INTERCHANGE H.............................................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.15 INTERCHANGES I AND J...................................................................................APPENDIX E
FIGURE 12.16 WILDLIFE HABITAT ...........................................................................................APPENDIX E

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

5
1.0 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:
ƒ Need to improve mobility, access and connectivity within southern
Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County.
ƒ 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.1

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 Transportation 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
alternative and would commence following the approval of the Draft
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

6
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Figure 1.1 shows how the 8-step
process is to be incorporated into this NEPA-level project review.

Figure 1.1. NCDOT ICE Assessment 8-Step Process

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

7
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:
ƒ neighborhoods;
ƒ political boundaries;
ƒ community resources;
ƒ public infrastructure;
ƒ travel demand modeling;
ƒ state and local stormwater management ordinances;
ƒ watersheds;
ƒ wetland areas;
ƒ areas of known contamination;
ƒ 100-year Flood Plain areas;
ƒ threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat;
ƒ land use; topography;
ƒ soils;
ƒ prime and unique agriculture lands;
ƒ public lands and scenic;
ƒ recreational and state natural areas;
ƒ air quality;
ƒ significant Natural Heritage Sites;
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

8
ƒ wildlife and natural vegetation; and
ƒ forest 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 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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

9

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.
Notable features is a broad term that describes characteristics of the
environment that society would like to protect, emphasizing characteristics
such as (1) recovery time from disturbance/destruction, (2) sensitivity to
disruption, and (3) vulnerability to changes directly, indirectly, or cumulative
induced by the project (NCDOT ICI Guidance Volume II, page III-28).
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,
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

10
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:
ƒ local expert interviews;
ƒ spatial grid analyses/assessment of networks of weighted data
points;
ƒ Policy context reviews conducted during this study as well as the
Community Characteristics Report conducted earlier for this project;
and
ƒ 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
opportunities 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
practices. The County has a Unified
Development Ordinance establishing goals and
objectives to manage existing and anticipated
development. Much of the new growth in
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 portion of the County that is
estimated to grow to 1,900 units in that same timeframe.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

11
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
Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO), the majority of proposed
projects scheduled for completion over the next 10—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 connector would 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,
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

12
York County has developed the York County 2025 Comprehensive Plan
with goals and strategies that are based broadly on quality of life issues;
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:
ƒ 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;
ƒ 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; or
ƒ 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:
ƒ Abernethy Creek;
ƒ Crowder Creek;
ƒ Blackwood Creek;
ƒ Catawba Creek;
ƒ Catawba River;
ƒ Sugar Creek; and
ƒ Dallas Branch. 2

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

13
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 1.1 provides information on these streams in the ICE Study Area.

Table 1.1 Water Supply Streams
Name of
Stream
Description Current Class
Designation (1)
Basin Stream Index
Number
Catawba River
(Lake Wylie
below elevation
570)
From I-85 bridge to the
upstream side of Paw
Creek Arm of lake Wylie
WS-IV, B; CA Catawba 11-(122)
Catawba River
(Lake Wylie
below elevation
570)North
Carolina portion
From the upstream side of
paw Creek Arm of lake
Wylie to North Carolina-
South Carolina State Line
WS-V, B Catawba 11-(123.5)
Unnamed
Tributary at
Belmont Abbey
College
From a point 0.5 mile
downstream of N.C. HWY
273 to Lake Wylie
WS-IV;CA Catawba 11-123-(2); 11-
123-(1)
South Fork
Catawba River
From a point 0.4 mile
upstream of Long Creek to
Cramerton Dam and Lake
Wylie at Upper Armstrong
bridge (mouth of South
Fork Catawba river)
WS-V Catawba 11-129-(15.5)
(1) Final North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report). Approved on May 17, 2007.
Class C: Waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life
including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, 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.
Class B: Waters protected for all Class C uses in addition to primary recreation. Primary recreational activities
include swimming, skin diving, water skiing, and similar uses involving human body contact with water where such
activities take place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis.
Water Supply IV (WS-IV): Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes where a WS-I, II or III classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-IV
waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or Protected Areas.
Water Supply V (WS-V): Waters protected as water supplies which are generally upstream and draining to Class
WS-IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking water or as waters formerly used
as water supply. These waters are also protected for Class C uses.

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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

14
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,
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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

15
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 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:
ƒ I-85;
ƒ US 29-74;
ƒ Linwood Road;
ƒ Lewis Road (for Detailed Study Alternatives using Corridor Segment
H1C – Detailed Study Alternatives 58, 64, 65, and 68);
ƒ US 321;
ƒ Robinson Road;
ƒ Bud Wilson Road;
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

16
ƒ Union Road (NC 274);
ƒ South New Hope Road (NC 279);
ƒ Southpoint Road (NC 273);
ƒ Dixie River Road; and
ƒ I-485.

Table 1.2 Corridor Segments Comprising Each Detailed Study Alternative
West Area -
generally west
of US 321
Central Area –
Generally east of US 321 and
west of NC 279 or the South
Fork Catawba River
East Area –
generally east of
NC 279 or the
South Fork
Catawba River
Detailed Study
Alternative No.*
H Segments J Segments K Segments
4 H2A-H3 J4a-J4b-J2c-J2d-J5a-J5b K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
5 H2A-H3 J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K1D
6 H2A-H3 J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
9 H2A-H3 J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
22 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-J5a-J5b K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
23 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-JIe-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K1D
24 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-JIe-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
27 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-JIe-J1f K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
58 H1A-H1B-H1C J1a-JX1-J2d-J5a-J5b K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
64 H1A-H1B-H1C J1a-J1b-J1c-J1d-J1e-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K1C
65 H1A-H1B-H1C J1a-J1b-J1c-J1d-J1e-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
68 H1A-H1B-H1C J1a-J1b-J1c-J1d-J1e-J1f K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
76 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-J5a-J5b K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
77 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K1C
78 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
81 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
*See Figure 1.3 for a map of the Detailed Study Alternatives and their corridor 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

17
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.

Table 1.3 Summary of Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects by County
County in ICE
Study Area
Potential for
improved
mobility,
access and
connectivity
Potential for
cumulative
effects
related to
land use
change
Potential for
accelerated
growth as a
result of the
project
Detailed Study
Alternatives which
contribute to indirect
and cumulative
effects
Gaston, NC High Moderate High All
Mecklenburg, NC High Moderate Moderate All
Cleveland, NC Low Low Low None
York, SC Low-
Moderate
Low Moderate Greater Potential in
DSAs (58; 64; 65; 68;
76; 77; 78; and 81)

The kinds of development that would produce non-point sources vary to
some degree in each of the four counties considered, with the
predominant land use type being scattered residential subdivision
development already occurring and expected to continue to occur in
many parts of the ICE Study Area. Isolated interchanges would support a
higher potential for new or accelerated growth in commercial uses. A large
quantity of undeveloped land in Cleveland and York Counties could
receive large quantities of new residential development, but the potential
is curtailed based on the distance from the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector, slower economic development in Cleveland County, and
capacity barriers imposed by public water/sewer and school infrastructure.
The additional, 9,000-foot runway at Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
will increase that facility’s passenger and freight capacities, as will an
increase in rail shipping capacity at this location and in the eastern section
of the ICE Study Area. Scattered residential development in northern
Mecklenburg and throughout southeastern and south-central Gaston
County will be the predominant form of development. The cumulative
impact will depend in part on local planning and policy guidelines, such as
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

18
the Phase II water quality standards that are being considered in Gaston
County. Interchanges with the Gaston East-West Connector are physically
within both Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; notable for development
potential during the analysis was the interchange of US 321 and NC 274
(both in Gaston County). Additionally, cumulative development from
increased residential and tailing retail-oriented development are expected
to continue in the attractive areas around the Catawba River (for example,
in the River Bend and South Point Townships). Many of these homes are
large, single-family detached units on one acre or more of land without
public water/sewer connections.

Table 1.4 Potential ICE’s in York County
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 measurable 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

19
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 303(d)-listed streams.
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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

20

Table 1.5 Potential ICE’s in Cleveland County
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 differences 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
Based on information obtained during the interviews in adjacent
communities in Gaston County; low growth rates and potential for new
growth associated with the proposed project; and small changes in
accessibility that would accrue to the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector, there were no cumulative effects associated with the
proposed Gaston East-West Connector identified in Cleveland County.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

21

Table 1.6 Potential ICE’s in Mecklenburg County
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 placed 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

22

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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

23

Table 1.7 Potential ICE’s in Gaston County
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 portion
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 H1C, J1C, K1A 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 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 along side of the proposed roadway or other roadways
associated with anticipated growth and development. Detailed Study
Alternatives including segment K2A are 4, 22, 58, and 76.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

24

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
have the potential to indirectly affect cultural resources, but at a lower
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

25
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).

Cumulative Effects
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

26
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
Alternative numbers are 5; 23; 64; and 77.Detailed Study Alternative
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

27
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.
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.

I
ND
I
R
E
C
T

A
N
D

C
UM
U
L
A
T
I
V
E

E
FF
E
C
T
S

A
SS
E
S
S
M
E
N
T

GAS
T
O
N

EAS
T
-W
ES
T

CON
N
E
C
T
O
R

ST
I
P
NO: U-
3
3
2
1

Ma
r
c
h

1
6
,

2
0
0
9

28
Ta
b
l
e

1
.
8

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
C
E
’
s

a
t

t
h
e

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

L
e
v
e
l

De
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t

(S
e
e

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
.
3

f
o
r

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

St
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

m
a
p
p
i
n
g
)

Accessibility/Travel
Time Savings
Change in Rate of
Development
Visual-Aesthetic*
Transportation
System*
Prime Farmland
Compatibility with
Goals*
Public Policy**
Effect to
Neighborhoods*

Ambient Noise
Air Quality
Residential
Demand*

Commercial Demand Wetlands, Sensitive Water Features** Natural Environment Features** Significant Natural Heritage Areas Threatened and Endangered Species and their Designated Habitat Cultural Resources

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

St
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

St
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g
Strong Weak to Moderate Weak to Moderate Weak to Moderate Weak to Moderate

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

St
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Strong Strong Strong Weak to Moderate Strong Weak to Moderate

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

St
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Very Strong Strong Strong Weak to Moderate Strong Weak to Moderate

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

St
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

St
r
o
n
g

Strong Strong Weak to Moderate Weak to Moderate Strong Weak to Moderate

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

St
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

St
r
o
n
g

Strong Strong Weak to Moderate Weak to Moderate Weak to Moderate Weak to Moderate

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

St
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

St
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Strong Strong Strong Weak to Moderate Strong Weak to Moderate

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

St
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

St
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Very Strong Strong Strong Weak to Moderate Strong Weak to Moderate

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

St
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

St
r
o
n
g

Strong Strong Strong Weak to Moderate Strong Weak to Moderate

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

St
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Strong Very Strong Strong Strong Weak to Moderate Strong

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

St
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Strong Very Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong
I
ND
I
R
E
C
T

A
N
D

C
UM
U
L
A
T
I
V
E

E
FF
E
C
T
S

A
SS
E
S
S
M
E
N
T

GAS
T
O
N

EAS
T
-W
ES
T

CON
N
E
C
T
O
R

ST
I
P
NO: U-
3
3
2
1

Ma
r
c
h

1
6
,

2
0
0
9

29
De
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t

(S
e
e

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
.
3

f
o
r

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

St
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

m
a
p
p
i
n
g
)

Accessibility/Travel
Time Savings
Change in Rate of
Development
Visual-Aesthetic*
Transportation
System*
Prime Farmland
Compatibility with
Goals*
Public Policy**
Effect to
Neighborhoods*

Ambient Noise
Air Quality
Residential
Demand*

Commercial Demand Wetlands, Sensitive Water Features** Natural Environment Features** Significant Natural Heritage Areas Threatened and Endangered Species and their Designated Habitat Cultural Resources

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

St
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Very Strong Very Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

St
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

St
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Strong Very Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

St
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

St
r
o
n
g

Strong Very Strong Weak to Moderate Weak to Moderate Weak to Moderate Weak to Moderate

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

St
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Strong Strong Strong Weak to Moderate Strong Weak to Moderate

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

St
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

St
r
o
n
g

Very Strong Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate Strong Weak to Moderate

5
t
o

1
0

mi
n
u
t
e
s

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

St
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

St
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

St
r
o
n
g

Strong Very Strong Strong Weak to Moderate Strong Weak to Moderate
No
-
B
u
i
l
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

(c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

o
t
h
e
r

T
I
P

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

bu
t

N
O
T

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
-
W

Co
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
)

No

Ch
a
n
g
e

(p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y

wo
r
s
e
)

No

Ch
a
n
g
e

(p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y

wo
r
s
e
)

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

No
n
e

to

Ve
r
y

We
a
k

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

Po
l
i
c
y
,

Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l

En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

We
a
k

t
o

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

No
n
e

t
o

Ve
r
y

W
e
a
k

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

Weak to Moderat e Strong Weak to Moderate Weak to Moderate Weak to Moderate Weak to Moderate
I
ND
I
R
E
C
T

A
N
D

C
UM
U
L
A
T
I
V
E

E
FF
E
C
T
S

A
SS
E
S
S
M
E
N
T

GAS
T
O
N

EAS
T
-W
ES
T

CON
N
E
C
T
O
R

ST
I
P
NO: U-
3
3
2
1

Ma
r
c
h

1
6
,

2
0
0
9

30
Ta
b
l
e

1
.
8

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
,

D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
)

Va
r
i
a
b
l
e

De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

Measurement
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
/
T
r
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e

Sa
v
i
n
g
s

Th
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

i
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

t
r
a
v
e
l

t
i
m
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

t
o

ne
a
r
b
y

p
u
b
l
i
c

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

a
n
d

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

h
u
b
s

w
h
e
n

c
o
n
s
id
e
r
e
d

w
i
t
h

o
t
h
e
r

l
i
k
e
l
y

a
c
t
i
o
n
s

t
h
a
t

m
a
y

i
n
d
u
c
e

la
n
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.

(
e
.
g
.
,

s
c
h
o
o
l
s
,

r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,

p
o
w
e
r

s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

e
t
c
.
)

T
h
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

i
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
i
m
e
s

w
h
e
n

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

w
i
t
h

ot
h
e
r

l
i
k
e
l
y

a
c
t
i
o
n
s

t
h
a
t

m
a
y

i
n
d
u
c
e

l
a
n
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.

5
t
o

1
0

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

2

t
o

5

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

Less than 2 minutes No Change
Ra
t
e

o
f

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

Th
e

a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d

r
a
t
e

o
f

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

a
n
d

l
i
g
h
t

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

Vi
s
u
a
l
-
A
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
*

Th
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

t
o

w
h
i
c
h

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

w
i
l
l

a
f
f
e
c
t

t
h
e

co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
’
s

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

w
h
e
n

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

w
i
t
h

o
t
h
e
r

l
i
k
e
l
y

a
c
t
i
o
n
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

m
a
y

i
n
d
u
c
e

l
a
n
d

u
s
e

ch
a
n
g
e
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

S
y
s
t
e
m
*

Th
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

b
e
n
e
f
i
c
i
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

w
i
l
l

h
a
v
e

o
n

t
h
e

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

s
y
s
t
e
m

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

I
C
E

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a
,

w
h
e
n

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

w
i
t
h

o
t
h
e
r

p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e

a
c
t
i
o
n
s
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

Pr
i
m
e

F
a
r
m
l
a
n
d

Th
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

vi
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

f
a
r
m
i
n
g

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

La
n
d

u
s
e
-
C
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

wi
t
h

G
o
a
l
s
*

Th
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
,

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

d
e
g
r
e
e

t
o

w
h
i
c
h

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

a
r
e

c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

th
e

l
o
c
a
l

p
l
a
n
s
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

Pu
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y
*
*

Th
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
,

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

d
e
g
r
e
e

t
o

w
h
i
c
h

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

e
n
t
i
t
i
e
s

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

t
o

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

St
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

a
d
h
e
r
e

t
o

a
n
d

e
n
f
o
r
c
e

t
h
e
i
r

o
w
n

p
o
li
c
i
e
s
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y

t
h
o
s
e

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g

a
n
d

re
g
u
l
a
t
i
n
g

n
e
w

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.

No

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y
,

We
a
k

E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

Weak Policy, Weak Enforcement Moderate Policy, Occasional Enforcement Strong Public Policy, Strong Enforcement
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

P
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y

t
o

Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
*

Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

o
n

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
,

a
s

me
a
s
u
r
e
d

b
y

p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
.

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

w
i
t
h

“
v
e
r
y

s
t
r
o
n
g
”

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

a
r
e

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

o
r

v
e
r
y

c
l
o
s
e

to

n
u
m
e
r
o
u
s

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s

a
l
o
n
g

t
h
e
i
r

r
o
u
t
e
.

D
e
t
a
il
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

w
i
t
h

“
w
e
a
k

t
o

m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
”

ef
f
e
c
t
s

a
r
e

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

o
r

v
e
r
y

c
l
o
s
e

t
o

a

f
e
w

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

Am
b
i
e
n
t

N
o
i
s
e

An
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d

l
e
v
e
l

o
f

a
m
b
i
e
n
t

n
o
i
s
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

a
c
t
i
o
n
,

l
a
n
d

u
s
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

a
n
d

in
d
u
c
e
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

Strong Increase Weak to Moderate Increase None to Very Weal Increase
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

Me
a
s
u
r
e
s

e
f
f
e
c
t

t
o

a
i
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

t
h
e

I
C
E

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

D
e
m
a
n
d
*

Th
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
n

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

u
n
i
t

a
n
d

l
a
n
d

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

De
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

w
h
e
n

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

w
i
t
h

ot
h
e
r

a
c
t
i
o
n
s

l
i
k
e
l
y

t
o

i
n
d
u
c
e

l
a
n
d

u
s
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

D
e
m
a
n
d

Th
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
,

a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
n

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

a
n
d

l
a
n
d

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

o
f

th
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

w
h
e
n

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

w
i
t
h

o
t
h
e
r

a
c
t
i
o
n
s

l
i
k
e
l
y

t
o

i
n
d
u
c
e

l
a
n
d

u
s
e

ch
a
n
g
e
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

We
t
l
a
n
d
s
,

S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e

W
a
t
e
r

Fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
*
*

Th
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
f

t
h
e

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

o
n

w
e
t
l
a
n
d

a
r
e
a
s
,

i
m
p
a
i
r
e
d

w
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
s
,

a
n
d

wa
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y

w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
s
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

Na
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
*
*

Th
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

t
o

a
f
f
e
c
t

t
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

h
a
b
i
t
a
t

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

h
a
b
i
t
a
t

f
r
a
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

He
r
i
t
a
g
e

A
r
e
a
s

Th
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

t
o

a
f
f
e
c
t

S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e

A
r
e
a
s
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

Th
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d

a
n
d

En
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d

S
p
e
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

th
e
i
r

D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

Th
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

a
c
t
i
o
n

o
n

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d

a
s

b
e
i
n
g

T
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d

o
r

En
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

Th
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

a
c
t
i
o
n

s
i
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

l
i
s
t
e
d

o
r

e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

t
o

b
e

l
i
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

Re
s
i
s
t
e
r

o
f

H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c

P
l
a
c
e
s
.

Ve
r
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
e
a
k

t
o

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

N
o
n
e

t
o

V
e
r
y

W
e
a
k

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

31

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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

32
Methodology Summary – The purpose of this report is to document a qualitative
assessment addressing the potential for Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICEs)
associated with implementing the proposed Gaston East-West Connector. The
assessment of ICEs is identified as a requirement under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the North Carolina State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA);
and under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 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 underway; 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.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) follows the guidance
adopted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

33
Table 2.1 Corridor Segments Comprising Each Detailed Study Alternative
West Area -
generally west of
US 321
Central Area –
generally east of US 321 and
west of NC 279 or the South
Fork Catawba River
East Area –
generally east of
NC 279 or the
South Fork
Catawba River
Detailed Study
Alternative #
H Segments J Segments K Segments
4 H2A-H3 J4a-J4b-J2c-J2d-J5a-J5b K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
5 H2A-H3 J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
6 H2A-H3 J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K1D
9 H2A-H3 J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
22 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-J5a-J5b K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
23 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-JIe-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
24 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-JIe-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K1D
27 H2A-H2B-H2C J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-JIe-J1f K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
58 H1A-H1B-H1C J1a-JX1-J2d-J5a-J5b K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
64 H1A-H1B-H1C J1a-J1b-J1c-J1d-J1e-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
65 H1A-H1B-H1C J1a-J1b-J1c-J1d-J1e-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K1D
68 H1A-H1B-H1C J1a-J1b-J1c-J1d-J1e-J1f K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
76 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-J5a-J5b K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
77 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
78 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f K1A-K1B-K1C-K1D
81 H1A-HX2 J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f 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.
ƒ I-85
ƒ US 29-74
ƒ Linwood Road
ƒ Lewis Road (for Detailed Study Alternatives using Corridor
Segment H1C – Detailed Study Alternatives 58, 64, 65, and 68)
ƒ US 321
ƒ Robinson Road
ƒ Bud Wilson Road
ƒ Union Road (NC 274)
ƒ South New Hope Road (NC 279)
ƒ Southpoint Road (NC 273)
ƒ Dixie River Road
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

34
ƒ 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

35
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–Causing 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 measurement ranging from very strong to weak.

