20020672_Complete File_20070405

16,
Of wAT, hq
' LG I
p ?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
April 5, 2007
Ms. Jennifer H. Harris
NC Turnpike Authority
5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27612
Re: Comments on the Draft Purpose and Need Statement for the Monroe Connector/Bypass Project, TIP
Project Nos. R-3329 and R-2559
Dear Ms. Harris:
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed the draft Purpose and Need Statement for the above
referenced project and offers the following comments:
STRAHNET
The draft Purpose and Need (P &N) Statement indicates that the purpose of this project is to provide a
facility that "serves high-speed regional travel consistent with the designations of STRAHNET...". It
seems logical that US 74 would be on the STRAHNET. It also seems logical that a high capacity and
even a high-speed facility would be needed for use by the military in a national emergency. However, at
this time, we do not have any specific information about the design requirements and facility
requirements of a road when it is designated to be on the STRAHNET system. Does a STRAHNET
designation require the facility to be a high-speed facility? What capacity or Level of Service does the
road need to provide? Will a four lane divided facility that is not built to freeway standards be
appropriate for STRANET purposes? DWQ requests that you please provide additional information that
demonstrates how high-speed regional travel in this corridor is consistent with the subset of highway
systems defined under 23CFR470.107(b)(3). Also, please describe how the STRAHNET designation of
this facility affects the necessary design requirements and type of roadway facility for this project.
Regional Issues
As previously discussed, the draft Purpose & Need for the project indicates the purpose of the project is to
provide "...high-speed regional travel consistent with the designations of STRAHNET, NC Strategic . .
Highway Corridor, and NC Intrastate Corridor". Thus, the Purpose and Need for this project indicates the
purpose of the facility extends beyond the immediate study area and will function as a major regional
route for movement of goods and services. DWQ understands that this facility plays an important
regional role in the overall statewide transportation system. However, we believe the environmental
document should include information about how this facility functions from a regional perspective in
conjunction with other routes in the area. Please elaborate on how this project will improve mobility
within the corridor. Are there other plans for this region or in this corridor that will alleviate other traffic
congestion and mobility issues (i.e., bottlenecking)? Is this project being evaluated as part of the I-73/74
corridor to improve east-west mobility? If this project is proposed as a regional project, then a regional
plan for this area may be appropriate and a discussion of this included in the Purpose and Need statement.
None hCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit Naturally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Strategic Highway Corridor & NC Intrastate System
The draft Purpose and Need states that providing the facility is consistent with the designations of the NC
Strategic Highway Corridor (SIIC). However, one of the initiatives in the SHC document requires
maximizing the use of existing highway infrastructure. It is not clear how the development of a "high-
speed facility" is consistent with the SHC. It may depend on what constitutes a high-speed facility and
the type of facility that necessitates. "Therefore, DWQ respectfully requests a definition for "high-speed"
facility. The definition should include a discussion on what type(s) of facilities that will then require.
While the current draft P & N does not discuss a toll facility, if a toll facility is proposed for this project,
the P & N may not be wholly consistent with the SHC. Please discuss how a toll facility is consistent
with the Strategic Highway Corridor vision plan.
In addition, the SHC document identifies US 74 as a "freeway". Designation as a freeway does not allow
for any driveways. The P & N Statement indicates that access to properties along existing US 74 will be
maintained. As currently drafted, the P & N may not be wholly consistent with the SHC. Please discuss
this potential contradiction.
The draft P & N references the "NC Intrastate Corridor". Please define the objectives in the Purpose and
Need that are consistent with this designation.
Other Definitions
In addition to providing a definition for what constitutes a high-speed facility, DWQ requests additional
definitions for regional travel (specifically the geographic area affected) and improved mobility.
Range of Alternatives
The DWQ is required to review a project from the context of avoidance and minimization. We are
concerned that a project's Purpose and Need statement is written with enough flexibility to ensure that it
does not unduly limit the range of alternatives. To that end, DWQ has concerns with the existing draft
Purpose and Need as it is written. Specifically, we are concerned the inclusion of "high-speed" in the
draft Purpose and Need could eliminate the evaluation of several possible facility types and alternatives,
including an upgrade to the existing facility. DWQ agrees that an "upgrade existing alternative" (or any
other alternative for that matter) ultimately should not be selected if its impacts to either the natural or
human environment or its costs are not acceptable when compared to the other alternatives. However, if
the Purpose and Need statement is written is such a manner that an upgrade existing alternative (or any
reasonable alternative) is excluded from possible selection as a preferred alternative, then permitting of
the project may become problematic. DWQ asks that that the Turnpike Authority please indicate if an
"upgrade existing" alternative can be selected if the final Purpose and Need statement includes the term
"high-speed". In addition, DWQ wants to know if "high-speed" is part of the Purpose and Need
statement, will an expressway facility (or any other type of facility other than a freeway) meet the Purpose
and Need for the project. And if either the upgrade existing alternative or lower type of facility cannot
meet the Purpose and Need, then the DWQ requests that the Turnpike Authority justify in specific terms
how a "high-speed" facility is needed with STRAHNET, the Strategic Highway Corridor, or NC
Intrastate Corridor designations. DWQ understands ultimately that a freeway facility on new location
may prove to be the best option for this project. However, prior to making that decision we are required
to examine all avoidance and minimization options.
2
We hope that you will find our comments to be useful in the development of your project. We are
prepared to meet with you to discuss these issues. If you require any additional information, or have any
questions, please contact either myself at 919-733-5694 or Polly Lespinasse at 704-235-2190
ely,
John E. Hennessy
Transportation Permitting Unit
cc: Polly Lespinasse, NC Division of Water Quality
Scott McLendon, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Chris Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency
Kathy Matthews, US Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
File Copy
3
e r a?
L?' ,? swc
?` VIMM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1578 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578
GOVERNOR
February 14, 2007
Ms. Polly Lespinasse
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality
610 East Center Ave., Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
RE: Invitation to Become Participating Agency
Monroe Connector/Bypass Project
Mecklenburg & Union Counties/TIP Projects: R-3329 & R-2559
Dear Ms. Lespinasse,

0
6,n
\

9

DAVi%W. JO YNER
EXECUfTVE DIRECTOR
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in cooperation with the North Carolina Turnpike
Authority (NCTA) and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), is initiating an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed improvements in the US 74 corridor
between I-485 in Mecklenburg County and US 74 in Union County. This project is included in
the Draft 2007-2013 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program as TIP Projects R-
3329 (Monroe Connector) and R-2559 (Monroe Bypass). These projects are being combined into
one project and will be evaluated in a single environmental document. The purpose of the
project, as currently defined, is to improve mobility in the US 74 corridor within the project
study area.
Your agency was identified as an agency that may have an interest in the project. With this letter,
we are extending to your agency an invitation to be a participating agency with the F14WA in the
development of the EIS for the subject project. This designation does not imply that your agency
either supports the proposal or has any special expertise with respect to evaluation of the project.
Pursuant to Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU, participating agencies are responsible to identify, as
early as practicable, any issues of concern regarding the project's potential environmental or
socioeconomic impacts that could substantially delay or prevent an agency from granting a
permit or other approval that is needed for the project. We suggest that your agency's role in the
development of the above project include the following as they relate to your area of expertise:
I ) Provide meaningful and early input on defining the purpose and need, determining the
range of alternatives to be considered, and the methodologies and level of detail required
in the alternatives analysis.
2) Participate in coordination meetings and joint field reviews as appropriate.
3) Timely review and comment on documents provided for your agency's input during the
environmental review process.
Please respond to this invitation prior to March 22, 2007. If you wish to accept this invitation,
please sign in the space below and return a copy to Ms. Jennifer Harris, P.E., NCTA Staff
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
TELEPHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Engineer, at 5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400, Raleigh, North Carolina 27612. If you wish to
decline, we ask that your agency submit a separate letter stating your reason for declining the
invitation.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss in more detail the project or our agencies'
respective roles and responsibilities during the preparation of the EIS, please contact Ms. Harris
at [phone] or Mr. George Hoops, FHWA Major Projects Engineer, at [phone].
Thank you for your cooperation and interest in this project.
incerel ,
teven D. DeW tt, P.E.
Chief Engineer
Mr. George Hoops, PE, FHWA
Ms. Jennifer Harris, PE, NCTA
-Mr. John Hennessy, NCDENR-DWQ
We accept the invitation to become a participating agency.
Print Name
Signature
Date
\O?CY V Y C9?G