3.0 DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY

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 Transportation Projects in
North Carolina” (NCDOT 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

36
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.

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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

37
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 NCDOT 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

38
Figure 3.1. NCDOT 8-Step ICE Assessment Process

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

39
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:
ƒ neighborhoods;
ƒ political boundaries;
ƒ community resources;
ƒ public infrastructure;
ƒ travel demand modeling;
ƒ state and local stormwater management ordinances;
ƒ watersheds;
ƒ wetland areas;
ƒ areas of known contamination;
ƒ 100-year floodplain areas;
ƒ threatened and Endangered Species and their critical habitat;
ƒ land use; topography;
ƒ soils;
ƒ prime and unique agriculture lands;
ƒ public lands and scenic;
ƒ recreational and state natural areas;
ƒ air quality;
ƒ significant Natural Heritage Sites;
ƒ wildlife and natural vegetation; and
ƒ 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

40
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.

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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

41
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 from 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.

As part of the ICE scoping process for this report, representative from the
Federal Highway Administration; NCDOT, North Carolina Turnpike Authority
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

42
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 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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

43

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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

44
Table 3.1 Description of Study Methods and Primary Data Resources
ICE Assessment Step Method(s) Data Resources
1. Study Area Boundaries ICE Study Area boundary comprised
Gaston and counties adjacent to the
west, south, and east, and based on
commuteshed review.
Minor study areas around interchanges
were created based on accessibility
from cross-streets and prior
development patterns observed
around existing interchanges.
„ Mecklenburg-Union
Regional Travel
Demand Model
„ U.S. Census (esp.
Journey-to-Work)
„ Aerial photography
„ Interviews with local
planning
professionals
„ Meetings with
environmental
resource agencies
(i.e. NC DENR, NC
WRC, US FWS
2. Study Area Direction
and Goals
A review of relevant plans and policies,
as well as interviews with professional
staff in the areas of planning,
engineering, real estate development,
and environmental advocacy to
create development management
profiles for major units of government.
„ Various local
planning documents
„ Interviews with local
area experts
3. Notable Features Interviews with local area experts and
third-party geographic databases
were used to create a composite
resource inventory and mapping.
„ Numerous third-party
databases (e.g.,
NWI, NHI, NCDOT)
„ Interviews with local
area experts
„ Natural Resources
Technical Report, TIP
No. U-3321, (NCTA,
August 2007)
4. Effect-Causing Activities Interviews with local area experts;
review of proposed project;
examination of commuteshed
alterations were used to create a
composite map of potential effect
areas.
„ Interviews with local
area experts
„ Mecklenburg-Union
Regional Travel
Demand Model
5. Identify ICEs for Further
Analysis
Review of Steps 1-4 with the North
Carolina Turnpike Authority and GEC
staff.
„ Assessment results
from previous steps
„ 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

45
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 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
undertaken 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

46
of the environment that possess important preservation aspects.
Conversations with local experts also enhanced information about these
resources.
Table 3.2 Notable Features
Resource Resource
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

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:
1. 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.6 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 Ian 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

47
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 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.7 Appendix C presents the
summary recorded for each of the local expert interviews. The weighted
responses of the interviewees become an input to the Cumulative Growth
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

48
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 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:
ƒ Direct effects to land cover;
ƒ Land topography (i.e., land contours);
ƒ Direct effects to forested riparian buffers;
ƒ Existing and planned road network;
ƒ Utility easements;
ƒ Planned land use conversion;
ƒ Comments from local expert interviews; and
ƒ 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

49
indicator of habitat fragmentation.8 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:
ƒ Proposed interchange areas;
ƒ Forest edge modifications;
ƒ Planned land use conversion; and
ƒ Existing 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 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:
ƒ Existing roadway networks;
ƒ High density and low density residential development;
ƒ Commercial development;
ƒ Impervious surfaces;
ƒ Prior land use conversion;
ƒ Prior population growth;
ƒ Prior disturbance of forested riparian buffers; and
ƒ Existing 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

50
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:
ƒ Percentage of impervious surfaces;
ƒ Direct effect to riparian buffers;
ƒ Proximity of proposed project to 303(d) classified streams or rivers;
ƒ Stream or river crossings;
ƒ Potential residential and commercial development;
ƒ Areas of proposed interchanges; and
ƒ Areas of existing and anticipated population growth.

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 NCDOT 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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

51
Step 8. Assess Consequences and Develop Mitigation and Enhancement
Strategies. Practicality, responsibility, and various mitigation techniques are
discussed in the NCDOT ICI 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.10
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

52
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 1.3). 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 3.2).
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.

4.0 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES (STEP 1)

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.”11 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:
ƒ 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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

53
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ NCDOT Project 4915 is the extension of Southridge Road to the
Dole Processing Plant in Bessemer City.
ƒ SCDOT improvement to US 321.
ƒ SCDOT improvements to SC49.
ƒ 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.
ƒ Charlotte-Douglas International Airport’s Strategic Development
Plan includes the development and operation of a truck/rail inter-
modal facility at the airport.

Infrastructure:
ƒ Public water and/or sewer service area (current and planned),
see Figure 12.6.

Residential Development locations in Gaston County (current and
planned):
ƒ US 273;
ƒ NC 274;
ƒ NC 279;
ƒ US 321;
ƒ Along water fronts and coves of Catawba River and South Fork
Catawba River;
ƒ Crescent resources, 1,600 acres of undeveloped land belonging
to Duke Power that may be developed into manufacturing/research
park;
ƒ Berewick-mixed use development with 1,000 homes currently
under construction in Mecklenburg Co., just south of Dixie River Road;
and
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

54
ƒ 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:
ƒ Neighborhoods;
ƒ Political boundaries (i.e., municipal boundaries, census groups);
ƒ Community resources (i.e., cemeteries, schools, historical places,
places of worship, community centers);
ƒ Public infrastructure (i.e., proposed roadways, schools, water/sewer
facilities);
ƒ Travel Demand Model-generated traffic assignments and TAZ data;
ƒ Information derived from local development policies and planning
documents;
ƒ State and local stormwater management ordinances (i.e., stream
buffer requirements);
ƒ Watersheds;
ƒ Wetland areas;
ƒ Areas with known contamination;
ƒ 100-year Flood Plain areas;
ƒ Threatened or Endangered Species and their critical habitat;
ƒ Land Use/land use controls (i.e., growth areas, rezonings, annexation
areas);
ƒ Topography;
ƒ Soils;
ƒ Prime and unique agricultural lands;
ƒ Public lands and scenic, recreational, and state natural areas;
ƒ Air quality;
ƒ Significant Natural Heritage Sites;
ƒ Wildlife and natural vegetation; and
ƒ 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 geography
that would encompass any foreseeable, potential indirect effects
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

55
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.

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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

56
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 Parkway) - Period 1980s
ƒ 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 Thoroughfare Plan.

Gaston East-West Connector (Garden Parkway) - Period 1990’s
ƒ The project (referred to as US 321/74 Bypass/Garden Parkway) was
formally adopted in Gaston’s 1991 Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

57
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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 Transportation Plan and the NCDOT
Transportation 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
ƒ 1999 Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden was first opened to the public.
ƒ 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
ƒ On-going Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Expansion to
include 9,000-foot runway. Project is expected to be completed in
2010.
ƒ Relocation of Wallace Neel Road, Western Boulevard, and Old
Dowd Road is on-going and associated with the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport Expansion.
ƒ Employment projections for Gaston County presented in the 2030
Long Range Transportation Plan show a drop in employment growth
occurring from 2000-2010.
ƒ Completion of I-485 in 2004.
ƒ 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
ƒ The Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor Study (Macon-Charlotte
Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor).
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

58
ƒ Charlotte-Douglas International Airport’s Strategic Development Plan
includes the development and operation of a truck/rail inter-modal
facility at the airport.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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

Figure 4.1 illustrates a composite of the factors that contribute to the
determination of the temporal study boundaries.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

59
Figure 4.1. Temporal Boundary

Reasonably
Foreseeable
Actions,
Forcasts and
Trends
Bypass
Concept
Identified in
Gaston Urban
Area
Thoroughfare
Plan
Formal adoption
in Gaston's
1991 Urban
Area
Thoroughfare
Plan.
Initiation of
Environmetal
studies for
project in
2002.
Significant
losses in the
textile
industry.
1999 Daniel
Stowe
garden was
opened to
the public.
Charlotte-
Douglas
Expansion.
Employment
Projections
suggest sizable
drop in
employment in
Gaston County
Temporal
boundary
of project
2045
2035
2025
2015
C
U
R E
Years R R
R A
N
T
2005
1995
1990
Historic 1985
1980
Design Life
of Gaston
East-West
Connector.
2030 Long
Range
Transportati
on Plan
Adopted
May 24,
2005.
Prediction that
by 2010 the
southeastern
portion of
Gaston
County will
surpass other
portions of the
County in
Housing units.
Southeast
High-Speed
Rail Corridor
Study. York
County 2015
Plan
Current Long
Range
Transportation
Plans or Long
Range
Transportation
Plan updates
taking place
now in the
region are
extending to
the year 2030.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

60
Methodology Summary – In addition to reviewing the plans adopted by local
jurisdictions, reviews were also conducted of development policies, guidelines, utility
provisions, and other actions in areas included in the ICE STUDY AREA that specifically
provide information on the approach that local governments take towards managing
growth in their jurisdictions. The following profiles focus on recent (typical: previous three
years) histories of Planning Commissions; Boards of Commissioners; City or Town Councils
and other bodies responsible for considering the degree that new development may
effect cultural and natural resources in the ICE STUDY AREA. Jurisdictions included in the
ICE STUDY AREA include the following:
ƒ City of Gastonia, North Carolina;
ƒ Gaston County, North Carolina;
ƒ City of Charlotte, North Carolina;
ƒ Mecklenburg County, North Carolina;
ƒ York County, South Carolina;
ƒ Cleveland County, North Carolina;
ƒ City of Belmont, North Carolina; and
ƒ Bessemer City, North Carolina.

Citations are provided in several instances that illustrate specific reactions towards
development pressures, as well as instances where interview content with local staff and
agency representatives support or refute the documented research.

5.0 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROFILES BY COUNTY (STEP 2)

The four counties discussed below are included
in the 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
opportunities located primarily in the City of Gastonia.17

Significantly, the County is undertaking a Consolidated Utility Study to
identify the feasibility of merging the public water and sewer systems of the
various municipalities within the County. The County itself does not provide
any public water or sewer utilities.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

61
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:
ƒ addressing problems of sprawl patterns of land use;
ƒ developing procedures and standards that safeguard Gaston
County from “undesirable development”;
ƒ developing design guidelines that promote livable communities,
including promoting street connectivity and placement of sidewalks
in new residential development;
ƒ 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
ƒ development approval processes that can be implemented by
all local municipal governments in the County.18

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 County 2030 Long Range
Transportation 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:
ƒ Provide a safe, comprehensive and efficient transportation system
that allows the movement of goods and people within Gastonia and
from Gastonia to other places.
ƒ Improve the quality of life for residents of the Gaston MPO area.
ƒ Provide a transportation system that affords the public with mobility
choices including walking, bicycling, and transit options.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

62
ƒ Provide a transportation system that is sensitive to significant features
of the natural and human environment.
ƒ Provide equitable transportation options to low income and minority
neighborhoods.
ƒ Require and promote transportation improvements to better
connect Gaston County to other cities in the region, particularly
Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.
ƒ 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.
ƒ Strengthen Gastonia’s connection to the regional
transportation network.
ƒ Promote land use patterns that combine different uses such as
industrial, retail, and residential.
ƒ Develop an efficient street and highway network capable of
providing an appropriate level of service for a variety of
transportation modes.
ƒ Promote an integrated multimodal local and regional public transit
system.
ƒ Develop a transportation system that integrates pedestrian and
bicycle modes of transportation with motor vehicle transportation
and encourages the use of walking and bicycling as alternative
modes.
ƒ Maximize rail and air transportation opportunities.
ƒ Develop a transportation system that preserves and coexists with the
natural and built environments.
ƒ Support and promote a freight transportation system which supports
the movement of goods.
ƒ Make investment decisions for transportation modes that make the
most efficient use of limited public resources.

According to the 2030 Long-Range Transportation 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 Transportation 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

63

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 Transportation 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.21 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 Area.22

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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

64
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.24, 25

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 recent
discussion regarding the height extension of wireless communications
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

65
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.27

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 district.29

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.

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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

66
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:
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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:
ƒ Increase development/revitalization within the “City Within A City.”
ƒ Stimulate quality growth on the northwest and west sides of the City
and County.
ƒ Ensure that existing stable neighborhoods are maintained and
enhanced.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

67
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:
ƒ Design development which is environmentally sustainable and which
integrates the built environment with the natural environment.
ƒ 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:
ƒ Permitting and enforcement of ordinances and regulations;
ƒ Direct prevention and intervention/remediation services, including
facilities and other resources to prevent pollution; and
ƒ 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.

City of Charlotte, North Carolina
Charlotte is currently the 20th most populous city in the nation and could
become the 10th 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,
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

68
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.

Table 5.1 Economic Development Initiatives for FY08 36
Initiative Measure Target Prior Year Target
Percent of targeted
businesses retained
or expanded
FY08: 100% FY06: 100% Promote a healthy
business climate by
implementing a
strong business
expansion and
retention effort
Percent of job
growth at targeted
businesses
FY08: 5% FY06: 2.9%
Hospitality tax
revenues
FY08: 7% increase
over FY05
FY05: 7.8% Develop
Collaborative
Solutions: Work with
internal and external
partners to grow
Charlotte’s
hospitality industry
Convention Center
utilization
FY08: 54% FY06: 46%

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 Transportation 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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

69

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 rezoning 37. 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.40

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 currently services within its town
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

70
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:
ƒ encouraging maximum retention of open space;
ƒ reserving land needed in the future for development of industry;
ƒ providing greater flexibility within zoning districts to produce more
compact mixed uses and investments in older urban areas; and
ƒ “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 implementing several
comprehensive plan initiatives, York County planning representatives
believe that this ordinance addresses significant deficiencies in the existing
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

71
development regulations.44 Specifically, this ordinance requires the
following:
ƒ Requires zoning and subdivision applications to be consistent with the
York County 2025 Comprehensive Plan;
ƒ Promotes effective use of land by providing incentives for
conservation subdivisions;
ƒ Ensures that planned developments will be long-term assets for the
County-creating stable neighborhoods and commercial areas;
ƒ Increases the flexibility of rural residents to establish home-based
businesses;
ƒ Enables the creation of compatible neighborhoods services at the
edges of neighborhoods;
ƒ Establishes more stringent design standards for commercial
development to ensure that it is both attractive and functional;
ƒ Ensures that open spaces serve rather than burden future residents;
ƒ Enables the County to ensure that new subdivisions do not shift
capital costs to existing taxpayers and ratepayers; and
ƒ 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:
ƒ Protect and preserve natural areas, wildlife habitat and agricultural
and timber lands by ensuring zoning classifications adequately
protect environmental areas;
ƒ Regulate stormwater discharge in York County’s urban areas in
accordance with federal regulations through the use of Low-Effect
Development (LID) and Best Management Practice implementation
by developers, farmers, timber companies and any other group
whose activities may cause land disturbances.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

72
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 County Land Use Plan
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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
will have continuing long-term beneficial effect for the County
and which fit well with adjoining land uses.
ƒ To promote and expand quality, environmentally friendly industrial
development in those portions of the County that are served by
adequate transportation and utility infrastructures.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

73
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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 County Land Use Plan
ƒ Protecting the integrity and viability of the County’s established
neighborhoods.
ƒ Maintaining an ongoing and pro-active minimum housing
enforcement program.
ƒ Upgrading manufactured housing and multi-family development
standards in the County.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

74
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.
6.0 LAND USE (STEP 3)

6.1 Gaston County
Gaston County 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 a summary of land use information for the various
municipalities that may be affected by the implementation of the
proposed project.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

75
Table 6.1 Municipal Land Use Information, Gaston County
Municipalities Location of Anticipated
Growth
Type of Growth Recent or
Planned
Annexations
City of Belmont South along the
peninsula formed by the
Catawba and South Fork
Catawba Rivers; North
between McAdenville
and Mount Holly
residential yes
Bessemer City Northeast, west Residential,
commercial, industrial
yes
Town of Cramerton South residential no

Town of Dallas North, south and west Predominantly
residential,
commercial, industrial
yes
Gastonia South Residential,
commercial, industrial
yes
City of Kings
Mountain
North; towards the City of
Bessemer and the city of
Cherryville
Residential,
commercial and
industrial
yes
City of Lowell Former Textile Operations residential no
Town of
McAdenville
Former Mill Operation residential no
City of Mount Holly North and West Residential,
commercial and
industrial
Relinquishment
of ETJ
Town of Ranlo East, north and west Residential yes
Source: Gaston County Surface Water Supply Watershed Protection map, July 2007

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.50

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

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

76
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.

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.54 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.55

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:
ƒ The City of Gastonia;
ƒ The City of Belmont;
ƒ The Town of Dallas;
ƒ Bessemer City;
ƒ The Town of Cramerton;
ƒ The City of Kings Mountain;
ƒ The Town of McAdenville;
ƒ The City of Mount Holly;
ƒ The Town of Ranlo; and
ƒ The City of Lowell.

These municipalities and the ICE Study Area can be found on Figure 6.1.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

77
The City 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 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 City 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.60

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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

78
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.61

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 east, the Town’s greatest
potential for growth is to the south. Predominant future growth is
anticipated to be residential in nature.62

The City of Kings 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 City of Mount Holly 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 City 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

79
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.

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.63

Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, located in Mecklenburg County,
provides regional access to the international market. In the year ending
October, 2007, Charlotte-Douglas ranked 12th 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

Source: USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2002 and 2007 T-100 Tables
Year Passengers Freight
2002 524,842 8,654,576
2007 650,308 10,856,757
Difference 125,466 2,202,181
Difference (%) 24% 25%
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

80
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.67 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.68 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.70 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.71

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.

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 grow despite the economic reversal that the
loss of the textile industry has had on the towns and cities within this County.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

81
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.

7.0 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY (STEP 3 CONTINUED)
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
Charlotte.75 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.76 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ Crowders Creek which joins in the drainage area of the South Fork
Catawba.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

82

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.77 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.78 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). 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 (HQWs) or Trout Waters (Tr) in areas of this subbasin included
in the ICE Study Area.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

83

Subbasin 03-08-36 (see Figure 7.1). The subbasin includes Gastonia, the
southern rural portion of Gaston County, and parts of Bessemer City.81 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 7.1). 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 County.83
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 Wylie 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

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

84
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.88
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
Zone Zoning Jurisdiction Built Upon Area Lake/Stream
Buffer
Upper Lake Wylie Watershed
< or = 24%-Low Density 40 feet Protected Area Charlotte/Mecklenburg
< or = 70%-High Density 100 feet
< or = 24%-Low Density 100 feet Critical Area Charlotte/Mecklenburg
< or = 50%-High Density 100 feet
Lower Lake Wylie Watershed
< or = 24%-Low Density 40 feet Protected Area Charlotte/Mecklenburg
< or = 70%-High Density 100 feet
< or = 20%-Low Density 50 feet Critical Area Charlotte/Mecklenburg
< or = 50%-High Density 100 feet
Catawba River
< or = 24%-Low Density;
or 36% for projects
without a curb and
gutter street system
30 feet Critical Area
Protected Area
Gastonia/Gaston
>24%- High Density 100 feet
Source: Watershed Protection Ordinance, Gaston County, North Carolina, October1, 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.

Table 7.2 Wetland Losses (acres), 1995-2000
Subbasin Total
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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

85
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:
ƒ primary and secondary contact recreation;
ƒ a water supply after conventional treatment in accordance with
the requirements of South Carolina;
ƒ fishing; and
ƒ 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.95

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 2008). 96

The Catawba River/Lake Wylie and the South Fork Catawba River have
surface water designations indicating use as a water supply watershed.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

86
Table 7.3 provides information of the water supply streams in the ICE Study
Area.

Table 7.3 Water Supply Streams
Name of
Stream
Description Current Class
Designation
Basin Stream Index
Number
Catawba River
(Lake Wylie
below
elevation 570)
From I-85 Bridge
to the upstream
side of Paw
Creek Arm of
Lake Wylie
WS-IV, B; CA Catawba 11-(122)
Catawba River
(Lake Wylie
below
elevation
570)North
Carolina
portion
From the
upstream side of
Paw Creek Arm
of Lake Wylie to
North Carolina-
South Carolina
State Line
WS-V, B Catawba 11-(123.5)
Unnamed
Tributary at
Belmont
Abbey
College
From a point 0.5
mile downstream
of N.C. HWY 273
to Lake Wylie
WS-IV;CA Catawba 11-123-(2); 11-
123-(1)
South Fork
Catawba River
From a point 0.4
mile upstream of
Long Creek to
Cramerton Dam
and Lake Wylie
at Upper
Armstrong Bridge
(mouth of South
Fork Catawba
River)
WS-V Catawba 11-129-(15.5)
* Final North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report). Approved May 17, 2007
Source: Http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinand waterbodies/

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,
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

87
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
Subbasin (NC DWQ) Total
03-08-34 36,919
03-08-36 904
03-08-37 265
Source: Watershed Restoration Plan for the 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
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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

88
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.100

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.101 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 North 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 Zone1).

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 1. 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 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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

89

Table 7.5 S.W.I.M. Buffers
Required S.W.I.M. Buffers (Mecklenburg
County)
Drainage Area of Stream
35-Foot 100 acres or greater
50-Foot 300 acres or greater
100-Foot 640 acres or greater

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 Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.103
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.105
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

90
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:
ƒ Natural Resources;
ƒ Natural Heritage Sites;
ƒ Air Quality;
ƒ Noise; and
ƒ Cultural Resources.

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES (STEP 3 CONTINUED)

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.106 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.108

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).

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

91
Table 8.1 Natural Heritage Sites of Gaston County
Natural Heritage Sites of National,
State or Regional Significance
Natural Heritage Sites of County
Significance
Crowders Mountain State Park Riverbend Peninsula Forest
Twin Brooks – Stanley Basic Forest Saddler Road
Richard Rankin Complex Airport Road East
Stagecoach Road Granitic outcrop and
Wetland
Rhyne farm
Armstrong Ford Stanley Creek Forest Complex
Jean Rankin Forest Spencer Mountain Dam
Kenneth Oates Farm Forest South Pasour Mountain – Piedmont
Monadnock Forest
Laurel Hill Nursery Forest Middle Pasour Mountain
Pinnacle Road Long Creek Guaging Station
Friday Sites #1-1 and 1-2 Mauney Creek
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
Source: Gaston County Natural Heritage Inventory, NC Natural Heritage Program and the Million Acre Initiatives
in the Office of Conservation and Community Affairs. Information accessed on 5/16/08.
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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

92
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 (Thermopsis 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.

Stagecoach Road Granitic Outcrop is significant for its good quality
Granitic Flatrock natural community, the best in this section of the
Piedmont.110 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.

Penegar 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 Area.

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)111.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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

93
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).

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
Outdoor Noises Sound Pressure Level (dBA)
Jet Flyover at 300 meters 105
Gas Mower at 1 meter 95
Diesel Truck at 15 meters 85
Noisy Urban Daytime 80
Gas Lawn Mower at 30 meters 70
Commercial Area 65
Quiet Urban Daytime 50
Quiet Urban Nighttime 40
Quite Suburban Nighttime 35
Quiet Rural Nighttime 20
Source: FHWA, Highway Noise Fundamentals, Noise Fundamentals Training Document, 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

94
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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

95
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.

9.0 TRANSPORTATION (Step 3 continued)

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:
ƒ Excessive traffic volume through the City of Gastonia.
ƒ Access to the interstate systems is limited.
ƒ I-85 and US 321 interchange is poorly designed.113
ƒ 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):

ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

96
ƒ 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
ƒ 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.116 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. 117

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.118 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 rail.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

The primary focus of rail transportation in Gaston County is freight. The main
Norfolk Southern Rail line running between Atlanta and Baltimore, and the
Amtrak 121 Crescent Line from New Orleans to New York traverses Gaston
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

97
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 Transportation 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

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

98
Methodology Summary – This section provides information about the influences of land
use change on agricultural land uses including prime farmlands.
10.0 AGRICULTURAL LANDS/PRIME FARMLANDS (STEP 3 CONTINUED)

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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

99
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.
11.0 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS (STEP 3 CONTINUED)
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:
ƒ Gaston County, North Carolina;
ƒ Cleveland County, North Carolina;
ƒ Mecklenburg County, North Carolina;
ƒ York County, South Carolina;
ƒ All Four Counties Combined; and
ƒ ICE Study Area (boundary shown on Figure 6.1).

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

100
Figure 11.1. Gaston County Demographics
Basic Demographic Profile

Age Cohorts, Year 2000 and 2012 (forecasted)
0 - 4
10 - 14
20 - 24
35 - 44
55 - 64
75 - 84
2012
2000
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Racial Cohorts, Years 2000, 2007 (estimated) and 2012 (forecasted)
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
WhiteBlackAmerican
Indian
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic
Origin
2000
2007
2012

Gaston200020072012
Population 190,365 198,673 204,095
Households 73,936 78,291 80,968
Families 53,327 55,156 55,974
Average Household Size 2.53 2.50 2.48
Owner Occupied HUs 50,901 54,987 56,699
Renter Occupied HUs 23,035 23,304 24,269
Median Age 36.2 38.2 39.8
Annual Growth (2007-2012)GastonNational
Population 0.5%1.2%
Households 0.7%1.3%
Families 0.3%1.0%
Owner HHs 0.6%1.3%
Median Household Income 2.9%3.3%
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

101
Figure 11.2. Cleveland County Demographics
Basic Demographic Profile
Cleveland200020072012
Population 96,287 99,965 102,293
Households 37,046 38,911 40,011
Families 27,001 27,721 27,987
Average Household Size 2.53 2.50 2.49
Owner Occupied HUs 26,984 28,906 29,642
Renter Occupied HUs 10,062 10,005 10,369
Median Age 36.5 38.5 40.2
Annual Growth (2007-2012)ClevelandNational
Population 0.5%1.2%
Households 0.6%1.3%
Families 0.2%1.0%
Owner HHs 0.5%1.3%
Median Household Income 2.5%3.3%
Age Cohorts, Year 2000 and 2012 (forecasted)
0 - 4
10 - 14
20 - 24
35 - 44
55 - 64
75 - 84
2012
2000
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Racial Cohorts, Years 2000, 2007 (estimated) and 2012 (forecasted)
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
WhiteBlackAmerican
Indian
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic
Origin
2000
2007
2012

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

102
Figure 11.3. Mecklenburg County Demographics
Basic Demographic Profile
Mecklenburg200020072012
Population 695,454 855,127 985,683
Households 273,416 341,708 395,670
Families 175,063 212,258 239,888
Average Household Size 2.49 2.46 2.45
Owner Occupied HUs 170,393 217,126 251,934
Renter Occupied HUs 103,023 124,582 143,736
Median Age 33.1 34.8 35.8
Annual Growth (2007-2012)MecklenburgNational
Population 2.9%1.2%
Households 3.0%1.3%
Families 2.5%1.0%
Owner HHs 3.0%1.3%
Median Household Income 3.6%3.3%
Age Cohorts, Year 2000 and 2012 (forecasted)
0 - 4
10 - 14
20 - 24
35 - 44
55 - 64
75 - 84
2012
2000
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15%
Racial Cohorts, Years 2000, 2007 (estimated) and 2012 (forecasted)
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
WhiteBlackAmerican
Indian
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic
Origin
2000
2007
2012
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

103
Figure 11.4 York County, S.C. Demographics
Basic Demographic Profile
York200020072012
Population 164,614 203,817 236,493
Households 61,051 77,676 91,065
Families 44,915 55,375 63,391
Average Household Size 2.63 2.57 2.55
Owner Occupied HUs 44,629 58,109 68,207
Renter Occupied HUs 16,422 19,567 22,858
Median Age 34.9 37.3 38.5
Annual Growth (2007-2012)YorkNational
Population 3.0%1.2%
Households 3.2%1.3%
Families 2.7%1.0%
Owner HHs 3.3%1.3%
Median Household Income 3.2%3.3%
Age Cohorts, Year 2000 and 2012 (forecasted)
0 - 4
10 - 14
20 - 24
35 - 44
55 - 64
75 - 84
2012
2000
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Racial Cohorts, Years 2000, 2007 (estimated) and 2012 (forecasted)
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
WhiteBlackAmerican
Indian
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic
Origin
2000
2007
2012
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

104
Figure 11.5. Gaston, Mecklenburg, Cleveland, York Demographics
Basic Demographic Profile

Age Cohorts, Year 2000 and 2012 (forecasted)
0 - 4
10 - 14
20 - 24
35 - 44
55 - 64
75 - 84
2012
2000
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Racial Cohorts, Years 2000, 2007 (estimated) and 2012 (forecasted)
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
WhiteBlackAmerican
Indian
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic
Origin
2000
2007
2012

Four CountiesN.C.Four CountiesN.C.Four CountiesN.C.
Population1,146,7208,049,3131,357,5829,068,1061,528,5649,873,032
Households445,4493,132,013536,5863,583,756607,7143,924,768
Families300,3062,158,869350,5102,404,772387,2402,577,559
Average Household Size2.522.492.482.452.472.45
Owner Occupied HUs292,9072,172,355359,1282,530,200406,4822,768,403
Renter Occupied HUs152,542959,658177,4581,053,556201,2321,156,365
Median Age34.135.335.837.236.938.5
Four CountiesN.C.National
Population2.40%1.72%1.22%
Households2.52%1.83%1.27%
Families2.01%1.40%1.00%
Owner HHs2.51%1.82%1.29%
Median Household Income3.47%3.28%3.29%
2000 2007 2012
2007 - 2012 Growth (est.)
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

105
Figure 11.6. ICE Study Area Demographics
Basic Demographic Profile

Age Cohorts, Year 2000 and 2012 (forecasted)
Racial Cohorts, Years 2000, 2007 (estimated) and 2012 (forecasted)
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
WhiteBlackAmerican
Indian
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic
Origin
2000
2007
2012
0 - 4
10 - 14
20 - 24
35 - 44
55 - 64
75 - 84
2012
2000
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
ICE Study AreaN.C.ICE Study AreaN.C.ICE Study AreaN.C.
Population309,2458,049,313349,6349,068,106380,1219,873,032
Households118,6033,132,013136,5693,583,756149,4883,924,768
Families85,2762,158,86995,4012,404,772102,0752,577,559
Average Household Size2.582.492.532.452.522.45
Owner Occupied HUs81,5892,172,35596,3872,530,200105,8142,768,403
Renter Occupied HUs37,014959,65840,1811,053,55643,6731,156,365
Median Age35.335.337.537.238.938.5
ICE Study AreaN.C.National
Population1.69%1.72%1.22%
Households1.82%1.83%1.27%
Families1.36%1.40%1.00%
Owner HHs1.88%1.82%1.29%
Median Household Income3.45%3.28%3.29%
2000 2007 2012
2007 - 2012 Growth (est.)
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

106
11.1 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.131 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 33,117 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 generally the same
locations where higher-than-average Hispanic/Latino populations also are
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

107
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)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Agriculture/Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation/Utilities
Information
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
Services
Public Administration
ICE Study Area Cleveland York, SC Mecklenburg Gaston Source: ESRI Business Analyst, December, 2007

As can be quickly seen from this figure, Cleveland County 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 information technology
sector. York and Gaston counties most closely mimic the ICE Study Area.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

108
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 Transportation 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.140

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.

Over 63% of the County’s output and almost 43% of the employment in
Gaston County can be clustered in eight groups:
ƒ Motor vehicles;
ƒ Textile;
ƒ Construction;
ƒ Chemicals & plastics;
ƒ Regional medical;
ƒ Wholesale& warehouse;
ƒ Machinery & tools; and
ƒ Basic metals.141

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

109
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:
ƒ I-85 and NC-273, near Belmont and Mt. Holly (regional
park);
ƒ Gaston Memorial Hospital (medical); and
ƒ Union Road between Hudson Boulevard and the Gaston
County Municipal Airport (small professional buildings).

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;
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

110
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.

Table 11.1. Population and Employment Included in the ICE Study Area
County Employment
1990
Employment
2000
Employment
Projection
2030
CH
A
N
G
E

(1
9
9
0
-
2
0
3
0
)

Population
1990
Population
2000
Population
Projection
2025
CH
A
N
G
E

(1
9
9
0
-
2
0
2
5
)

Mecklenburg 362,936 514,223 948,291 161% 511,163 695,454 1,328,298 160%
Gaston 79,434 77,176 96,753 22% 175,104 190,365 229,697 31%
Cleveland 36,219 37,310 39,962 10% 84,702 96,287 99,040 17%
York, SC 47,983 60,749 119,161 148% 131,497 164,614 253,760 93%
Four-County
Total
526,572 689,458 1,204,167 129% 902,466 1,146,720 1,910,795 112%
Sources:   (1) 2000 data ‐US Census 2000  
                  (2) 2007 data – ESRI Business Center (data service license maintained by The Louis Berger Group, Inc.) 
                  (3) Employment Projection: Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model Traffic Analysis Zones, 2006 (from Martin‐Alexiou‐Bryson, LLC) 
                  (4) North Carolina State Office of Budget and Management, Projected Annual County Population Totals 2020‐2029, website accessed   12.17.2008  
                        (www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimates/demog/cpa2020p.html) 
                  (5)  South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics, South Carolina State and County Population Projections 2020‐2025, website accessed 12.17.2008  
                        (www.sccommunityprofiles.org/census/proj2025.php)  

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 payments 1, and poverty
rates increasing (see Table 11.1). Mecklenburg County is the only county
within the ICE Study Area with an above-state average per capita
income.149

1 A transfer payment is a payment of money from a government to an individual for which no good or service is
required in return.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

111
Table 11.2 Per Capita Income
North
Carolina
South
Carolina
Gaston
County,
North
Carolina
Cleveland
County,
North
Carolina
Mecklenburg
County,
North
Carolina
York
County,
South
Carolina
Per
capita
income in
1999
20,307 18,795 19,225 17,395 27,352 20,536
Source: American FactFinder, Census 2000

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 2010.150

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.151

The Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization developed
future socioeconomic projections as part of the 2030 Long Range
Transportation 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
11.2 below indicates that Mecklenburg has the highest median housing
value in the ICE Study Area.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

112

Table 11.3 Median Housing Value
Median
Housing Value
95,800 83,100 86,600 77,600 139,000 104,900
Source: American Factfinder, Census 2000

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 11.4 contains information on the commuting characteristics of
Gaston County workers and residents.

Table 11.4 Commute Statistics for Gaston County, 1990 and 2000
Commuting 1990 2000 Change
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 Change
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 Change
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%
* NOTE: Only Gaston and the next four counties are indicated; the counties with the next-highest number of
commuters were much lower than any of the counties shown here. For example, the county with the next-highest
number of residents that worked in Gaston County was Cabarrus County with 400 commuters.
Source: US Census 2000 and Knight-Ridder

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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

113
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 proportion 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) & Percent Change (1990 – 2000)
Source: US Census 2000 and Knight-Ridder

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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

114
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 11.9.

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.
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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

115

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 11.10 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 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

116
Methodology Summary – This section of the report addresses potential indirect and
cumulative effects of the No-Build Scenario (absence of the project), and the
proposed Detailed Study Alternatives.
12.0 IDENTIFY POTENTIAL INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (STEPS
4 & 5)
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 these descriptions is kept to a minimum
to emphasize the effects that are deemed likely to occur. Primarily, the
descriptions rely on:
ƒ local expert interviews;
ƒ the policy context reviews conducted during this study as well as the
Community Characteristics Report conducted earlier for this project
by PBS&J (August, 2007) ;
ƒ the review and inventory of community and habitat notable
features; and
ƒ Spatial grid analysis and mapping
ƒ Figure 12.1, Human and Natural Environment Sensitivity;
ƒ Figure 12.2, Cumulative Growth Potential; and
ƒ Figure 12.3, Composite of Cumulative Growth Potential and
Human/Natural Environment Sensitivity;

Spatial Grid Analysis and Mapping
The spatial grid analysis addresses two key elements of indirect effects:
sensitivity of the human and natural environment to change, and
cumulative potential for future growth. In order to compare differences in
these elements across the ICE Study Area, an analysis was conducted by
dividing the study area into a grid (each square one mile per side) then
using the grid cells to summarize data layers that capture sensitivity and
cumulative growth potential. We first created two separate indices, one for
natural and human environment sensitivity (Figure 12.1), and one for
cumulative growth potential (Figure 12.2), then combined them to create a
composite index (Figure 12.3). The data layers that went into each index
are listed in Table 12.1, and a complete technical description of the
methodology follows the table. The following is a general description and
interpretation of the analysis.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

117

To create Figure 12.1 (Human and Natural Environment Sensitivity), we
collected data layers that represent aspects of the community to which
negative impacts should be minimized. Data layers representing human
environment sensitivity include community resources (illustrated in Figure
12.4) such as schools, churches, historic sites and historic districts, and lower-
income and minority areas. Human sensitivity was combined with
environmental sensitivity (e.g. floodplain, wetlands, impaired streams, etc).
In total, 17 data layers were combined to create the Human and Natural
Environment Sensitivity index illustrated in Figure 12.1. These layers and a full
technical description of how they were combined are included in Table
12.1 and the text that follows.

In interpreting Figure 12.1, a 1-mile-square
grid cell with a light shade of pink would
have less sensitivity to impacts from growth
than a square with dark red. For example,
the light pink square outlined in black in the
thumbnail graphic to the right contained
two historic sites and 0.2 miles of rivers; and
its land area included 40% wildlife habitat
(forest + grassland/shrub), 2% floodplain and
10% prime agricultural soils. The adjacent
dark red square outlined in black contained
two schools, 1.1 miles of rivers, and one 303(d) impaired stream; is within the
lowest quintile of household income in the study area and the highest
quintile of nonwhite residents in the study area; and its land area included
14% wildlife habitat, 8% floodplain, and 14% prime agricultural soils.

To create Figure 12.2 (Cumulative Growth Potential), we collected data
layers that indicate how much development could occur at a given
location. These layers include the availability of public water and sewer
services (illustrated in Figure 12.5), the amount of developable land
(illustrated in Figure 12.6), projected population growth, presence of major
roadways, and how recent nearby development was (i.e. average age of
houses in the area, illustrated in Figure 12.7). Such data layers help indicate
the cumulative or general potential for growth in an area; we also included
layers representing the potential for growth specifically in response to or as
an indirect effect of the proposed project. Those layers included the results
from interviews where we asked participants to rate growth potential with
and without the roadway (for more information on data collected in the
interviews, see Appendix D), and the modeled reduction in travel time after
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

118
the proposed roadway is constructed (for more information about travel
time modeling, see Section 11.6 and Figure 11.9). The full list of layers and a
technical description of how they were combined are included in Table
12.1 and the text that follows.

In interpreting Figure 12.2, a 1-mile-square
grid cell with a light shade of blue would
have lower cumulative growth potential
than a square with dark blue. For
example, the land area of the light blue
square outlined in black in the thumbnail
graphic to the right included only 17% with
access to public water services, zero
access to public sewer services, and 28%
developable land (either vacant or large
parcels with one building); the area had an average travel time savings
with the proposed project of nearly 8 minutes. The land area of the
adjacent dark blue square outlined in black included 96% with access to
public water services, 87% with public sewer access, and 43% developable
land; the area had a travel time savings of nearly 5 minutes. Both squares
contained no major roadways and had about the same difference in
growth potential with and without the roadway according to interviewees.

Figure 12.3 was created by combining the Human and Natural Environment
Sensitivity and Cumulative Growth Potential figures. Darker squares
represent areas that are both highly sensitive and have a high potential for
growth. These areas may be considered at greater risk for effects from the
proposed project. Lighter squares could have low sensitivity and
cumulative growth potential, or high sensitivity and zero growth potential
(or vice versa).