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.F. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 22, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
From: Polly Lespinasse, NC Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional Office
Subject: Scoping Comments on the Proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass Project, Improvements
in US 74 Corridor Between 1-485 in Mecklenburg County and US 74 in the Vicinity of the
Town of Marshville in Union County, North Carolina Turnpike Authority Project, TIPs R-
3329 and R-2559, DENR Project No. 07-0235, Project Due Date 02/05/2007
Please reference the correspondence dated January 5, 2007 in which comments were requested for the above
referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to jurisdictional
streams and wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to:
Ne ro Head Creek Salem Creek Yadkin C 13-17-36-15
Meadow Branch Yadkin C 13-17-36-11
Spring Branch Yadkin C 13-17-36-11-1
Middle Branch Ras Fork Yadkin C 13-17-36-8-1
Richardson Creek Yadkin C 13-17-36-(5)
Bearskin Creek Yadkin C 13-17-36-6
Buck Branch Yadkin C 13-17-36-15-2
Lick Branch Yadkin WS-III 13-17-36-9-3
Stewarts Creek Yadkin C 13-17-36-9-(6)
South Fork Crooked Creek Yadkin C 13-17-20-2
North Fork Crooked Creek Yadkin C 13-17-20-1
Austin Branch Yadkin C 13-17-36-15-1
Jacks Branch Yadkin C -17-36-15-4
13
Stum lick Branch _
Yadkin WS-III _
13-17-36-9-4
Stevens Creek Yadkin C 13-17-18-1
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams
and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division
of Water Quality requests that the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) consider the following
environmental issues for the proposed project:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East (:enter Avenue, Suite 301 Phonc [phone]
Internet: h2o.enr.state, nc.us Mooresville, NC 28115 Fax [phone]
Non` hCarolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Page 2
General Project Comments:
1 The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required by
15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of .a 401
Water Quality Certification.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCTA is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In accordance
with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that mitigation is required, the
mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In
the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation.
5. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NCTA
should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
6. If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ believes the
use of a Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of Engineers to
determine the required permit(s).
7. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless
otherwise authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for
bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
8. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
9. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
10. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed across
the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes,
vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of NC
DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
Page 3
11. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct contact
between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete should
not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and
fish kills.
12. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area should
be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20
percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow
passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including
temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-
equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the above
structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if
requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting
features encountered during construction, please contact DWQ for guidance on how to proceed and to
determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
14. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross section
as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where appropriate.
Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of
structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased
maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
15. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
16. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
17. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise
approved by NC DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other
diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
18. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
19. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
20. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to
permit approval.
21. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment
should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking
fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
Page 4
22. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with
road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to
avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the
structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed and the approach fills
removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed and restored to the natural
ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. Tall
fescue should not be used in riparian areas.
23. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed,
sized and installed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The NCTA is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact Polly Lespinasse at [phone].
cc: Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Ron Lucas, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Sonia Gregory, DWQ Central Office
File Copy
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: 07-0235 County: Mecklenburg and Union Date Received: 01/10/2007
Due Date: 02/05/2007
Project Description: Improvements in the Monroe Connector/Bypass from I-485 to US 74 in the vicinity of the Town
of Marshville in Union Co. TIP Nos. R-3329 & R-2559
Tl,ic Arniarrt is heino reviewed as indicated below:
a u- ....J..... ... -_a -- . __
Regional Office .. -- ---
Regional Office Area
In-House Review
Asheville Q Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water Coastal Management Water Resources
TT Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife Environmental Health
Raleigh
.? Land Quality Engineer Solid Waste Mgmt
Wildlife - DOT
Washington Forest Resources Radiation Protection
Wilmington Other
Winston-Salem Land Resources
T Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
T` . Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable) S
?,^
o
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment p5
Insufficient infonnation to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
ptc- >1
?qlV
d
100
I
?Cy
The proposed project is approximately 21 miles in length and is located southeast of Charlotte in
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
T uRNPiKE AuTHoRiTy
MICI IAEL F. EASLEY 1578 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578
GOVERNOR
January 5, 2007
Mr. John Hennessy
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RE: Start of Study and Agency Scoping Meeting Notification
Monroe Connector/Bypass - From I-485 to US 74
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
TIP Project Numbers: R-3329 & R-2559
Dear Mr. Hennessy,
DAVID W. JOYNER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) has initiated the project development,
environmental, and engineering studies for the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass project in
Mecklenburg and Union Counties (Figure 1). As it is currently defined, the project would include
improvements in the US 74 corridor between I-485 in Mecklenburg County and US 74 in the
vicinity of the Town of Marshville in Union County. The project is included in the 2006-2012
North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in addition to the Draft 2007-2013
TIP as Projects R-3329 and R-2559.
This study is a combination of two projects previously analyzed by NCDOT, the Monroe Bypass
(NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program [TIP] Project R-2559) and the Monroe
Connector (NCDOT TIP Project R-3329). The Monroe Bypass study addressed improvements in
the US 74 corridor from just west of the City of Monroe to just west of the Town of Marshville.
An Environmental Assessment for this project was approved in March 1996, and a Finding of No
Significant Impact was issued in June 1997. The Monroe Connector study addressed
improvements in the US 74 corridor from 1-485 to US 601 in the City of Monroe, where it ended
at the proposed Monroe Bypass. A Draft EIS for this project was approved in November 2003;
however, a public hearing was never held. In February 2005, the NCTA adopted the Monroe
Connector as a toll candidate facility, and in January 2006, the Notice of Intent for the Monroe
Connector EIS was rescinded (Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 19, page 4958). Subsequently,
NCTA adopted the Monroe Bypass project as a toll candidate facility in October 2006. The
Monroe Connector and Monroe Bypass projects have been combined into a single project and
will be evaluated in a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTIIORITY
TFLEPHONE:919-571-3000 FAX: [phone]
4m P
J $ALYStS
? ? ;? t 6M4+?' a ? 3
I vnl?o `? paS
R4 't 6 9
*?ftaE+e? C o n ne c td Y
M R. ? 1 1 r ? Y'I
4 ,
4o 00
? ? 9
ii , D0a'a`rtm Hof . 'ri? p rtaifgn'
- Al
?,? ? '. W ? yf IIR'
oil
ro Ana
At ,
IWA
Q''!C,•'; rte. ` • rw,r - N ? t .. • s
r
^ S
'tis • - + `'mod -:. y ,
r ? T 1 Y.• F ca j5 ? -?
.1 .• tea' • -
14
//? 1b
February 18, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
John Dorney
DENR-Dept. of Water Quality