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

119
Table 12.1 Data Layers Used to Calculate Grid Indices
Unscaled Values Layer File Type Data Sources
Units Min Max
Human and Natural Environment Sensitivity
Community resources
(schools, churches,
cemeteries, hospitals)
Vector point
(various)
ESRI, Four counties Number
present
0 8
Historic places (sites and
districts)
Vector point
and polygon
Community
Characteristics
Report (PBS&J)
Number
present
0 6
Above average % non-
white population
Vector
polygon
U.S. Census Yes/no 0 1
Above average % Hispanic
population
Vector
polygon
U.S. Census Yes/no 0 1
Lowest 20% of median
household income
Vector
polygon
U.S. Census Yes/no 0 1
Prime agricultural soils Vector
polygon
USDA (soils), Four
counties (parcels)
% of
undeveloped
land area
0 0.64
Wildlife habitat (forest and
grassland/shrub)
Raster NLCD 2001,
corrected with 2005
and 2006 aerials from
four counties
% of land area 0 0.98
Farmland Raster NLCD 2001,
corrected with
parcels from four
counties
% of land area 0 0.43
Natural Heritage Element
Occurrence*
Vector point Natural Heritage
Program (NCDENR)
Number
present
0 8
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
polygon
NCDENR Yes/no 0 1
Water supply watershed II* Vector
polygon
NCDENR Yes/no 0 1
Water supply watershed IV* Vector
polygon
NCDENR Yes/no 0 1
Lakes Vector
polygon
ESRI, Four counties % of area 0 0.74
Floodplain Vector
polygon
NC Floodmap, York
County
% of land area 0 0.35
Wetlands Vector
polygon
National Wetlands
Inventory
% of land area 0 0.31
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

120

Table 12.1 Data Layers Used to Calculate Grid Indices (Cont’d)
* Layers only applicable to/available in North Carolina (absent in York County)

To create the indices, values for each data layer were calculated for the
one-mile grid cells. Depending on the original data layer, the resulting
values may be binary (e.g., yes/no for presence of critical habitat) 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 zero
to one (i.e. the maximum value was set equal to one, the minimum value
was set equal to zero, and other values were calculated as percentages of
the maximum value). For example, miles of primary roads is part of the
Layer File Type Data Sources Unscaled Values
Cumulative Growth Potential
Public water service (current
and proposed)
Vector
polygon
% of land area 0 1
Public sewer service (current
and proposed)
Vector
polygon
NC Center for
Geographic
Information &
Analysis, NC Rural
Center, Gaston
County, York County,
City of Gastonia,
Towns of Clover and
Belmont, Carolina
Water Services
% of land area 0 1
Developable parcels Vector
polygon
Four counties % of land area 0 0.95
Difference in growth potential
with and without roadway: by
district
Vector
polygon
Stakeholder
interviews (see
Appendix D)
Score 0.1 1.52
Difference in growth potential
with and without roadway: by
interchange
Vector
polygon
Stakeholder
interviews (see
Appendix D)
Score 0 1.45
Recent development (average
age of houses by parcel)*
Vector
polygon
Three counties
(Gaston,
Mecklenburg,
Cleveland)
Years 1939 2004
Primary roads Vector line NCDOT Miles 0 5.75
Projected population growth
(difference between 2000
actual and 2030 projected
populations)
Vector
polygon
Metrolina Travel
Demand Model
People 0.26 5053
Decrease in travel time with
road
Vector
polygon
Metrolina Travel
Demand Model
Minutes 0.01 15.08
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

121
cumulative growth potential, so the maximum unscaled value of 5.75 miles
was set to equal one. 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 relative comparisons between
grid cells within the study area.

The scaled values for variables included for environmental sensitivity and
for cumulative growth potential were then summed separately, 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 cumulative
growth potential equally. Grid cells with high values in the composite map
indicate areas of relatively high sensitivity as well as high cumulative growth
potential. These areas may be considered at greater risk for effects from
the proposed project.

Protected lands, specifically Crowder Mountain State Park and Daniel
Stowe Botanical Gardens, are shown as white/blank areas in Figures 12.2
and 12.3 because they are permanently protected from development
(thus there is no cumulative 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 the parcel database for York County was
acquired, 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

122
York County is shown as the same color/quintile as the maximum value in
other counties, although the numeric values may be different.

The following descriptions cover the four counties in the ICE Study Area,
with subsections for county-level indirect effects, then within indirect effects
a discussion of specific district and interchange-level indirect effects; and
county-level cumulative effects. The interchanges discussed in this chapter
are illustrated in Figure 12.8 Alternative Interchanges.
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 measurable
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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

123
for influencing and contributing to secondary development in the area. A
surplus of water and sewer capacities (more the former) 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

124
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.

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 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.

Interchange K (K3C; K1D; K4A) with Dixie River Road and the interchange
with I-485 (terminus of the Gaston East-West Connector) are located within
Mecklenburg County (see Figure 12.9). The interviewees did not provide
much distinction between the two Interchange K options. In general,
having additional transportation access in this general location would serve
burgeoning non-residential development around I-485 as well as the high-
end housing that is starting to appear around the waterfront areas.

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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

125
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
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 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:
ƒ Irwin Creek;
ƒ Little Sugar Creek;
ƒ McAlpine Creek; and
ƒ 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

126
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 Transportation 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 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.

ƒ 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

127
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.

ƒ 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.

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.

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

128
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 interchanges when
assessing potential effects. The potential indirect effects associated with
the proposed interchanges follows.

ƒ Interchange A (H1A; 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.
ƒ Interchange B (H1A; 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.
ƒ Interchange C (H1A; H2C; H3, Linwood Road) has some residential
development and adequate utility infrastructure (see Figure 12.11). 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.
ƒ Interchange D (H1C, Lewis Road) has residential development (see
Figure 12.12) at the luxury end of the housing market for the area.
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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

129
Region. Construction of an interchange in this area would improve
access to Crowders Mountain State Park.
ƒ Interchange E (J1A; 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 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 at
which residential development occurs due to improved access.
ƒ 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.
ƒ Interchange G (J2D; J1C, 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.
ƒ Interchange H (K1C; 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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

130
ƒ Interchange I (K2A; K3A; K1C, 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 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.
ƒ Interchange J (K4A; K1D; K1X, 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
K1D 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

131
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
to be cumulatively affected by non-point source pollution include the
Catawba River and the following Section 303(d) streams:
ƒ Abernathy Creek;
ƒ Catawba Creek;
ƒ Crowders Creek;
ƒ McGill Creek; and
ƒ 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-West
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. 160
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

132
Detailed Study Alternatives numbered 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 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 Alternatives
numbered 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 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.
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. 161 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

133
increasing the risk of stream sedimentation and turbidity from construction-
related erosion.

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. 162
Detailed Study Alternatives numbered 58; 64; 65; 68; 76; 77; 78; and 81
(shown in Figure 1.3) would have comparable levels of cumulative effects
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 Alternatives numbered 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)
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

134
for this project seven terrestrial communities were identified within the
project area:
ƒ Agricultural;
ƒ Clearcut;
ƒ Hardwood forest;
ƒ Mesic mixed hardwood forest;
ƒ Mixed pine-hardwood forest, pine forest, pine plantation;
ƒ Successional; and
ƒ 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 H1C, J1C, K1A 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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

135
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
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:
ƒ Bog turtle;
ƒ Carolina heelsplitter;
ƒ Michaux’s sumac;
ƒ Schweinitz’s sunflower; and
ƒ 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.166 One population of
Schweinitz’s sunflower was found within the study boundary of one project
Detailed Study Alternative segment (K2A).167 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: 4, 22, 58, and 76 (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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

136
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
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.168 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

137
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
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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

138
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
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. 169
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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

139
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,
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 at county, District and
Interchange levels of geography in Tables 1.3 through 1.8. Findings on a Detailed
Study Alternative level of geography are provided in Table 1.7. The findings
provided in this report evaluate the indirect and cumulative effects of the
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

140
Detailed Study Alternatives for the project in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Table 12.2 Summary of Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects by County
County in ICE
Study Area
Potential for
improved
mobility,
access and
connectivity
Potential for
cumulative
effects
related to
land use
change
Potential for
accelerated
growth as a
result of the
project
Detailed Study
Alternatives which
contribute to indirect
and cumulative
effects
Gaston, NC High Moderate High All
Mecklenburg, NC High Moderate Moderate All
Cleveland, NC Low Low Low None
York, SC Low-
Moderate
Low Moderate Greater Potential in
DSAs (58; 64; 65; 68;
76; 77; 78; and 81)

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

141

Table 12.3 Potential ICE’s in York County
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 measurable 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 303(d)-listed streams.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

142
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
Figure1.3).
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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

143

Table 12.4 Potential ICE’s in Cleveland County
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
Based on information obtained during the interviews in adjacent
communities in Gaston County; low growth rates and potential for new
growth associated with the proposed project; and small changes in
accessibility that would accrue to the proposed Gaston East-West
Connector, there were no cumulative effects associated with the
proposed Gaston East-West Connector identified in Cleveland County.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

144

Table 12.5 Potential ICE’s in Mecklenburg County
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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

145

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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

146

Table 12.6 Potential ICE’s in Gaston County
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 portion
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 H1C, J1C, K1A 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 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 along side of the proposed roadway or other roadways
associated with anticipated growth and development. Detailed Study
Alternatives including segment K2A are 4, 22, 58, and 76.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

147
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
have the potential to indirectly affect cultural resources, but at a lower
rate and magnitude then those listed above.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

148

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).

Cumulative Effects
The proposed Gaston East-West Connector would provide greater access
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

149
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
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
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

150
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.
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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

151

13.0 Appendices

APPENDIX A. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLANS SUMMARY
APPENDIX B. LIST OF REVIEWED DOCUMENTS
APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
APPENDIX D. NUMERIC RESPONSES FROM INTERVIEWEES
APPENDIX E. REPORT MAPPING
APPENDIX F. SCOPING COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES
APPENDIX G. REFERENCES
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

152
Appendix A. Transportation Improvement Plans Summary
Gaston County
Route/City CountyID. NO./Break
Location - Description - Mileage -
BreakWork Type
Funding
Source
Cost
Estimate
(Thou)
Schedule
(Fiscal Years)
I-5000 I-85/US 321. GEOMETRIC SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERCHANGE.
PLANNING/DESIGN 2007

RIGHT-OF-WAY IM 4,700 FY 13
CONSTRUCTION IM 23,700 UNFUNDED
28,400
I-5007 MILEPOST 24 TO MILEPOST 27.
PAVEMENT REHABILITATION. 3 Miles(s)
CONSTRUCTION S(M) 585 FY 07
PB REPAYMENT OF GARVEE BOND
AMOUNT. CONSTRUCTION IM7,047FY 07
GARVEE BOND FUNDING $5.265
MILLION, CONSTRUCTION; PAYBACK FY
2007 - FY 2018 7,632
R-2608* RIGHT-OF-WAY T 24,400 UNFUNDED

CONSTRUCTION T 76,500 UNFUNDED
100,900
R-2206 101,578 PRIOR YEARS

A CONSTRUCTIONCOMPLETE
AA CONSTRUCTIONIN PROGRESS
B CONSTRUCTIONST P 7,206 IN PROGRESS
BA CONSTRUCTION HP 1,462 FY 08
CONSTRUCTION STP 11,838 FY 08
C CONSTRUCTION STP 9,085 IN PROGRESS
CA CONSTRUCTION STP 14,800 FY 08

145,969
R-3107 CHERRYVILLE TO US 321. WIDEN TO
MULTI-LANES. 11.1 Mile(s)
A CHERRYVILLE TO SR 1626 (BEAM ROAD) RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
STP
STP
500
5,500
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
B SR 1626 (BEAM ROAD) TO SR 1461
(LAKESIDE STREET ).
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
STP
STP
6,700
35,600
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
C SR 1461 (LAKESIDE STREET) TO US 321. RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
STP
STP
800
3,400
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
52,500
R-2720 RIGHT-OF-WAY STP 310 UNFUNDED
CONSTRUCTION STP 2,150 UNFUNDED

2,460
NEW ROUTE
MECKLENBURG
GASTON
U-4705 BELMONT-MOUNT HOLLY NORTHERN
LOOP, NC 27 WEST OF MOUNT HOLLY
TO TO NC 27 EAST OF MOUNT HOLLY.
MULTI-LANES ON NEW LOCATION. 4
Mile (s)
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
STP
STP
6,100
42,650
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
48,750
BELMONT
GASTON
U-3608 NC 7, I-85 TO US 29-74. WIDEN TO FIVE
LANES. 0.4 Mile(s)
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
STP
STP
1,300
2,300
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
3,600
TOTAL PROJECT COST
NORTH OF SR 1386 IN LINCOLN
COUNTY TO NORTH OF SR 1895 IN
CATAWBA COUNTY. GRADING AND
NORTH OF SR 1386 IN LINCOLN
COUNTY TO NORTHY OF SR 1895 NEAR
CHRONICLE IN CATAWBA
GARDEN PARKWAY, I-85 WEST OF
GASTONIA TO US 321 NORTH OF
GASTONIA. FOUR LANE DIVIDED
HIGHWAY ON NEW LOCATION. 7.5
Mile (s)
STRATEGIC HIGHWAY CORRIDOR
SOUTH OF LUCIA IN GASTON COUNTY
TO SR 1895 IN CATAWBA COUNTY.
FOUR LANES DIVIDED ON NEW
LOCATION. 16.9 Mile(s)
SOUTH OF LUCIA IN GASTON COUNTY
TO NORTH OF NC 73 IN LINCOLN
COUNTY. GRADING AND STRUCTURES.
SOUTH OF LUCIA IN GASTON COUNTY
TO NORTH OF NC 73 IN LINCOLN
COUNTY. PAVING.
NORTH OF NC 73 TO NORTH OF SR
1386 (EGYPT ROAD-ST. JAMES CHURCH
PAVING, NORTH OF NC 73 TO NORTH
OF SR 1386 AND CONSTRUCTION OF
NC 16
GASTON
LINCOLN
CATAWBA
Interstate Projects
NEW ROUTE
GASTON
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Rural Projects
TOTAL PROJECT COSTSTRATEGIC HIGHWAY CORRIDOR
I-85
GASTON
I-85
GASTON
US 321
GASTON
Urban Projects
NC 279
GASTON
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
NC 273 TO NC 16. TWO LANE
CONNECTOR WITH TWO FOOT PAVED
SHOULDERS ON NEW LOCATION. 0.7
TOTAL PROJECT COST

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

153
Route/City CountyID. NO./Break
Location - Description - Mileage -
BreakWork Type
Funding
Source
Cost
Estimate
(Thou)
Schedule
(Fiscal Years)
GASTONIA
GASTON
U-2408 NC 274, NC 275 TO US 29-74. WIDEN TO
MULTI-LANES.
2.8 Mile(s)

PLANNING/DESIGN
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION STP
10,416
16,099
PRIOR YEARS
IN PROGRESS
COMPLETE
FY 07 26,515
U-2523 NC 279, NC 7 TO WEST OF NC 275 IN
DALLAS. WIDEN TO MULTI-LANES. 3.6
Mile (s) 16,075 PRIOR YEARS
A NC 7 (OZARK AVENUE) TO NORTH OF
SR 2275 (ROBINSON-CLEMMER ROAD).
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
B NORTH OF SR 2275 (ROBINSON-
CLEMMER ROAD) TO WEST OF NC 275
IN DALLAS.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
STP
STP
5,200
5,800
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
27,075
GASTONIA
GASTON
U-2713 SR 1131 (LINWOOD ROAD), CROWDER'S
CREEK TO US 29-74-NC 274 (FRANKLIN
BOULEVARD). WIDEN TO MULTI-LANES,
SOME RELOCATION. 2.2 Mile(s)

RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION

STP
STP
146
2,500
15,500
PRIOR YEARS
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
18,146
GASTONIA
CHARLOTTE
GASTON
MECKLENBURG
U-3321* GARDEN PARKWAY, I-85 WEST OF
GASTONIA TO NC 160 IN
MECKLENBURG COUNTY. MULTI-
LANES ON NEW LOCATION. 21.5 Mile(s)

PLANNING/DESIGN
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION

T
T
8,626
28,000
--
419,000
PRIOR YEARS
IN PROGRESS
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER STUDY
BY THE NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE
AUTHORITY - 455,626
GASTONIA
GASTON
U-3425 SR 1136 (MYRTLE SCHOOL ROAD), US
29-74 TO SR 1255 (HUDSON
BOULEVARD). WIDENT TO MULTI-
LANES. 1.8 Mile(s)
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
STP
STP
4,400
11,300
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
15,700
GASTONIA
GASTON
U-3806 US 29-74 (FRANKLIN BOULEVARD), SR
2200 (COX ROAD) TO SR 2339 (CHURCH
STREET). ADD AN ADDITIONAL LANE IN
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
STP
STP
86
2,400
3,250
PRIOR YEARS
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
5,736
GASTONIA
GASTON
U-4736 UPGRADE GASTONIA COMPUTERIZED
SIGNAL SYSTEM.

CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTIONL
4,779
306
PRIOR YEARS
IN PROGRESS
FY 07 08
5,085
MOUNT HOLLY
GASTON
U-3633 NC 273 (SOUTH MAIN STREET), SOUTH
OF CATAWBA DRIVE TO HIGHLAND
STREET AT RANKIN AVENUE. WIDEN
TO FIVE LANES. 1 Mile(s)

RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION

STP
STP
274
700
4,100
PRIOR YEARS
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
5,074
SR 2478 (TITMAN
ROAD) AND SR 2209
(CRAMERTON
ROAD) GASTON
FS-0112C NEW HOPE ROAD TO WOODLAWN
AVENUE. WIDEN TO THREE LANES,
PART ON NEW LOCATION.

SR 1103
GASTON
B-4517 CROWDER'S CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE
NO. 49

RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION

NFA
NFA
300
100
1,000
PRIOR YEARS
FY 08
FY 09
1,400
SR 1800
GASTON
B-4519 LITTLE LONG CREEK. REPLACE
BRIDGE NO. 155

RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION

NFA
NFA
100
30
300
PRIOR YEARS
FY 08
FY 09
430
SR 1820
GASTON
B-4117 CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 173
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION

NFA
NFA
100
90
1,200
PRIOR YEARS
FY 08
FY 09
1,390
Feasibility Study in Progress
Federal Bridge Projects
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Feasibility Studies
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
GASTONIA
GASTON
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST STRATEGIC HIGHWAY CORRIDOR
TOTAL PROJECT COST

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

154
Route/City CountyID. NO./Break
Location - Description - Mileage -
BreakWork Type
Funding
Source
Cost
Estimate
(Thou)
Schedule
(Fiscal Years)
SR 2014
GASTON
B-4752 SOUTH FORK CATAWBA RIVER.
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 6

RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION

NFA
NFA
600
500
5,000
PRIOR YEARS
FY 11
FY 12
6,100
SR 2439
GASTON
B-4753 DUHART'S CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE
NO. 15

RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION

NFA
NFA
160
120
1,200
PRIOR YEARS
FY 11
FY 12
1,480
BESSEMER CITY
GASTON
B-4575 MICKLEY AVENUE OVER NORFOLK
SOUTHERN RAILROAD. REPLACE
BRIDGE NO. 165

RIGHT-OF-WAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
C
NFAM
C
NFAM
160
16
64
160
640
PRIOR YEARS
FY 08
FY 08
FY 09
FY 09
1,040
GASTONIA
GASTON
B-4344 TULIP DRIVE OVER KAYLOR BRANCH.
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 167

RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
C
NFAM
236
--
360
1,200
PRIOR YEARS
IN PROGRESS
FY 07
FY 07
1,736
GASTONIA
GASTON
B-4860 WEST DAVIDSON AVENUE. REPLACE
BRIDGE NO. 421 OVER KAYLOR
BRANCH

RIGHT-OF-WAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
C
NFAM
C
NFAM
65
8
32
80
320
PRIOR YEARS
FY 07
FY 07
FY 08
FY 08
505
EE-4912 ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM FOR DIVISION 12 PROJECT
MITIGATION. MITIGATION
1,267 PRIOR YEARS
IN PROGRESS

1,267
CRAMERTON
GASTON
EB-5016 DOWNTOWN CRAMERTON-SOUTH
FORK RIVER GREENWAY EXTENSION.
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES AND TRAIL.
CONSTRUCTIONSTP375FY 08
375
GASTONIA
GASTON
EB-5017 AVON-CATAWBA CREEK GREENWAY
TRAIL EXTENSION.
CONSTRUCTIONSTP215FY 07
215
GASTONIA
GASTON
C-4934 NC 279 (NEW HOPE ROAD),
BURTONWOOD DRIVE TO SR 2466
(GARRISON BOULEVARD). WIDEN TO
MULTI-LANES.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
CMAQ
L
CMAQ
L
75
19
1,562
390
FY 09
FY 09
FY 10
FY 10
2,046
BELMONT
GASTON
E-4572 STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG
US 29-74, CATAWBA RIVER TO THE
INTERSECTION. OF WILKINSON
BOULEVARD, CATAWBA STREET, AND
HAZELINE AVENUE.

CONSTRUCTION
285PRIOR YEARS
IN PROGRESS
285
CRAMERTON
GASTON
E-4964 EIGHTH AVENUE, NINTH STREET, AND
CENTER STREET. STREETSCAPING.

CONSTRUCTION
233 PRIOR YEARS
IN PROGRESS
233
DALLAS
GASTON
E-4959 PHASE II: TRADE, COLLEGE, HOFFMAN
AND WILKINS STREETS.
STREETSCAPING.

CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION

O
ST P
14
27
106
PRIOR YEARS
FY 07
FY 07
147
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Municipal Bridge Projects
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Mitigation Projects
VARIOUS
CLEVELAND
GASTON
LINCOLN
ALEXANDER
IREDELL
CATAWBA
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Congestion Mitigation Projects
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Enhancement (Call Projects)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

155
Route/City CountyID. NO./Break
Location - Description - Mileage -
BreakWork Type
Funding
Source
Cost
Estimate
(Thou)
Schedule
(Fiscal Years)
I-85
GASTON
W-4840 CLEVELAND COUNTY LINE TO THE
MECKLENBURG COUNTY LINE. INSTALL
MILLED RUMBLE STRIPS ON THE
MEDIAN AND OUTSIDE SHOULDERS.

CONSTRUCTION
103PRIOR YEARS
IN PROGRESS
103
US 321
CATAWBA
GASTON
LINCOLN
W-4838 C. GRIER BEAM BOULEVARD IN
GASTON COUNTY TO US 70 IN
CATAWBA COUNTY. INSTALL MILLED
RUMBLE STRIPS ON THE MEDIAN AND
OUTSIDE SHOULDERS.

CONSTRUCTION
218
218
Route/City CountyID. NO./Break
Location - Description - Mileage -
Break
Work Type
Funding
Source
Cost
Estimate
(Thou)
Schedule
(Fiscal Years)
GASTONIA
GASTON
TA-4926 1 -EXPANSION BUS CAPITAL
CAPITAL
CAPITAL
FED
L
STAT
320
40
40
FY 12
FY 12
FY 12
UNFUNDED PROJECT 400
GASTONIA
GASTON
TG-4744 ADA SERVICE COSTS, PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE AND ROUTINE CAPITAL
ITEMS
CAPITAL
CAPITAL
FUZ
L
495
124
FY 07
FY 07
619
GASTONIA
GASTON
TG-4745 ADA SERVICE COSTS, PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE AND ROUTINE CAPITAL
ITEMS
CAPITAL
CAPITAL
FUZ
L
495
124
FY 08
FY 08
619
GASTONIA
GASTON
TG-4746 ADA SERVICE COSTS, PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE AND ROUTINE CAPITAL
ITEMS
CAPITAL
CAPITAL
FUZ
L
519
130
FY 09
FY 09
649
GASTONIA
GASTON
TG-4747 ADA SERVICE COSTS, PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE AND ROUTINE CAPITAL
ITEMS
CAPITAL
CAPITAL
FUZ
L
544
136
FY 10
FY 10
680
GASTONIA
GASTON
TG-4911 ADA SERVICE COSTS, PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE AND ROUTINE CAPITAL
ITEMS
CAPITAL
CAPITAL
FUZ
L
544
136
FY 11
FY 11
680
GASTONIA
GASTON
TG-4912 ADA SERVICE COSTS, PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE AND ROUTINE CAPITAL
ITEMS
CAPITAL
CAPITAL
FUZ
L
544
136
FY 12
FY 12
680
GASTONIA
GASTON
TO-4711 FEDERAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE
AND STATE MAINTENANCE
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
FUZ
L
SMA P
703
703
310
FY 07
FY 07
FY 07
1,716
GASTONIA
GASTON
TO-4712 FEDERAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE
AND STATE MAINTENANCE
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
FUZ
L
SMA P
738
738
310
FY 08
FY 08
FY 08
1,786
GASTONIA
GASTON
TO-4713 FEDERAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE
AND STATE MAINTENANCE
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
FUZ
L
SMA P
775
775
310
FY 09
FY 09
FY 09
1,860
GASTONIA
GASTON
TO-4714 FEDERAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE
AND STATE MAINTENANCE
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
FUZ
L
SMA P
814
814
310
FY 10
FY 10
FY 10
1,938
GASTONIA
GASTON
TO-4909 FEDERAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE
AND STATE MAINTENANCE
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
FUZ
L
SMA P
814
814
310
FY 11
FY 11
FY 11
1,938
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Public Transportation Program (GREEN TEXT INDICATES DELIVERABLE STIP PROJECT) * Indicates Intrastate Prjct
Public Transportation Projects
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Hazard Elimination Projects
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

156
Cleveland County

Route/City
County
ID.
NO./Break
Location -
Description -
Mileage - Break Work Type
Funding
Source
Cost
Estimate
(Thou)
Schedule
(Fiscal Years)
US 74 R-2222 Dixon Ave, US 74
Bus West of Shelby
to US 74 Business
East of Shelby
Right of Way NHS 715 Unfunded
Construction NHS 29,350 Unfunded
US 74 R-4005 Mooresboro to
Proposed Shelby
Bypass (R-2707)
Upgrade to Full
Control of Access
Planning/Design 100 Prior Years in
Progress
Right of Way NHS 1200 Unfunded
Construction NHS 15000 Unfunded
US 74
BYPASS
R-2707* SHELBY. FOUR LANE
DIVIDED FREEWAY
ON NEW
LOCATION.
PLANNING/DESIGN
MITIGATION
NHS 20,393
10,6667
Prior Years in
Progress
A WEST OF SR 1162
(PEACHTREE ROAD)
TO WEST OF SR 1314
(HOYLE ROAD).
RIGHT-OF-WAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY
HP NHS 2,580
5,420
FY 08 FY 08
AA WEST OF SR 1162
(PEACHTREE ROAD)
TO WEST OF SR 1161
(PLEASANT RIDGE
ROAD). GRADING,
STRUCTURES,
PAVING.
CONSTRUCTION NHS 24,700 FY 12
AB WEST OF SR 1161
(PLEASANT RIDGE
ROAD) TO WEST OF
SR 1314 (HOYLE
ROAD). GRADING
AND STRUCTURES.
CONSTRUCTION NHS 10,100 FY 12
B WEST OF SR 1314
(HOYLE ROAD) TO
WEST OF NC 226.
GRADING AND
STRUCTURES.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
NHS NHS 4,300
31,700
FY 09 FY 11
C WEST OF NC 226
TO WEST OF NC
150. GRADING AND
STRUCTURES.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
NHS NHS 13,000
43,200
FY 12
UNFUNDED
D WEST OF NC 150
TO EXISTING US 74
WEST OF SR 2238
(LONG BRANCH
ROAD). GRADING
AND STRUCTURES.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
NHS NHS 17,500
28,000
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
E US 74 WEST OF SR
2238 TO WEST OF SR
1001 (STONEY
POINT ROAD).
GRADING,
STRUCTURES,
PAVING.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
NHS NHS 8,900
32,800
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
F WEST OF SR 1161
(PLEASANT RIDGE
ROAD) TO WEST OF
NC 226. PAVING.
CONSTRUCTION NHS 15,900 UNFUNDED
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

157
Route/City
County
ID.
NO./Break
Location -
Description -
Mileage - Break Work Type
Funding
Source
Cost
Estimate
(Thou)
Schedule
(Fiscal Years)
G WEST OF NC 226
TO WEST OF NC
150. PAVING.
CONSTRUCTION NHS 18,500 UNFUNDED
H WEST OF NC 150
TO EXISTING US 74
WEST OF SR 2238
(LONG BRANCH
ROAD). PAVING.
CONSTRUCTION NHS 15,800 UNFUNDED
Shelby U-2221 NC 180, NC 226 TO
NC 150.
WIDEN TO MULTI-
LANES.
NHS 15,839 PRIOR YEARS
A NC 226 TO SR 2200. RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
STP STP 1,200
6,100
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
B SR 2200 TO SR
2052.
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
C SR 2052 TO NC 150. RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
STP STP 1,400
7,400
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
SHELBY U-2567 US 74-NC 150
(DEKALB STREET).
CONSTRUCT
INTERCHANGE.
RIGHT-OF-WAY NHS 5,500 UNFUNDED
CONSTRUCTION NHS 6,200 UNFUNDED
VARIOUS EE-4912 ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM FOR
DIVISION 12
PROJECT
MITIGATION.
1,267 Prior Years in
Progress
MITIGATION
I-85 W-4839 SOUTH CAROLINA
STATE LINE TO THE
GASTON COUNTY
LINE. INSTALL
MILLED RUMBLE
STRIPS
44 Prior Years in
Progress
ON THE MEDIAN
AND OUTSIDE
SHOULDERS.
CONSTRUCTION
US 74 W-4841 I-26 IN POLK
COUNTY TO US 74
BUSINESS IN
CLEVELAND
COUNTY. INSTALL
MILLED RUMBLE
STRIPS ON THE
MEDIAN AND
OUTSIDE
SHOULDERS.
CONSTRUCTION HES 10280 Prior Years FY
07

NC 150 SF-4912A SR 1253 (CHARLES
ROAD).
CONSTRUCT LEFT
TURN LANE.
CONSTRUCTION HES 10 100 PRIOR YEARS
FY 07

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

158
Mecklenburg County

Route/City
County
ID.
NO./Break
Location -
Description -
Mileage - Break Work Type
Funding
Source
Cost
Estimate
(Thou)
Schedule
(Fiscal
Years)

INCLUDES I-4722 -
ENTIRE PROJECT
CONSTRUCTED
UNDER I-4721 A
TOTAL PROJECT
COST 2510.00
I-77 I-3311
CHARLOTTE, 5TH
STREET IN
CHARLOTTE TO NC
73 (SAM FURR
ROAD).
ADDITIONAL
LANES. 14.4 Mile(s)

PLANNING/DESIG
N 98470.00
PRIOR
YEARS 2008
A
I-85 TO NORTH OF
I-485 (CHARLOTTE
OUTER LOOP). CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
AA
NC 73 (SAM FURR
ROAD), WEST OF I-
77 TO EAST OF I-77;
SR 2136 (GILEAD
ROAD), WEST OF I-
77 TO EAST OF I-77. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
B
I-485 (CHARLOTTE
OUTER LOOP) TO
NC 73 (SAM FURR
ROAD).
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION 16,779 20,220
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
C
5TH STREET TO I-85.
HIGH
OCCUPANCY
VEHICLE (HOV)
LANES. CONSTRUCTION 29,000 UNFUNDED
D
I-485 (CHARLOTTE
OUTER LOOP) TO
SR 2136 (GILEAD
ROAD). CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
E
NORTH OF I-
277/NC 16
(BROOKSHIRE
FREEWAY) TO
SOUTH OF I-85. CONSTRUCTION 16,000 FY 13
RIDOR
TOTAL PROJECT
COST 180469.00
I-77 I-4720
I-277 (EXIT 9) TO
THE SOUTH
CAROLINA STATE
LINE. RESURFACE
WITH NOVACHIP. 9.3 Mile(s) 350.00 FY 07
PB
REPAYMENT OF
GARVEE BOND
AMOUNT. 4218.00 FY 07

GARVEE BOND
FUNDING $3.15
MILLION,
CONSTRUCTION;
PAYBACK FY 2007 -
FY 2018
TOTAL PROJECT
COST 4568.00
I-77 I-4733
CORNELIUS, SR
5544 (WEST
CATAWBA
AVENUE). MODIFY
INTERCHANGE.

PLANNING/DESIG
N RIGHT-OF-WAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
784 1,290 860
4,300 50
27,000
PRIOR
YEARS IN
PROGRESS
FY 10 FY 10
FY 10 FY 10
UNFUNDED
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

159
Route/City
County
ID.
NO./Break
Location -
Description -
Mileage - Break Work Type
Funding
Source
Cost
Estimate
(Thou)
Schedule
(Fiscal
Years)

I-485 R-2248*
CHARLOTTE
WESTERN OUTER
LOOP, WEST OF I-
77 TO I-85 NORTH.
FREEWAY ON NEW
LOCATION. 28
Mile(s)

PLANNING/DESIG
N MITIGATION 500,545 1,082
PRIOR
YEARS IN
PROGRESS
FY 11
A
WEST OF I-77
SOUTH TO US 29-
74. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
BA
NORTH OF US 29-
74 (WILKINSON
BOULEVARD) TO
NORTH OF I-85. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
BB
NORTH OF I-85 TO
NORTH OF NC 27. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
C
NORTH OF NC 27
(MOUNT HOLLY
ROAD) TO EAST OF
SR 2042 (OAKDALE
ROAD). CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
D
EAST OF SR 2042
(OAKDALE ROAD)
TO EAST OF NC
115 (OLD
STATESVILLE
ROAD). CONSTRUCTION 30,350
IN
PROGRESS
E
EAST OF NC 115
(OLD STATESVILLE
ROAD) TO I-85
NORTH.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
2,500 16,000
3,000 122,600
FY 10 FY 10
FY 13 FY 13
F
WEST OF I-77 TO
ARROWOOD
ROAD-BROWN
GRIER ROAD. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE
G
INTERCHANGE
WITH SR 2042
(OAKDALE ROAD). CONSTRUCTION 400.00 Unfunded
RIDOR
TOTAL PROJECT
COST 676477.00
I-485 R-4902*
US 521
(JOHNSTON
ROAD) TO I-77
SOUTH OF
CHARLOTTE.
WIDEN TO SIX-
LANES. 6.6 Mile(s) NHS NHS NHS
2,000 100
800 42,500
PRIOR
YEARS IN
PROGRESS
FY 11 FY 12
FY 13
RIDOR 45,400
US 21 R-4059
CORNELIUS,
CATAWBA
AVENUE.
INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS. 0.4 Mile(s)
RIGHT-OF-
WAY
CONSTRUCTIO
N STP STP
1,650
1,175

TOTAL PROJECT
COST 2825.00
US 52, US 74,
NC 49 R-4413
NATIONAL
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
GUARDRAIL
REHABILITATION.
UPGRADE
SUBSTANDARD
GUARDRAIL, END
TREATMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION 340 FY 07
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

160
Route/City
County
ID.
NO./Break
Location -
Description -
Mileage - Break Work Type
Funding
Source
Cost
Estimate
(Thou)
Schedule
(Fiscal
Years)
BRIDGE ANCHOR
UNITS.
Urban Area
Charlotte U-2704
US 29-74
(WILKINSON
BOULEVARD) AND
SR 5901 (BILLY
GRAHAM
PARKWAY). AREA
IMPROVEMENTS.
0.8 Mile(s) MITIGATION 600 171
PRIOR
YEARS
UNFUNDED
B
CHARLOTTE, US
29-74 (WILKINSON
BOULEVARD) AND
US 521 (BILLY
GRAHAM
PARKWAY).
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION 3,700 5,500
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED

PROGRAMMED
FOR PLANNING
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDY ONLY
TOTAL PROJECT
COST
Urban Area
Charlotte U-3411
NC 160 (WEST
BOULEVARD)
RELOCATION, EAST
OF I-485
(CHARLOTTE
OUTER LOOP) TO
HORSESHOE LANE.
MULTI- LANES ON
NEW LOCATION.
2.3 Mile(s)
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
500 16,400
1,700
FY 07 FY 07
FY 07

CONSTRUCTION
BY OTHERS -
NCDOT TO
CONTRIBUTE $1.7
M TOWARDS
CONSTRUCTION
COST
TOTAL PROJECT
COST 18600.00
U-3603
NC 27
(ALBEMARLE
ROAD), PIERSON
DRIVE TO
REDDMAN ROAD.
ADD ADDITIONAL
EASTBOUND LANE.
0.8 Mile(s)
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION 550 310 1,240
PRIOR
YEARS FY 07
FY 07
RIDOR
TOTAL PROJECT
COST
Urban Area
Charlotte U-3850
I-277 (JOHN BELK
FREEWAY). ADD
WESTBOUND LANE
THROUGH I-77
INTERCHANGE. 0.5 Mile(s) 6002, 400
FY 11 FY
11

PLANNING AND
DESIGN BY CITY 3,000
U-4401*
SR 2804 (REEDY
CREEK ROAD)
AND SR 2805
(HARRISBURG
ROAD). REALIGN
INTERSECTION.

PLANNING/DESIG
N RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION 150 600 2,800
PRIOR
YEARS IN
PROGRESS
FY 08 FY 10

TOTAL PROJECT
COST 3550.00
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

161
Route/City
County
ID.
NO./Break
Location -
Description -
Mileage - Break Work Type
Funding
Source
Cost
Estimate
(Thou)
Schedule
(Fiscal
Years)
U-4441

BICYCLE/PEDESTRI
AN CONNECTIONS
TO TRAIL SYSTEM.
STUDY TO IDENTIFY
NEIGHBORHOOD
CONNECTIONS
FOR NON-
MOTORIZED
TRANSPORTATION. STUDY

TRANSPORTATION
AND COMMUNITY
AND SYSTEMS
PRESERVATION
GRANT
TOTAL PROJECT
COST 396.00
U-4442
NORTH-SOUTH
CORRIDOR
TRANSITWAY
PROJECT. STUDY
TO REVIEW AREA'S
LAND USE
PATTERNS TO
CONNCENTRATE
DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN MAJOR
TRAVEL
CORRIDORS TO
ENHANCE HIGH
CAPACITY TRANSIT
SERVICE. STUDY
PRIOR
YEARS IN
PROGRESS

MATTHEWS U-4713
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. 1.1
Mile(s)
A SR 3448
STP RIGHT-OF-
WAY STP
CONSTRUCTION 3,900 2,900
B SR 1009
CRIGHT-OF-WAY
STPDA RIGHT-OF-
WAY
CCONSTRUCTION
STPDA
CONSTRUCTION
340 1,360 260
1,040

PLANNING
AND DESIGN
OF SEGMENT
B BY TOWN
TOTAL PROJECT
COST 9,800
MATTHEWS
MINT HILL U-5007
NC 51, US 74
(INDEPENDENCE
BOULEVARD) TO
SR 3128 (LAWYERS
ROAD). WIDEN TO
MULTI-LANES. 5.5
Mile(s)
STPRIGHT-OF-
WAY
STPCONSTRUCTIO
N
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED

TOTAL PROJECT
COST 58,500
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

162
Route/City
County
ID.
NO./Break
Location -
Description -
Mileage - Break Work Type
Funding
Source
Cost
Estimate
(Thou)
Schedule
(Fiscal
Years)
PINEVILLE U-3447
NC 51, SOUTH
CAROLINA STATE
LINE TO SR 3645
(DOWNS CIRCLE).
WIDEN TO MULTI-
LANES. 1 Mile(s)

PLANNING/DESIG
N RIGHT-OF-WAY
STPMITIGATION
STPCONSTRUCTIO
N
PRIOR YEARS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
FY 08 FY 09

TOTAL PROJECT
COST 8,087
SOUTH
BOULEVARD U-5014
SOUTH
BOULEVARD
SIGNAL SYSTEM.

CCONSTRUCTION
DPCONSTRUCTIO
N FY 07 FY 07 08

PROJECT TO
BE
ADMINISTERE
D BY CITY OF
CHARLOTTE
TOTAL PROJECT
COST 1,368
VARIOUS U-4744
STPDA IN
MECKLENBURG-
UNION
METROPOLITAN
PLANNING
ORGANIZATION
(MUMPO).

CCONSTRUCTION
STPDA
CONSTRUCTION FY 12 FY 12

TOTAL PROJECT
COST 200
VARIOUS U-9999C
MECKLENBURG-
UNION
METROPOLITAN
PLANNING
ORGANIZATION
(MUMPO)
PLANNING (PL)
SUPPLEMENT.
S(M)
ENGINEERING
STPDA
ENGINEERING
FY 09 10 11 12
13 FY 09 10 11
12 13

TOTAL PROJECT
COST 3,900

WEDDINGTO
N ROAD U-5025
WEDDINGTON
ROAD, TRADE
STREET TO I-485
ORIGHT-OF-WAY
CCONSTRUCTION
OCONSTRUCTION
SCONSTRUCTION
FY 07 FY 07 FY
07 FY 07

"S"
REPRESENTS
"MOVING
AHEAD"
FUNDS
TOTAL PROJECT
COST 4,808
FEASIBILITY
STUDIES
I-77 FS-0510A
5TH STREET IN
CHARLOTTE TO NC
73 (SAM FURR
ROAD). ADD HOV
LANES. 14.4 Mile(s)

FEASIBILITY
STUDY IN
PROGRESS
SR 1501
IDLEWILD
ROAD FS-0210B
SR 1520 (FAIRVIEW
ROAD-INDIAN
TRAIL ROAD) TO I-
485. UPGRADE
EXISTING
ROADWAY. 1.4 Mile(s)

FEASIBILITY
STUDY IN
PROGRESS
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

163
Route/City
County
ID.
NO./Break
Location -
Description -
Mileage - Break Work Type
Funding
Source
Cost
Estimate
(Thou)
Schedule
(Fiscal
Years)
FEDERAL
BRIDGE
PROJECTS
B-4779 US 29
SOUTHBOUN
D LANE
MALLARD
CREEK.
REPLACE
BRIDGE NO.
147
FARIGHT-OF-WAY
FACONSTRUCTION 400 300 3,000
SR 2025 B-4579
MCINTYRE CREEK.
REPLACE BRIDGE
NO. 134
FARIGHT-OF-WAY
FAMITIGATION
FACONSTRUCTIO
N
PRIOR YEARS
FY 08 FY 08 FY
09

PURCHASE
ORDER
CONTRACT
(POC)
TOTAL PROJECT
COST 336
SR 2120 B-4200
GAR CREEK.
REPLACE BRIDGE
NO. 100
FARIGHT-OF-WAY
FACONSTRUCTIO
N
PRIOR YEARS
FY 10 FY 11

TOTAL PROJECT
COST 540
SR 2804 B-4580
REEDY CREEK.
REPLACE BRIDGE
NO. 177
NFARIGHT-OF-
WAY
NFACONSTRUCTI
ON
PRIOR YEARS
FY 09 FY 10

TOTAL PROJECT
COST 850
SR 3135 B-3677
IRVINS CREEK.
REPLACE BRIDGE
NO. 36
FARIGHT-OF-WAY
FACONSTRUCTIO
N
PRIOR YEARS
FY 07 FY 08

TOTAL PROJECT
COST 1,240
SR 3168 B-4201
GREASY CREEK.
REPLACE BRIDGE
NO. 38
FARIGHT-OF-WAY
FACONSTRUCTIO
N
PRIOR YEARS
FY 10 FY 11

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

164
York County

PIN # Priority Guideshare Projects FY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
77431SC 161 EXT / SC 122 (DAVE LYLE) Extension

7747
17333
17335
---
23149
1SC 161
CHERRY RD TO INDIA HOOK RD
INDIA HOOK RD TO 901 SEG C-2/1
PENNINGTON RD TO MT GALLANT RD WEST
SEG B-2
SC 161 / SC 901 INTERSECTION
2,549 C
992228
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT (EAST MAIN/
EAST WHITE)
PIN # FY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
25935
1,000 R
4,000 C3,475 C
18670
PIN #FY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
23011
23395 15,000 C 10,000 C
PIN #FY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
343 ** 170 170 170
PIN #FY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
500

383
400
34
1,216
28

20
State Infrastructure Bank Projects
SC 5 EXT (I-85 TO BEYOND SC 55 IN YORK CO)
SAFETEA-LU Earmark Projects
HIGHWAY 901
YORK COUNTY
SAFETEA-LU # 4890 *
CMAQ Projects***
SOUTH POINTE TRAIL
(SIDEWALK CONNECTION)
(MATCHING SOURCE - YORK COUNTY, CITY, RHSD)
IDLE REDUCTION AWARENESS PROGRAM
(AT SCHOOLS IN NON-ATTAINMENT AREA)
(CATAWBA COG, SCEO, MUSEUM OF YORK COUNTY)
Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS)
(Cost in Thousands) Policy Committee Amended - Ju
Projects Exempt from Guideshare
I-77/US 21 (ANDERSON RD) INTERCHANGE (EXIT 77)
SC 49 (WIDEN FROM CROWDERS CREEK TO SC 55) (CATAWBA
COG GUIDESHARE PROJECT)
REGENT PARKWAY CONNECTOR (US 21 TO DORMAN RD)
(DEVELOPER FUNDED PROJECT)
SAFETY PROJECTS (P, R, & C)
PAVEMENT MARKING & SIGNING PROJECTS
PAVEMENT PROJECTS
SEE 2007 STIP PROGRAM SUMMARIES
SEE 2007 STIP PROGRAM SUMMARIES
ITS (INTERSATE)
INCIDENT RESPONSE PROGRAM
SEE 2007 STIP PROGRAM SUMMARIES
SEE 2007 STIP PROGRAM SUMMARIES
SEE 2007 STIP PROGRAM SUMMARIES
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT & REHAB PROJECTS
APPROPRIATION EARMARKS
SEE 2007 STIP PROGRAM SUMMARIES
SEE 2007 STIP APPROPRIATION EARMARKS
INTERCHANGE OF I-77/ SC 161/ US 21
TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLER UPGRADES (SC 161, US 21,
SC 72 AND SC 122
RAWLINSON ROAD TRAIL - PHASE I
(TRAIL CONNECTION)
(MATCHING SOURCE - CITY OF ROCK HILL)
ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES
(PURCHASE CARTS AND HYBRID UPGRADES)
(MATCHING SOURCE - CITY OF ROCK HILL)
ROCK HILL TROLLEY TOWN TOURIST LOOP
(DEVELOP AND OPERATE TROLLEY SERVICE)
(MATCHING SOURCE - CITY OF ROCK HILL)
DAVE LYLE BOULEVARD
(TRAFFIC STUDY)
(MATCHING SOURCE - CITY OF ROCK HILL)

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

165
PIN #FY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
166166166
PIN #FY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
4,407 C735 C
24 R
899 C
5,943 C 6,483 C 3,782 C
838 R
3,384 C5,076 C2,538 C
296 P
231 R
2,712 C1,695 C
111 P
172 R
2,144 C
29 R
429 C
505 P 416 P
903 R
2,830 C
113 R
4,851 C4,447 C
48 P
81 R
7P
163 R
524 C
524 C
PIN #FY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
614660
42
36
Key: P - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, R - RIGHT OF WAY, C - CONSTRUCTION, CA - CAPITAL PURCHASE, OP -OPERATING, PM - PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
* - FEDERAL AMOUNT SHOWN IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN SAFETEA-LU THAT MAYBE DISTRIBUTED OVER 5 YEARS (FY 2005-2009). ACTUAL FUNDING CURRENTLY AVAILABLE RESULTING FROM FY 2005
FY 2007-2009 FUNDING SUBJECT TO FUTURE APPROPRIATION ACTS (PROJECTED AT 85% FOR ESTIMATE PURPOSES)
** - INCLUDES FY 2005 AND FY 2006 SPENDING LIMITATIONS
***- INCLUDES UNPROGRAMMED RFATS NONATTAINMENT FUNDS ($3,980,418) FROM FY 2005 & FY 2006
PIN #FY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
18670 2,524 C
425 R 1,900 C 865 C
22071
736 C

PIN #FY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
23399
PIN #FY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
PIN #FY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
106
Key: P - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, R - RIGHT-OF-WAY, C - CONSTRUCTION, OP -OPERATING, AD - ADMINISTRATION, CA - CAPITAL, PL - PLANNING, PS - PURCHASE OF SERVICE, VA - VEHICLE ACQUISITION
* - FEDERAL AMOUNT SHOWN IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN SAFETEA-LU THAT MAYBE DISTRIBUTED OVER 5 YEARS (FY 2005-2009). ACTUAL FUNDING CURRENTLY AVAILABLE RESULTING FROM FY 2005
FY 2007-2009 FUNDING SUBJECT TO FUTURE APPROPRIATION ACTS (PROJECTED AT 85% FOR ESTIMATE PURPOSES)
** - INCLUDES FY 2005 AND FY 2006 SPENDING LIMITATIONS
ProjectOwner AgencyDescriptionFY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
KIMO_10(1) NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, KINGS
MOUNTAIN
NATIONAL
MILITARY PARK
RESURFACE THE MAIN PARK DRIVE. 750
SC 161 / 122 EXTENSION (WIDEN TO 5 LANES FROM SC 161 / SC
121 IN YORK COUNTY TO US 521 IN LANCASTER COUNTY
York County Locally Funded Projects
SC 5 (CHEROKEE CO LINE TO SC 5 BYPASS)
Guideshare Projects
SC 49 (WIDEN FROM CROWDERS CREEK TO SC 55)
SC 55 (SELECTED IMPROVEMENTS FROM SC 557 TO US 321)
SC 5 BUS (WIDENING TO 5 LANES FROM SC 324 TO SC 5 / SC
161 (EAST OF YORK)
SC 274 ( SC 161 TO SC 55)
Federal Transit Administration
YORK COUNTY (AD, OP)
Innovative Projects
(Cost in Thousands) Revision 4 - June 21
Federal Lands Program
(Cost in Thousands) Revision 7 (Correction) - Decem
Catawba COG
Locally Funded Projects
SC 274 (SC 161 TO SC 55)
(YORK COUNTY 1997 LOCALLY FUNDED PROJECT)
CHERRY ROAD (YORK TO HECKLE)
Federal Transit Administration
YORK COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING (CA)
YORK CO DSN BOARD (CA)
Enhancement Projects
RFATS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
FORT MILL SOUTHERN BYPASS
TEGA-CAY GOLD HILL CONN (SC 160 TO GOLD HILL RD)
CITY OF ROCK HILL
FORT MILL BYPASS (SC 160 TO GOLD HILL RD)
EBENEZER RD (DOTSON TO OLD POINTE)
SC 901 (SC 72 TO I-77)
SC 72 (BLACK ST TO HECKLE)

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

166
ProjectFY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012
WATERFORD
TRAIL PROJECT
Federal - $100
Total - $125
CROWDER
CONNECTOR
TRAIL
Federal - $58
Total - $72
NATION FORD
GREENWAY
Federal - $13
Total - $16
FY 2005/2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009
Total
Estimated
HIGHWAY 901 RFATS 5 343,460 170,000 170,000 170,000 $510,000
SC HIGHWAY
BYPASS 5
BETWEEN
CATAWBA 5 549,536 272,000 272,000 272,000 $816,000
WIDEN SC
HIGHWAY 5
BYPASS
CATAWBA 5 1,373,840 680,000 680,000 680,000 $2,040,000
Key: * - FEDERAL AMOUNT SHOWN IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN SAFETEA-LU THAT MAYBE DISTRIBUTED OVER 5 YEARS (FY 2005-2009)
** - ACTUAL FUNDING CURRENTLY AVAILABLE RESULTING FROM FY 2005 AND 2006 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ACTS. FY 2007-2009 FUNDING SUBJEC T TO FUTURE APPROPRIATION
ACTS (PROJECTED AT 85% FOR ESTIMATE PURPOSES)
FY 2006
Total
Estimated
CITY OF ROCK
HILL TROLLEY
STUDY
RFATS 396,000 $396,000 ROCK HILL
Key: * - ACTUAL AMOUNT AUTHORIZED WAS REDUCED BY A 1% ACROSS-THE-BOARD RECISSION
Interstate Program
(Cost in Thousands) Revision 7 (Correction) - December 5, 2007
Projects (PIN#)
COG/MPO
(County)Description
Previous
Program FY
2006FY 2007
TIP Cost (2007-
2012)
Remaining
Cost (2013+)Funding
I-77
INTERCHANGE
PIN # 25935
RFATS (YORK) IMPROVEMENTS @ US 21 (ANDERSON RD)
EXIT 77
1,000 R 4,000 C 3,475 C $3,475 NHS/IM
Key: P - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, R -RIGHT OF WAY, C - CONSTRUCTION, CA -CAPITAL PURCHASE, OP - OPERATING
Innovative Projects (State Infrastructure Bank)
(Cost in Thousands)
MiKm
I-77 / SC 161 / US
21
23011 YORK RFATS
SC 161 / 122
EXTENSION
23399 LANCASTER
YORK
CATAWBA
RFATS
20.74 33.37
SC 5 EXTENSION 23395 CHEROKEE APPALACHIAN/
RFATS
8.20 13.19 15,000 C 10,000 C
$15,000$10,000
KEY:
MiKm
SC 5 YORK 9.77 15.72
SC 274 YORK 7.30 11.75
CHEROKEE CO LINE TO SC 5 BYPASS
SC 161 TO SC 55
SAFETEA-LU Earmarks* Revision 6 - September 20, 2007
P - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, R - RIGHT OF WAY, C - CONSTRUCTION, CA -CAPITAL PURCHASE, OP -OPERATING
DescriptionFY 2007FY 2008
FY 2007
RECONSTRUCT INTERCHANGE
(EXIT 82)
(Cost in Thousands) Revision 2 Correction - Febr u
Projects Pin #CountyCOG/MPODescriptionFY 2006
York County Locally Funded Projects
Projects Pin #County
Length
York Couny Subtotals
PHASE 1 WIDEN TO 5 LANES
FROM I-85 TO E. OF US 29 AND
CONSTRUCT NEW BRIDGE OVER
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD
PHASE 2 WIDEN TO 5 LANES
FROM E. OF US 29 TO YORK CO
LINE. ALSO INCLUDES A 4 LANE
DIVIDED SECT.
WIDEN TO 5 LANES FROM SC
161 / SC 121 IN YORK COUNTY
TO US 521 IN LANCASTER
COUNTY
Length
FEDERAL -$400,000
MATCH -$99,000
Matching
Agency
Appropriation Earmarks* Revision 1 (Correction) - December 5, 2006
Earmark
ProjectsMPO/COG
Spending Limitation
Appropriation
FEDERAL -$1,000,000
MATCH -$213,365
FEDERAL -$1,600,000
MATCH -$341,384
FEDERAL -$4,600,000
MATCH -$853,460
SAFETEA-LU Appropriation
(2005-2009)
Earmark
ProjectsMPO/COGCongress District
Spending Limitation **
Agency
City of Rock Hill
SCPRT, SC STATE PARK SERVICE - KINGS MOUNTAIN STATE
PARK
York County
(Cost in Thousands) Revision 7 (Correction) - Decem
Recreational Trails Program

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

167

Appendix B. List of Reviewed Documents
Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, Volumes
I & II, November 2001
“Indirect and Cumulative Effects: A System Primer for Metropolitan Planning Organizations,” October, 2007
Gastonia City Council Meeting Minutes for June 19, 2007
Resource Guidebook for Residential and Commercial Development, 2007
2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, GUAMPO Technical Coordinating Committee, May 24, 2005
City of Charlotte Transportation Action Plan Policy Document, 2006
2015 Plan, Planning for Our Future, November, 1997
Strategic Business Plan, Mecklenburg County, 2008-2010
York County Industry Cluster & Target Market Study, 2005
Cleveland County Land Use Plan, 2005
Gaston County Comprehensive Planning Program, 2002
Gaston County Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2004
2025 York County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Written Re-Evaluation, 2006
Watershed Restoration Plan for the Catawba River Basin, 2001
Protecting our Lake Watersheds, City of Mount Holly, 2004
Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program Land Use and Environmental Services Agency, Protecting our
Lake Watersheds, 2004
Macon-Charlotte Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Plan-Final Report, 2004
Cleveland-Gaston Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2003
York County, Strategic Economic Development Plan, 2007
Cleveland County land Use Development Plan, 2005
The City of Charlotte Transportation Action Plan, 2006
North Carolina Department of Transportation Improvement Programs 2007-2013/2009-2015
2015 Planning For Our Future, Mecklenburg County, 1997
Performance Report, Mecklenburg County, 2006
City Vision 2010, Gastonia's Comprehensive Plan, 1995
Conformity Analysis and Determination Report for the Cabarrus-Rowan MPO, the Gaston Urban Area MPO,
and the Mecklenburg-Union MPO 2030 Long Range Transportation Plans and the FY 2007-2013 State
Transportation Improvement Programs and for Non-MPO Areas of Lincoln County, Iredell County, Gaston
County, and Union County areas, Appendix D: 2010, 2020, and 2030, June 8, 2005
Amendment 2: Conformity Analysis and Determination Report for the Cabarrus-Rowan MPO, the Gaston
Urban Area MPO, and the Mecklenburg-Union MPO 2030 Long Range Transportation Plans and the FY 2007-
2013 State Transportation Improvement Programs and for Non-MPO Areas of Lincoln County, Iredell County,
Gaston County, and Union County areas, May 25, 2007
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 2007 – 2012, Revision 7, December 5, 2007.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

168
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

Attendees:
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 ([e-mail],
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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

169
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 Vineyard.

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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

170
Gaston County Chamber of Commerce October 17, 2007
601 West Franklin Boulevard
Gastonia, NC 28053
704.864.2621

Attendees:
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 Governments
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 “1” 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”).

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

171
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 K1 and K2 interchanges, there would be mostly industrial development due to the
intermodal facility that is proposed along I-85.

J1, J2, and K1 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 F1 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).
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

172
Gaston Urban Area MPO October 18, 2007
150 South York Street
Gastonia, NC 28053-1748
704.854.6663

Attendees:
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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

173

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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

174
City of Gastonia Planning Department October 17, 2007
150 South York Street
Gastonia, NC 28053-1748
704.854.6632

Attendees:
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, I2. 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

175
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 I2 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

176
City of Belmont Planning Department October 18, 2007
37 North Main Street
Belmont, NC 28012
704.901.2067

Attendees:
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 K1 and K2 with the Gaston east-West
Connector project in place.

The I1 and I2 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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

177
York County Government October 18, 2007
1070 Heckle Boulevard
Rock Hill, SC 29732-2863
803.909.7222

Attendees:
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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

178
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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

179
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department October 19, 2007
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
704.336.8315

Attendees:
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 K1/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.org/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.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

180
Gaston Economic Development Commission October 19, 2007
PO Box 2339
Gastonia, NC 28053-2339
704.825.4046

Attendees:
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, I2, and I3 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

181
Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition October 19, 2007
2923 Audrey Drive
Gastonia, NC 28054
704.867.4826

Attendees:
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 “overlays” 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

182
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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

183
Bessemer City Planning Department November 7, 2007
City Hall
132 W. Virginia Ave.
704-476-8000

Attendees:
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:

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 “losing”
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” alternative would have no effect on Bessemer City.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

184
Riverkeepers/CD Collins November 7, 2007

Attendees:
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 concern was the potential cost of the project. He was also concerned
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 I3/J3 are preferred due to constructability issues.

Lake Wylie is the 13th 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 NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

185
Crowders Mountain State Park, Mr. Larry Hyde November 16, 2007
522 Park Office Lane
Kings Mountain, NC 28086
[phone]

Attendees:
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:

ƒ Air pollution generated from the proposed road,
ƒ Urban growth associated with proposed project leading to a fire hazard for the
Park,
ƒ Noise pollution, and
ƒ 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 wilderness 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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

186
Allen Tate Realty, Ms. Ann Finke November 16, 2007
117 N. Main Street
Belmont, NC 28012
[phone]

Attendees:
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.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

187
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:
ƒ 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).
ƒ Ms. Lockett also sees the project supporting the goals/objectives of the Gaston
2012 initiative.

David Williams, Planning Director, Gaston County Planning Department:
ƒ Mr. Williams noted project concerns not only for neighborhoods adjacent to or “in
the Path” of the Detailed Study Alternatives, but project induced land use change
in the area and increased traffic on area roadways.
ƒ There are no major employment centers in the area within and near the Detailed
Study Alternatives.
ƒ 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:
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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):

ƒ 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.
ƒ 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:
ƒ One of Cramerton’s concerns 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.
ƒ The Town is concerned with the proposed project’s potential effect on the
Greenway Master Plan.
ƒ The Town sees its municipal boundaries expanding on the east side (of New Hope
Road).
ƒ The Town estimates that at least half of the residents commute to Charlotte or
outside of Gaston County for work.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

188
ƒ 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).
ƒ The town recently lost Joanne Fabrics due to bankruptcy.

Barry Webb, City Manager, City of Belmont:
ƒ 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.
ƒ The largest employers within the City are Stowe Mills and Belmont Abbey College.
ƒ The City noted the potential for the ETJ to expand, particularly in the Peninsula and
Garden areas.
ƒ 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:
ƒ Growth and development is prevalent in the study area, which is driving the need
for the expansion and addition of educational institutions.
ƒ 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.

I
ND
I
R
E
C
T

A
N
D

C
UM
U
L
A
T
I
V
E

E
FF
E
C
T
S

A
SS
E
S
S
M
E
N
T

GAS
T
O
N

EAS
T
-W
ES
T

CON
N
E
C
T
O
R

ST
I
P
NO: U-
3
3
2
1

Ma
r
c
h

1
6
,

2
0
0
9

189
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

D
.

N
u
m
e
r
i
c

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

f
r
o
m

I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
e
s

In

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n

t
o

t
h
e

c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

b
y

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
e
s

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

me
e
t
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
e
s
,

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
e
s
g
a
v
e

n
u
m
e
r
i
c

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

t
o

se
v
e
r
a
l

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d

a
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

d
i
st
r
i
c
t
s

a
n
d

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

G
a
s
t
o
n

Ea
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

(
s
h
o
w
n

i
n

F
i
g
u
r
e

3.
2
)
.

T
h
e

r
a
w

n
u
m
e
r
i
c

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

a
r
e

s
h
o
w
n

b
e
l
o
w
.

T
h
e
s
e

re
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

w
e
r
e

w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
’
s

l
e
v
e
l

o
f

kn
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

o
f

e
a
c
h

a
r
e
a
,

t
h
e
n

a
v
e
r
ag
e
d
.

T
h
e

w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

an
d

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

w
a
s

t
h
e
n

u
s
e
d

a
s

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

sp
a
t
i
a
l

g
r
i
d

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.

Ga
s
t
o
n

Ch
a
m
b
e
r

o
f

Co
m
m
e
r
c
e

Ci
t
y

o
f

Ga
s
t
o
n
i
a

Ga
s
t
o
n

MP
O

Re
a
l

E
s
t
a
t
e

an
d

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

In
d
u
s
t
r
y

Ch
a
r
-
M
e
c
k

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g

De
p
t
.

Ga
s
t
o
n

Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c

De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

Yo
r
k

Co
u
n
t
y
,

SC

Be
l
m
o
n
t

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g

De
p
t
.

Bessemer City Planning Anne Finke-Tate Realty Crowder State Park-Larry Hyde
1.

L
i
v
e
d

h
e
r
e

l
o
n
g
e
r

t
h
a
n

__
_

y
e
a
r
s

3
1

2
0

2
0

1
1

3
8

1
9

7

2
0

1
5

2.

W
o
r
k
e
d

h
e
r
e

l
o
n
g
e
r

t
h
a
n

__

y
e
a
r
s

3
1

4

2
8

5

2
3

1
1

6

5

2

3.

F
a
m
i
l
i
a
r
i
t
y

w
i
t
h
:

(
1
=
h
i
g
h
l
y

f
a
m
i
l
i
a
r
,

5
=
n
o
t

f
a
m
i
l
i
a
r

a
t

a
l
l
)

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

1

2

4

1

2

1

4

5

5

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

2

1

2

1

1

3

3

1

3

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

3

1

2

1

2

1

3

3

2

5

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

4

2

2

1

1

3

3

2

3

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

5

2

3

1

1

2

3

4

2

3

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

6

2

4

1

1

1

2

4

3

5

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

7

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

4

5

1

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

8

1

2

1

1

2

3

3

5

1

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

9

3

4

1

2

1

5

5

5

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

1
0

3

4

1

2

1

5

5

3

3

(C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

o
n

N
e
x
t

P
a
g
e
)

I
ND
I
R
E
C
T

A
N
D

C
UM
U
L
A
T
I
V
E

E
FF
E
C
T
S

A
SS
E
S
S
M
E
N
T

GAS
T
O
N

EAS
T
-W
ES
T

CON
N
E
C
T
O
R

ST
I
P
NO: U-
3
3
2
1

Ma
r
c
h

1
6
,

2
0
0
9

190
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

D
.

N
u
m
e
r
i
c

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

f
r
o
m

I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
e
s

C
o
n
t
’
d

Ga
s
t
o
n

Ch
a
m
b
e
r

o
f

Co
m
m
e
r
c
e

Ci
t
y

o
f

Ga
s
t
o
n
i
a

Ga
s
t
o
n

MP
O

Re
a
l

E
s
t
a
t
e

an
d

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

In
d
u
s
t
r
y

Ch
a
r
-
M
e
c
k

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g

De
p
t
.

Ga
s
t
o
n

Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c

De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

Yo
r
k

Co
u
n
t
y
,

SC

Be
l
m
o
n
t

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g

De
p
t
.

Bessemer City Planning Anne Finke-Tate Realty Crowder State Park-Larry Hyde
4.

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

n
e
w

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

r
o
a
d
:

(
1
=
v
e
r
y

h
i
g
h

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
o
n
g
o
i
n
g

a
n
d

5
=
v
e
r
y

l
o
w

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
)

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

1

0

1

4

1

0

4

3

1

0

1

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

2

2

1

2

2

0

1

2

1

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

3

1

2

4

3

0

3

3

1

0

1

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

4

0

1

4

1

0

2

3

1

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

5

0

2

1

1

2

2

5

0

1

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

6

3

1

1

3

2

2

5

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

7

2

1

1

2

0

1

1

5

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

8

2

1

2

3

0

4

3

5

0

1

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

9

2

2

2

0

2

2

5

0

1

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

1
0

2

2

1

0

1

1

2

5

0

1

A1

1

1

1

2

0

1

2

1

0

1

A2

2

1

1

2

0

2

2

1

0

1

B1

4

1

2

3

0

3

2

2

0

1

B2

4

1

1

3

0

3

2

2

0

1

C1

2

1

1

3

0

3

2

5

0

3

C2

2

1

1

3

0

3

2

5

0

1

C3

2

1

1

3

0

3

5

0

1

D1

2

1

1

3

0

4

3

5

0

5

E1

4

1

2

2

0

3

2

5

0

2

E2

4

1

3

2

0

3

2

5

0

1

F1

1

1

2

0

1

3

5

0

1

F2

1

1

2

0

1

3

5

0

1

G1

2

1

1

2

0

1

3

5

0

1

G2

2

1

1

2

0

1

3

5

0

1

H1

2

1

1

2

0

4

2

5

2

1

H2

2

1

1

0

0

4

2

5

2

1

I1

3

1

1

2

1

2

5

2

1

I2

3

1

1

1

2

3

2

5

2

1

I3

3

1

1

2

3

2

5

2

1

J1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

J2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

J3

3

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

1

K1

0

1

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

K2

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

I
ND
I
R
E
C
T

A
N
D

C
UM
U
L
A
T
I
V
E

E
FF
E
C
T
S

A
SS
E
S
S
M
E
N
T

GAS
T
O
N

EAS
T
-W
ES
T

CON
N
E
C
T
O
R

ST
I
P
NO: U-
3
3
2
1

Ma
r
c
h

1
6
,

2
0
0
9

191
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

D
.

N
u
m
e
r
i
c

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

f
r
o
m

I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
e
s

C
o
n
t
’
d

Ga
s
t
o
n

Ch
a
m
b
e
r

o
f

Co
m
m
e
r
c
e

Ci
t
y

o
f

Ga
s
t
o
n
i
a

Ga
s
t
o
n

MP
O

Re
a
l

E
s
t
a
t
e

an
d

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

In
d
u
s
t
r
y

Ch
a
r
-
M
e
c
k

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g

De
p
t
.

Ga
s
t
o
n

Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c

De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

Yo
r
k

Co
u
n
t
y
,

S
C
Be
l
m
o
n
t

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g

De
p
t
.

Be
s
s
e
m
e
r

City
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g

Anne Finke-Tate Realty Crowder State Park-Larry Hyde
5.

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

n
e
w

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

r
o
a
d
:

(
1
=
v
e
r
y

h
i
g
h

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
o
n
g
o
i
n
g

a
n
d

5
=
v
e
r
y

l
o
w

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
)

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

1

1

4

4

2

0

4

4

1

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

2

0

3

3

4

0

2

4

1

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

3

0

2

4

3

0

3

4

4

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

4

0

1

3

1

0

2

3

4

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

5

0

2

2

1

2

2

4

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

6

0

2

1

1

2

4

1

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

7

0

1

1

3

0

4

3

5

0

5

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

8

0

2

4

4

0

4

4

5

0

5

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

9

1

3

3

0

3

3

5

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

1
0

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

I1

0

2

3

4

4

2

0

2

3

I2

0

2

3

4

4

2

0

2

3

I3

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

I
ND
I
R
E
C
T

A
N
D

C
UM
U
L
A
T
I
V
E

E
FF
E
C
T
S

A
SS
E
S
S
M
E
N
T

GAS
T
O
N

EAS
T
-W
ES
T

CON
N
E
C
T
O
R

ST
I
P
NO: U-
3
3
2
1

Ma
r
c
h

1
6
,

2
0
0
9

192
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

D
.

N
u
m
e
r
i
c

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

f
r
o
m

I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
e
s

C
o
n
t
’
d

Ga
s
t
o
n

Ch
a
m
b
e
r

o
f

Co
m
m
e
r
c
e

Ci
t
y

o
f

Ga
s
t
o
n
i
a

Ga
s
t
o
n

MP
O

Re
a
l

E
s
t
a
t
e

an
d

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

In
d
u
s
t
r
y

Ch
a
r
-
M
e
c
k

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g

De
p
t
.

Ga
s
t
o
n

Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c

De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

Yo
r
k

Co
u
n
t
y
,

SC

Be
l
m
o
n
t

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g

De
p
t
.

Bessemer City Planning Anne Finke-Tate Realty Crowder State Park-Larry Hyde
6.

H
o
w

m
u
c
h

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

i
s

i
n

a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

r
o
a
d
?

(
1
=
v
e
r
y

h
i
g
h

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
o
n
g
o
i
n
g

a
n
d

5
=
v
e
r
y

l
o
w

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
)

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

1

5

5

0

5

0

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

2

5

5

0

5

4

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

3

5

5

0

5

4

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

4

5

5

0

5

4

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

5

5

5

5

5

4

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

6

5

1

5

3

4

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

7

5

1

0

1

0

0

1

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

8

5

5

0

5

0

0

1

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

9

5

5

0

5

5

0

0

3

Di
s
t
r
i
c
t

1
0

5

5

0

5

5

0

0

3

A1

5

5

0

5

1

0

3

A2

5

5

0

5

1

0

3

B1

5

5

0

5

4

0

3

B2

5

5

0

5

4

0

3

C1

5

5

0

3

0

0

1

C2

5

5

0

3

0

0

3

C3

5

5

0

3

0

0

3

D1

5

5

0

5

0

0

1

E1

5

5

0

5

0

0

3

E2

5

5

0

5

0

0

3

F1

5

5

0

5

0

0

3

F2

5

5

0

5

0

0

3

G1

5

5

0

5

0

0

3

G2

5

5

0

5

0

0

3

H1

5

5

0

5

3

0

3

3

H2

5

5

0

5

3

0

3

3

I1

5

5

0

2

0

3

3

I2

5

5

0

2

4

0

3

3

I3

5

5

0

2

4

0

3

3

J1

5

5

0

3

4

5

3

3

J2

5

5

0

3

5

3

3

J3

5

5

0

3

5

3

3

K1

5

5

5

3

5

3

3

K2

5

5

5

3

5

3

3

I
ND
I
R
E
C
T

A
N
D

C
UM
U
L
A
T
I
V
E

E
FF
E
C
T
S

A
SS
E
S
S
M
E
N
T

GAS
T
O
N

EAS
T
-W
ES
T

CON
N
E
C
T
O
R

ST
I
P
NO: U-
3
3
2
1

Ma
r
c
h

1
6
,

2
0
0
9

193
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

D
.

N
u
m
e
r
i
c

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

f
r
o
m

I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
e
s

C
o
n
t
’
d

Ga
s
t
o
n

Ch
a
m
b
e
r

o
f

Co
m
m
e
r
c
e

Ci
t
y

o
f

Ga
s
t
o
n
i
a

Ga
s
t
o
n

MP
O

Re
a
l

E
s
t
a
t
e

an
d

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

In
d
u
s
t
r
y

Ch
a
r
-
M
e
c
k

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g

De
p
t
.

Ga
s
t
o
n

Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c

De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

Yo
r
k

Co
u
n
t
y
,

SC

Be
l
m
o
n
t

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g

De
p
t
.

Bessemer City Planning Anne Finke-Tate Realty Crowder State Park-Larry Hyde
7.

L
i
k
e
l
y

t
o

g
r
a
n
t

v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e

(
1
=
a
l
m
o
s
t

a
l
w
a
y
s
,

5
=
a
l
m
o
s
t

n
e
v
e
r
)

Ga
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

1

Ci
t
y

o
f

G
a
s
t
o
n
i
a

3

Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
-
M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

Yo
r
k

C
o
u
n
t
y

4

Mt
.

H
o
l
l
y

Be
l
m
o
n
t

4

Ot
h
e
r

t
o
w
n
s

2

8.

D
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
y

o
f

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

r
e
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

(
1
=
v
e
r
y

d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
,

5
=
v
e
r
y

e
a
s
y
)

Ga
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

4

4

Ci
t
y

o
f

G
a
s
t
o
n
i
a

4

3

Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
-
M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

3

3

Yo
r
k

C
o
u
n
t
y

4

Mt
.

H
o
l
l
y

2

Be
l
m
o
n
t

1

Ot
h
e
r

t
o
w
n
s

3

9.

R
a
n
k

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e

f
o
r

n
e
w

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

(
1
=
h
i
g
h
e
s
t
;

R
E
S

=

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
;

N
O
N
R
E
S

=

N
o
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
)

Pu
b
l
i
c

w
a
t
e
r

R
E
S

1

Pu
b
l
i
c

w
a
t
e
r

N
O
N
R
E
S

1

Pu
b
l
i
c

s
e
w
e
r

R
E
S

1

Pu
b
l
i
c

s
e
w
e
r

N
O
N
R
E
S

1

Ro
a
d
w
a
y

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

R
E
S

2

Ro
a
d
w
a
y

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

N
O
N
R
E
S

2

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

c
l
i
m
a
t
e

RE
S

2

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

c
l
i
m
a
t
e

NO
N
R
E
S

2

Qu
a
l
i
t
y

o
f

s
c
h
o
o
l

s
y
s
t
e
m

R
E
S

2

Qu
a
l
i
t
y

o
f

s
c
h
o
o
l

s
y
s
t
e
m

NO
N
R
E
S

4

Cr
i
m
e

r
a
t
e

R
E
S

2

Cr
i
m
e

r
a
t
e

N
O
N
R
E
S

4

Ot
h
e
r

R
E
S

5

Ot
h
e
r

N
O
N
R
E
S

2

Ot
h
e
r

(
s
p
e
c
i
f
y
)

A
i
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

194
Appendix E. Report Mapping
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

195
Appendix F. Scoping Coordination with Agencies

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR – TIP Project U-3321
GASTON AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES

MEETING MINUTES

DATE: June 29, 2007

LOCATION: NCTA, 5400 Glenwood Ave. Suite 400, Raleigh, 27612

TIME: 9:30 am -10:30 am

ATTENDEES: Rob Ayers - FHWA
George Hoops – FHWA
Jennifer Harris – NCTA
Bob Deaton – NCDOT
Jeff Dayton- HNTB
Anne Redmond – HNTB
Christy Shumate – HNTB
Ross Andrews - Ecoscience
Jill Gurak – PBS&J
Julie Flesch-Pate – Louis Berger Group

By Phone:
Marella Buncick – US Fish and Wildlife Service
Marla Chambers – NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Susan Fisher - HNTB

Meeting Purpose

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the scope of the indirect and cumulative effects study
for the Gaston East-West Connector, particularly relating to issues of concern to the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).

Meeting Minutes

The NCTA is planning on conducting a qualitative ICE analysis for the Gaston East-West
Connector Detailed Study Alternatives (Detailed Study Alternatives) using the 8-step methodology
detailed in the NCDOT’s guidance. A quantitative study for the LEDPA is anticipated being
needed. Input from resource agencies on issues of concern, identification of critical resources, and
study methodologies is needed. In the next several weeks, additional meetings will be held with
other resource agencies (including the NC Division of Water Quality).

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

196
Ms. Buncick stated there are no designated critical habitats or proposed critical habitats in the study
area. There are known bald eagle nests on the Catawba River. Habitat for the Schweinitz’s
sunflower is a concern since populations exist in the area.

Ms. Gurak stated that based on studies conducted by Earth Tech, bald eagle nests are located to the
north and south of the Detailed Study Alternatives, greater than one mile from the Detailed Study
Alternatives.

A question was asked regarding the implications of the recent bald eagle delisting. Ms. Buncick
did not know, as there are no internal USFWS policies established yet. The Migratory Bird Treaty
Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act may be applicable.

Mr. Deaton stated that listed plants have been addressed in other projects. For a project in
Rutherford County, a qualitative ICE analysis was completed. As the project progressed through
permitting, a few small populations of an endangered plant were discovered that were not directly
affected by the project. These populations were planned to potentially be moved. NCDOT
typically does not mitigate for indirect and cumulative effects.

Ms. Buncick noted that the Shelby Bypass project is a good example of what should be done to
address endangered plant issues. That project went through a Section 7 consultation.

Ms. Buncick stated that concerns regarding the Gaston East-West Connector ICE analysis include
water quality (since there are listed aquatic species downstream in South Carolina), wildlife habitat
fragmentation, upland habitat loss, and potential habitat for listed plants.

Ms. Chambers stated her concerns include wildlife habitat fragmentation, water quality, upland
habitat loss, and additional effects from improvements to north/south roads. Regarding terrestrial
species in general, a road could separate breeding grounds from foraging grounds, having an
indirect effect.

Mr. Andrews asked about the Georgia aster. Ms. Buncick stated that there is no legal status for
USFWS to consider the aster or other candidate or state-listed species.

Ms. Flesch-Pate asked if there are any models available for evaluating wildlife habitat
fragmentation. None of the attendees knew of any specific models.

Clarification on what is included in a qualitative analysis versus a quantitative analysis was
provided by Mr. Deaton. A quantitative analysis usually includes water quality modeling for
nutrient loading and/or stormwater runoff. If a quantitative analysis of this nature is needed, it is
done at the permitting stage for the LEDPA only. This type of analysis is done infrequently.

Qualitative analyses do include a substantial amount of data. Data and numerical evaluations of
population, employment, and travel times, among other issues, are included in a qualitative
analysis.

Ms. Buncick stated it is helpful to know the directly affected wildlife resources to be able to
comment on indirect effects to these resources.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

197
Ms. Chambers stated she has concerns with the effects to Lake Wylie, regarding whether the
project would increase lake development or the rate at which it is occurring. Also, research is
needed on whether there are any water quality intakes downstream in South Carolina. Mr. Ayers
stated that the ICE study would address water quality in South Carolina in accordance with SC’s
standards.

Ms. Buncick stated that bog turtles have a high potential for being listed and they may occur in the
project area. Therefore, they and their habitat should be addressed on a broad scale in the ICE
study. A good contact for bog turtle information is Mr. Dennis Herman at NCDOT. There is the
potential to mitigate for bog turtle effects if it is known early where suitable habitat is located.

Ms. Redmond stated that at this time, NCTA is planning to start the definition of natural resource
ICE study boundaries based on 14-digit HEC code watershed boundaries. The ICE Study Area is
typically larger than the direct effect study area boundary.

Ms. Buncick stated that since the regular project study area boundaries contain different
geographies (mountain, foothills, and piedmont), then the ICE Study Areas for specific plants or
other species can be narrowed down.

Ms. Chambers also requested that previous scoping comments be considered in the ICE study.

ACTION ITEMS

• Louis Berger to draft methodology of upland fragmentation analysis for review.
• NCTA to check on any water supply watersheds downstream of the project area in South
Carolina.
• USFWS & NCWRC to review previously submitted scoping comments and revise if
necessary.
• USFWS to check on implications of delisting the bald eagle.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

198
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR – TIP Project U-3321
GASTON AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES

MEETING MINUTES

DATE: July 26, 2007

LOCATION: NCTA, 5400 Glenwood Ave. Suite 400, Raleigh, 27612

TIME: 2:00 pm -3:00 pm

ATTENDEES:

VIA TELEPHONE AT THE NCTA OFFICE
Rob Ayers - FHWA Jennifer Harris – NCTA
George Hoops – FHWA Anne Redmond - HNTB
Polly Lespinasse – NC DWQ Jeff Dayton - HNTB
Bob Deaton – NCDOT Christy Shumate - HNTB
Susan Fisher - HNTB Ross Andrews - Ecoscience
Carl Gibilaro – PBS&J Mike Gloden - Ecoscience
Kim Bereis – PBS&J Jill Gurak – PBS&J
Julie Flesch-Pate – Louis Berger Group

Meeting Purpose

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss with NC DWQ the scope of the indirect and cumulative
effects study for the Gaston East-West Connector,

Meeting Minutes

Tentative project schedule:

Preliminary Design: October 2007
Toll Scenario Traffic Forecast: August 2007
Preliminary Draft EIS: June 2008
Community Characteristics Report is underway

DWQ’s issues of concern:

High Quality Waters;
Outstanding State Resources;
303d Listed Streams;
Higher quality wetlands and streams identified in the jurisdictional surveys;
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

199
Water Supplies (Classifications WSI/WSII);
Crowders Creek; and
Floodplains.

Berger will research both NC and SC regulations, laws, and policies equally during its ICE
assessment, but will emphasize coordination and interviewing efforts in NC.

DWQ agreed with the multi-county approach and ICE Study Area boundaries based on watersheds.

General triggers identified by DWQ that may indicate the need for investigation beyond the
proposed qualitative approach are as follows:

• Stormwater runoff affecting water uses or designations;
• Threatened / Endangered Species and their critical habitat;
• Violations of the Clean Water Act;
• Notable changes in traffic patterns;
• Land use changes; and
• Effects to impaired waterbodies.

FHWA asked what would trigger analysis of ICE effects beyond the proposed qualitative approach
when applying for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification Permit. DWQ was not able to provide
a specific trigger but would consider the project as a whole when determining effects.

FHWA also asked what issues DWQ will consider in determining if a 401 Water Quality
Certification violation might occur. DWQ said stormwater typically is the issue, but also aquatic-
related threatened and endangered species can be issues. Indicators that could be used to determine
stormwater changes could include direct effects from the project, changes in land use, changes in
traffic, and effects on impaired waters.

Bob Deaton reiterated the need for a tailored qualitative approach that not only leads us to a
LEDPA, but sets up areas to focus on should a quantitative assessment of effects on resources
become necessary for the Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

FHWA asked if the 16 Detailed Study Alternatives could be considered the only practical
alternatives left on the table. DWQ agreed since they were identified through the Merger process
as a group effort. She did not know if this would be the case for non-Merger projects.

Belmont is in the process of finalizing their land use plan. It includes land use scenarios with and
without the Gaston Connector. It is expected to be adopted in August.

GIS layers should be developed in a fashion that is conducive to quantitative modeling in case we
need to conduct such modeling in the future.

FHWA asked about how DWQ defines a practical alternative. DWQ was unable to define what it
would consider a practical alternative for this project.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

200
ACTION ITEMS

• DWQ to review previously submitted scoping comments provide additional comments if
necessary.
• PBS&J to provide Louis Berger information collected as part of the community
characteristics report.

I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

201
Appendix G. References

1 North Carolina Department of Transportation, DRAFT Purpose and Need Statement, Gaston County East-West
Corridor Study, T.I.P. Project No. U-3321, May 2008, Page 4.
2 Http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinand waterbodies/ Final 2006 303(d) list, accessed on 2/14/08.
3 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/tmdl/, State of South Carolina, Integrated Report for 2006-Part 1:
Listing of Impaired Water, accessed on 8/14/08.
4 NCDOT Department of Environment and Natural Resources , Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Effects of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, Volume II: Practitioner’s Handbook, The Louis Berger Group,
Inc., page III-6.
5 Ibid.
6 Michael Collins, Frederick Steiner, Michael Rushman, “Land-Use Suitability Analysis in the United States: Historical
Development and Promising Technological Achievements.” Environmental Management, vol. 5, no. 28, pp. 611-
621 (2001).
7 This is known as a Strabo method, so-named after a Greek philosopher of the Socratic era. Higher degrees of
familiarity present a stronger case for the response being accurate relative to responses from those less familiar
with a given geographic area.
8 Ibid, accessed on 11/1/07.
9 Ibid, accessed on 11/1/07.
10 North Carolina Department of Transportation, “Indirect and Cumulative Effects: A System Primer for
Metropolitan Planning Organizations.” The Louis Berger Group, Inc., October, 2007, pages 5-6.
11North Carolina Department of Transportation, Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Effects of
Transportation Projects in North Carolina, Volumes I & II, November 2001.
12 www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/fire_science/craft/craft/resources/Cumulative_effects_annalysis.htm, accessed on
10/19/07.
13 www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/fire_science/craft/craft/resources/Cumulative_effects_annalysis.htm, accessed on
10/19/07.
14 Environmental protection Agency, Consideration of Cumulative Effects in EPA Review of NEPA Documents, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities (2252A), EPA 315-R-99-002/May 1999.
15 Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, GUAMPO
Technical Coordinating Committee, May 24, 2005, page 72.
16 Ibid.Environmental protection Agency, Consideration of Cumulative Effects in EPA Review of NEPA Documents,
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities (2252A), EPA 315-R-99-002/May 1999.
17 Gaston County Department of Tourism (www.gastontourism.com), accessed October 7, 2007.
18 North Carolina Turnpike Authority, Draft Community Characteristics Report, Gaston East-West Connector,
PBS&J, August 31, 2007.
19 Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, GUAMPO
Technical Coordinating Committee, May 24, 2005, page 131.
20 Gaston Urban Area Technical Advisory Committee, “2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan,” May 24, 2005.
Pages 71-75.

21 Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, GUAMPO
Technical Coordinating Committee, May 24, 2005, page 72.
22 PBS&J interview with Jack Kiser, Gaston East-West Connector Community Characteristic Report Local
Interviews, July 11, 2007, page 1.
23 North Carolina State Data Center, 2006 and 2000 Municipal Population Estimates (http://demog.state.nc.us/),
accessed February 12, 2008.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

202

24 Gastonia City Council Meeting Minutes for June 19, 2007, pages 385-386
(www.cityofgastonia.com/elect_office/citycouncil/minutes_agendas/CityCouncilMinutesJune192007.pdf),
accessed October 7, 2007.
25 Gastonia City Council Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2007, pages 24-25
(www.cityofgastonia.com/elect_office/citycouncil/minutes_agendas/CityCouncilMinutesAugust212007.pdf),
accessed October 7, 2007.
26 Resource Guidebook for Residential and Commercial Development
(www.cityofgastonia.com/dept/planning/_pdf%20files/DevelopmentGuidebook.pdf), August, 2007, accessed
October 7, 2007.
27 Gastonia City Council Meeting Minutes for June 19, 2007, pages 376-385
(www.cityofgastonia.com/elect_office/citycouncil/minutes_agendas/CityCouncilMinutesJune192007.pdf),
accessed October 7, 2007.
28 http://www.cityofbelmont.org/webrott/agendas/index/2/53, accessed on 11/16/2007.
29 http://www.cityofbelmont.org/webrott/agendas/index/2/53, accessed on 11/16/2007.
30 Charlotte City Council and the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners, 2015 Plan, Planning for Our
Future, November, 1997, page 5.
31 Charlotte City Council and the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners, 2015 Plan, Planning for Our
Future, November, 1997, page 5.
32 Charlotte City Council and the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners, 2015 Plan, Planning for Our
Future, November, 1997, page 1.
33 Mecklenburg County, Strategic Business Plan, 2008-2010, page 22.
34 City of Charlotte, The City of Charlotte Transportation Action Plan Policy Document, Adopted by Charlotte City
Council, May 22, 2006.
35 Charlotte City Council, http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/City+Council/Focus+and+Priorities/home.htm ,
accessed October 12, 2007.
36
http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/County+Managers+Office/Business+Management/Prior+Budgets/FY08+
Budget/home.htm, accessed on 2/13/08.

37 Mecklenburg County, Strategic Business Plan, 2008-2010, page 1.
38 York County, York County Industry Cluster & Target Market Study, Whittaker Associates, Inc. 2005.
39 York County, York County Industry Cluster & Target Market Study, Whittaker Associates, Inc. 2005, page 19.
40 York County, York County Industry Cluster & Target Market Study, Whittaker Associates, Inc. 2005, page 19.
41 Mecklenburg County, Strategic Business Plan, 2008-2010, page 26.
42 Mecklenburg County, Strategic Business Plan, 2008-2010, page 23.
43 http://www.yorkcountygov.com/content.aspx?deptID=32&contentID=874, accessed on Oct 16, 2007.
44 http://www.yorkcountygov.com/content.aspx?deptID=32&contentID=874, accessed on Oct 16, 2007.
45 Centralina Council of Governments, Cleveland County Land Use Plan, Centralina Council of Governments,
April 19, 2005, page 2.
46 Gaston County Department of Community Development & Technology, Gaston County Comprehensive
Planning Program, Gaston County, North Carolina, July 2002, page 3.
47 Gaston County, Gaston County Hazard Mitigation Plan, Appendix E-Government Profiles, December 2004.
48 Gaston County Department of Community Development & Technology, Gaston County Comprehensive
Planning Program, Gaston County, North Carolina, July 2002, page 1.
49 Gaston County, Department of Community Development & Technology, Comprehensive Planning Program,
July 2002, page 9.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

203

50 Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, GUAMPO
Technical Coordinating Committee, May 24, 2005, page 14.
51 Gaston County Department of Community Development & Technology, Gaston County Comprehensive
Planning Program, July 2002, page 31.
52 Gaston County Department of Community Development & Technology, Gaston County Comprehensive
Planning Program, July 2002, page 31.
53 PBS&J interview with Lou Raymond, Gaston East-West Connector Community Characteristic Report Local
Interviews, July 11, 2007, page 1.
54 Scot Sibert, Transportation Planner, Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, letter to Gregory J.
Thorpe, NCDOT Environmental Management Director, May 13, 2003.
55 Cleveland-Gaston Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, Lawrimore Communications Inc. and the
Corporation for Enterprise Development, July 2003, page 19.
56 York County, 2025 York County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, page LU-11.
57 North Carolina Turnpike Authority, Draft Natural Resources Technical Report, Gaston east-West Connector,
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, August 2007.
58 Gaston County, Gaston County Hazard Mitigation Plan, Appendix E-Government Profiles, December 2004.
59 County, Gaston County Hazard Mitigation Plan, Appendix E-Government Profiles, December 2004.
60 Sam C. Rhyne, Mayor, Town of Dallas, letter to Gregory J. Thorpe, NCDOT Environmental Management
Director, April 25, 2003.
61 County, Gaston County Hazard Mitigation Plan, Appendix E-Government Profiles, December 2004.
62 County, Gaston County Hazard Mitigation Plan, Appendix E-Government Profiles, December 2004.
63 Charlotte City Council and the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners, 2015 Plan, Planning for Our
Future, November, 1997, page 1.
64 USDOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, T-100
International Market All Carriers 2002 and 2007 (www.transtats.bts.gov). Accessed February 13, 2008.
65 Federal Highway Administration, Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Written Re-Evaluation, Landrum &
Brown, July 27, 2006.
66 www.mywire.com/pubs/CharlotteObserver/2007/03/11/2984289?extID=10037&oliID=229, (accessed on
8/28/07).
67 York County, York County 2025 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, page LU-5.
68 York County, York County 2025 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, page LU-5.
69 York County, York County 2025 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, page LU-5.
70 York County, 2025 York County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, page LU-11.
71 York County, 2025 York County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, page LU-11.
72 York County, York County Industry Cluster & Target Market Study, Whittaker Associates, Inc. 2005, page 15.
73 York County, York County Industry Cluster & Target Market Study, Whittaker Associates, Inc. 2005, page 15.
74 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Executive Summary, natural Heritage Inventory of Gaston County,
North Carolina, 200, page 1.
75 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Watershed restoration Plan for the
Catawba River Basin, North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, 2001, page 2.
76 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Executive Summary, Natural Heritage Inventory of Gaston County,
North Carolina, 200, page 1.
77 Gaston County, Department of Community Development & Technology, Comprehensive Planning Program,
July 2002, page 7.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

204

78 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Watershed Restoration Plan for the
Catawba River Basin, North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, 2001, page 2.
79 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Watershed Restoration Plan for the
Catawba River Basin, North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, 2001, page 20.
80 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Watershed Restoration Plan for the
Catawba River Basin, North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, 2001, page 22.
81 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources , Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan, December 1995.
82 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Watershed Restoration Plan for the
Catawba River Basin, North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, 2001, page 33.
83 City of Mount Holly, Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program Land Use and Environmental Services
Agency, Protecting our Lake Watersheds, January 2004, page 6.
84 City of Mount Holly, Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program Land Use and Environmental Services
Agency, Protecting our Lake Watersheds, January 2004, page 6.
85 City of Mount Holly, Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program Land Use and Environmental Services
Agency, Protecting our Lake Watersheds, January 2004, page 6.
86 City of Mount Holly, Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program Land Use and Environmental Services
Agency, Protecting our Lake Watersheds, January 2004, page 7.
87 87 www.scdhec.net/environment/water/shed/text/50101-180 pdf. Accessed September 28, 2008.8,2008.
88 City of Mount Holly, Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program Land Use and Environmental Services
Agency, Protecting our Lake Watersheds, January 2004, page 7..
89 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Watershed Restoration Plan for the
Catawba River Basin, North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, 2001, page 5.
90 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Watershed Restoration Plan for the
Catawba River Basin, North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, 2001, page 5.
91 North Carolina Turnpike Authority, Draft Natural Resources Technical Report, Gaston East-West Connector,
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, August 2007, page 10.
92 North Carolina Department of Environment of natural Resources, Total Maximum Daily Load for fecal Coliform
for Crowders Creek North Carolina and South Carolina, Final Report, June 2004, Approved July 1, 2004, page i.
93 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Watershed Restoration Plan for the
Catawba River Basin, North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, 2001, page 4.
94 Http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinand waterbodies/ Final 2006 303(d) list, accessed on 2/14/08.
95 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/tmdl/, State of South Carolina, Integrated Report for 2006-Part 1:
Listing of Impaired Water, accessed on 8/14/08.
96 Http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General_303d. Draft 2008 303(d) list, accessed on 2/14/08.
97 North Carolina Turnpike Authority, Draft Natural Resources Technical Report, Gaston East-West Connector,
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, August 2007, page 11.
98 Gaston County, Stormwater Ordinance for Gaston County, North Carolina, adopted 4/12/2007.
99 City of Mount Holly, Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program Land Use and Environmental Services
Agency, Protecting our Lake Watersheds, January 2004, page 6.
100 North Carolina Bar Association Foundation, You Can’t Always Get What You Want…navigating in the Brave
New World of Land use and Environmental Law in the 21st Century, page I-2.
101North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Watershed Restoration Plan for the
Catawba River Basin, North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, 2001.
102 Http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/nps/catawba.htm. accessed on 9/27/07.
103 http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/highway/hydro/gl0399web/XII_stormwatermanag.html, accessed on
2/13/08.
104 http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/highway/hydro/gl0399web/XII_stormwatermanag.html, accessed on
2/13/08.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

205

105 South Carolina Department of Transportation, Interim Stormwater Control Manual, Ralph Whitehead &
Associates, September 1993, page 1.
106 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Executive Summary, natural Heritage Inventory of Gaston County,
North Carolina, 200, page 1.
107 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Executive Summary, natural Heritage Inventory of Gaston County,
North Carolina, 200, page 1.
108 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Executive Summary, natural Heritage Inventory of Gaston County,
North Carolina, 200, page 1.
109 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Executive Summary, natural Heritage Inventory of Gaston County,
North Carolina, 200, page 2.
110 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Executive Summary, natural Heritage Inventory of Gaston County,
North Carolina, 200, page 2.
111 http://epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html, accessed on 11/15/07.
112 Memorandum, PBJ&J, Kim Bereis to Mr. Jeff Dayton, Gaston East-West Connector (TIP No. U-3321), From 1-85
west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485 in Mecklenburg County. November 2, 2007.
113 Cleveland-Gaston Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, Lawrimore Communications Inc. and
the Corporation for Enterprise Development, July 2003, page 13.
114 Federal Highway Administration, Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Written Re-Evaluation, Landrum &
Brown, July 27, 2006.
115 www.mywire.com/pubs/CharlotteObserver/2007/03/11/2984289?extID=10037&oliID=229, (accessed on
8/28/07).
116 Cleveland-Gaston Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, Lawrimore Communications Inc. and
the Corporation for Enterprise Development, July 2003, page 26.
117 www.rlbadc.com/news.shtml, Accessed on 10/30/97.
118 Cleveland-Gaston Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, Lawrimore Communications Inc. and
the Corporation for Enterprise Development, July 2003, page 25.
119 Cleveland-Gaston Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, Lawrimore Communications Inc. and
the Corporation for Enterprise Development, July 2003, page 26.
120 www.mywire.com/pubs/CharlotteObserver/2007/03/11/298489?extID=10037, (accessed on 8/28/07).
121 Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, GUAMPO
Technical Coordinating Committee, May 24, 2005, page 13.
122 Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, GUAMPO
Technical Coordinating Committee, May 24, 2005, page 13.
123 Gaston County Department of Community Development & Technology, Gaston County Comprehensive
Planning Program, July 2002, page 15.
124 Federal Railroad Administration, Georgia Department of Transportation, South Carolina Department of
Transportation, North Carolina Department of transportation, Macon-Charlotte Southeast High Speed Rail
Corridor Plan-Final report, Georgia Rail Consultants, May 2004.
125 Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, GUAMPO
Technical Coordinating Committee, May 24, 2005, page 67.
126 Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, GUAMPO
Technical Coordinating Committee, May 24, 2005, page 67.
127 Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, GUAMPO
Technical Coordinating Committee, May 24, 2005, page 16.
128 Gaston County Department of Community Development & Technology, Gaston County Comprehensive
Planning Program, Gaston County, North Carolina, July 2002, page 3.
129 North Carolina Turnpike Authority, Draft Community Characteristics Report, Gaston East-West Connector,
PBS&J, August 31, 2007.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

206

130 US Bureau of the Census, http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en, (accessed on
10/20/07).
131 US Bureau of the Census, http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en, accessed on 10/20/07.
132 North Carolina Turnpike Authority, Draft Community Characteristics Report, Gaston East-West Connector,
PBS&J, August 31, 2007.
133 North Carolina Turnpike Authority, Draft Community Characteristics Report, Gaston East-West Connector,
PBS&J, August 31, 2007.
134 Gaston County Department of Community Development & Technology, Gaston County Comprehensive
Planning Program, July 2002, page 1.
135 Gaston County Department of Community Development & Technology, Gaston County Comprehensive
Planning Program, Gaston County, North Carolina, July 2002, page 17.
136 Gaston County Department of Community Development & Technology, Gaston County Comprehensive
Planning Program, Gaston County, North Carolina, July 2002, page 13.
137 Gaston County Department of Community Development & Technology, Gaston County Comprehensive
Planning Program, Gaston County, North Carolina, July 2002, page 13.
138 Gaston County Department of Community Development & Technology, Gaston County Comprehensive
Planning Program, Gaston County, North Carolina, July 2002, page 13.
139 Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, GUAMPO
Technical Coordinating Committee, May 24, 2005, page 42.
140 Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, GUAMPO
Technical Coordinating Committee, May 24, 2005, page 42.
141 Cleveland-Gaston Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, Lawrimore Communications Inc. and
the Corporation for Enterprise Development, July 2003, page 4.
142 Cleveland-Gaston Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, Lawrimore Communications Inc. and
the Corporation for Enterprise Development, July 2003, page 4.
143 Ibid, page 21.
144 Ibid.
145 Ibid.
146 Charlotte City Council and the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners, 2015 Plan, Planning for Our
Future, November, 1997, page 5.
147 North Carolina Turnpike Authority, Draft Natural Resources Technical Report, Gaston East-West Connector,
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, August 2007.
148 York County, 2025 York County Comprehensive Plan, Economic Development Element, page ED-2.
149 Cleveland-Gaston Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, Lawrimore Communications Inc. and
the Corporation for Enterprise Development, July 2003, page 13.
150 Gaston County, Department of Community Development & Technology, Comprehensive Planning Program,
July 2002, page 13.
151 North Carolina Turnpike Authority, Draft Community Characteristics Report, Gaston East-West Connector,
PBS&J, August 31, 2007.
152 Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, GUAMPO
Technical Coordinating Committee, May 24, 2005, page 40 &41.
153 York County, York County, Strategic Economic Development Plan, January 2007, page 31.
154 Charlotte City Council and the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners, 2015 Plan, Planning for Our
Future, November, 1997, page 1.
155 Charlotte Department of Transportation Planning Division, “Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model
Technical Documentation,” September 26, 2005, page 10.
I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS A SSESSMENT
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
STIP NO: U-3321
March 16, 2009

207

156 Mike Bush, Executive Director, Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden. Letter to Mr. Thorpe, NC Department of
Transportation, May 19, 2003.
157 Gaston County Department of Community Development & Technology, Gaston County Comprehensive
Planning Program, July 2002, page 33.
158 Ibid.
159 Center for Watershed Protection, Direct and indirect Effects of Urbanization on Wetland Quality, Article 1 of
the Wetlands & Watersheds Article Series, Executive Summary, Tiffany Wright, Jennifer Tomlinson, Tom Schueler,
Karen Cappiella, Anne Kitchell, and Dave Hirschman, Ellicott City, MD 21043, page 1.
160 Ibid.
161 Gaston County, Department of Community Development & Technology, Comprehensive Planning Program,
July 2002, page 7.
162 North Carolina Turnpike Authority, Draft Natural Resources Technical Report, Gaston East-West Connector,
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, August 2007, page 14.
163 Virginia Department of Transportation, Route 460 Location Study, Indirect and Cumulative Technical Report,
May 2005, page 42.
164 Gaston County Department of Community Development & Technology, Gaston County Comprehensive
Planning Program, July 2002, page 1.
165 North Carolina Turnpike Authority, Draft Natural Resources Technical Report, Gaston East-West Connector,
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, August 2007, page 20.
166 Ibid., page 31.
167 Ibid., page 31.
168 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Michaux's Sumac Species Account, www.fws.gov/endangered/.
Accessed on 11/26/07.
169 Letter: State of North Carolina Turnpike Authority to Mr. Heinz J. Mueller, May 4, 2007, page 2.
170http://www.crmpo.org/Forms/CRMPO_2009_MTIP_CDR.pdf, accessed on 8/14/08