Ann Steedly, P.E.
Public Involvement and Community Studies
Final ICE Report - TIP No. R-2559, Monroe Bypass and R-3329
Monroe Connector, Union County.
Attached is the final Indirect and Cumulative Effects report for TIP Project No. R-2559,
Monroe Bypass and R-3329 Monroe Connector in Union County.
Please let us know if we may be of further assistance.
ASIrwd
Attachments
cc: Alice Gordon, NCDOT-Natural Systems

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................1
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................. 4
1.1 MONROE BYPASS (R-2559) ................................................................................ 4
1.2 MONROE CONNECTOR (R-3329) ........................................................................ 6
1.3 RELATED PROJECTS .......................................................................................... 7
1.4 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA AND TIME FRAME .......................................... 7
2. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION ........................................................................8
2.1 INVENTORY AND DATA COLLECTION ................................................................ 8
2.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE ....................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Regional Location ........................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Relation To Major Urban Area Or Regional Centers .................................... 10
2.2.3 Regional Growth And Development Influences .............................................. 11
2.2.4 Local Growth And Development Influences ................................................... 12
2.2.5 Local Area Residential Growth Trends .......................................................... 13
2.2.6 Local Area Commercial Growth Trends ........................................................ 14
2.2.7 Land Potentially Available For Development ................................................ 15
3. INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS ..................................16
3.1 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL FOR LAND USE CHANGE ................................... 16
3. L I Factors To Be Used To Evaluate Potential For Land Use Change ................ 17
3.1.2 Consideration Of Cumulative Effects ............................................................ 21
3.1.3 Summary Of Potential For Land Use Change ................................................ 22
3.2 SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 25
3.2.1 Scenario Writing ........................................................................................... 25
3.3 GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS FOR POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA ........................ 26
3.3.1 Quantity of Assumed Growth ......................................................................... 26
3.3.2 Location of Assumed Growth ......................................................................... 27
4. HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 37
4.1 HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS MODEL ................................................................ 37
4.2 ESTIMATED HYDROLOGICAL EFFECT ............................................................. 37
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 39
APPENDICES

- Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003

Executive Summary
14NTB North Carolina, P.C. was requested by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to review available information related to the R-2559 (Monroe
Bypass) and R-3329 (Monroe Connector) Transportation Improvement Projects (TIPs)
for creating a new roadway that would bypass the towns of Wingate, Monroe, Indian
Trail and possibly Stallings, North Carolina. There were four purposes for this review:
Provide information requested by the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in support of a
Section 401 water quality certification application by NCDOT for the R-2559
Monroe Bypass project;
2. Provide projected land use analysis for support of the preparation of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), by others, for the R-3329 Monroe
Connector project;
3. Provide projected land use analysis for support of the analysis of potential water
quality effects on a Federally designated endangered species, the Carolina Heel
Splitter Mussel, in three creeks nearby the two projects;
4. Provide a well-written document that determines growth forecasts that would then be
used by others in the analysis of the cumulative impact of these highway projects
upon water quality in the nearby area.
' The review consisted basically of a two-part process:
L'

I

• Estimate the land use change that might occur as a result of constructing R-2559 and
R- 3329
• Calculate the change in surface water flow in the 260 square mile watershed that
could potentially be affected by the land use change
The Key Conclusions of the Analysis Are:
1. Potential Growth Impact Area. The Potential Growth Impact Area for the two TIP
projects includes portions of six creek basins, with a total land area of approximately
260 square miles. Existing development in this area accounts for approximately 19.4
square miles of built-upon area (impervious cover), or approximately 7.5% of the
affected basins.
2. Goose Creek and Duck Creek Basins. The endangered Carolina Heel Splitter Mussel
is present in two creek basins within the potentially affected area: Goose Creek and
Duck Creek. Goose Creek is approximately 23 square miles, with existing
development accounting for approximately 1.59 square miles of built-upon area
(impervious cover), or approximately 6.9% of the creek basin. Existing surface water

Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
AJVP = R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
peak discharge run-off in a 25 year storm event is approximately 13,629 cubic feet
per second, with a runoff volume of approximately 4,223 acre-feet. Duck Creek is
' approximately I 1 square miles, with existing development accounting for
approximately 0.41 square miles of built-upon area (impervious cover), or
' approximately 3.7% of the creek basin. Existing surface water peak discharge run-off
in a 25 year storm event is approximately 5,797 cubic feet per second, with a runoff
volume of approximately 1,854 acre-feet.
3. Lake Twitty Water Supply Watershed. A substantial portion of the project length is
included within the Lake Twitty water supply watershed, which regulates the density
of either commercial or residential development, helping protect the quality of the
' area's water resources. Lake Twitty is a Class III Water Supply Watershed. The Lake
Twitty basin is approximately 32 square miles, with existing development accounting
' for approximately 3.00 square miles of built-upon area (impervious cover), or
approximately 9.4% of the creek basin. Existing surface water peak discharge run-off
in a 25 year storm event is approximately 17,284 cubic feet per second, with a runoff
volume of approximately 5,881 acre-feet.
4. Growth Effects if Neither Project is Built. If neither project is built, growth in the
' affected area would increase the built-upon area (impervious cover) to approximately
56.7 square miles, or 21.8% of the area. This would increase surface water peak
discharge run-off by approximately 34,230 cubic feet per second in a 25-year storm
event, or approximately 24.9% over existing conditions.
For the "no-build" conditions, in the two creek basins where the Carolina Heel
Splitter Mussel is present, impervious cover would increase as follows:
• Goose Creek impervious cover would increase to 6.00 square miles, or 26.1% of
' the basin. Peak discharge would increase to 19,374 cubic feet per second, a 42.2%
increase over existing conditions.
' • Duck Creek impervious cover would increase to 3.32 square miles, or 30.2% of
the basin. Peak discharge would increase to 9,189 cubic feet per second, a 58.5%
' increase over existing conditions.
For the "no-build" conditions, in the Lake Twitty WS-111 basin, impervious
cover would increase as follows:
• Impervious cover would increase to 8.51 square miles, or 26.6% of the basin.
Peak discharge would increase to 23,524 cubic feet per second, a 36.2% increase
over existing conditions.
' 5. Effects on Goose and Duck Creeks Without Development Controls. If both projects
are built with no change in development controls in the Goose Creek basin, the
impervious cover would increase to 29.2%, compared to 6.9% existing and 26.1% for

Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
49P = R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
the no build scenario. The additional 3.1% increase in impervious cover would be
' attributable to the influence of the R-3329 Monroe Connector project. Peak discharge
would increase to 19,908 cubic feet per second, a 46.1% increase over existing
conditions, and a 2.76% increase over the no build scenario. Runoff volume would
' increase to 5,250 acre-feet, a 24.3% increase over existing conditions, and a 2.4%
increase over the no build scenario.
If both projects are built with no change in development controls in the Duck Creek
basin, the impervious cover would increase to 28.2%, compared to 3.7% existing and
30.2% for the no build scenario. The 2.0% decrease in impervious cover compared to
' the no build scenario is attributable to the influence of the R-3329 Monroe Connector
project in attracting development away from the influence of I-485 in the Duck Creek
basin. Peak discharge would increase to 9,022 cubic feet per second, a 55.6% increase
over existing conditions, but a 1.9% decrease from the no build scenario. Runoff
volume would increase to 2,460 acre-feet, a 32.7% increase over existing conditions,
but a 2.0% decrease from the no build scenario.
'
6. Effects on Goose and Duck Creeks With Development Controls. If both projects are
built with the development controls recommended by Fish and Wildlife Service and
' N.C. Wildlife Resources in the Goose Creek basin, the impervious cover would
increase to 23.2%, compared to 6.9% existing and 26.1% for the no build scenario.
The 2.9% decrease in impervious cover compared to the no build scenario is
' attributable to the influence of the proposed development controls. Peak discharge
would increase to 18,957 cubic feet per second, a 39.1% increase over existing
conditions, but a 2.2% decrease from the no build scenario. Runoff volume would
' increase to 4,985 acre-feet, an 18.0% increase over existing conditions, but a 2.9%
decrease from the no build scenario.
' If both projects are built with the development controls recommended by the Wildlife
agencies in the Duck Creek basin, the impervious cover would increase to 21.7%,
compared to 3.7% existing and 30.2% for the no build scenario. The 8.5% decrease in
t impervious cover compared to the no build scenario is attributable to the influence of
the R-3329 Monroe Connector project in attracting development away from the
influence of I-485 in the Duck Creek basin combined with the effect of the proposed
development controls.. Peak discharge would increase to 8,516 cubic feet per second,
a 46.9% increase over existing conditions, but an 7.9% decrease from the no build
scenario. Runoff volume would increase to 2,319 acre-feet, a 25.1% increase over
existing conditions, but a 8.2% decrease from the no build scenario.
' 7. Effects on Lake Twitty Water Supply Watershed. If both projects are built, regardless
of development controls in the Goose Creek and Duck Creek basins, the Lake Twitty
WS-111 basin will experience an impervious cover increase to 37.9%, compared to
9.4% existing and 26.6% for the no build scenario. The additional 11.3% (37.91/0 -
26.6%) increase in impervious cover would be attributable to the combined influence
of the R-2559 Monroe Bypass and R-3329 Monroe Connector projects. Peak
t discharge would increase to 26,471 cubic feet per second, a 53.2% increase over

I
7
7
I

4V _ Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
existing conditions, and a 12.5% increase over the no build scenario. Runoff volume
would increase to 7,844 acre-feet, a 33.4% increase over existing conditions and a
13.7% increase over the no build scenario.
This Report summarizes the information we have been able to determine related to this
issue, in four sections:
1. Project Descriptions
2. Project Area Description
3. Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
4. Hydrological Analysis
1. Project Descriptions
1.1 Monroe Bypass (R-2559)
The Monroe Bypass (R-2559) purpose and need as described in the Environmental
Assessment characterizes US 74 as an important roadway for several reasons. It is a
transportation route that connects the port at Wilmington with Charlotte and is a "Key
Economic Development Highway" created by the Highway Trust Fund. The state
created this highway to deliver a high level of service on a multi-lane roadway. US 74
also serves to connect I-85 and I-95 and is thus a major trade route. Tourism is
facilitated as well because US 74 is the quickest way to the beaches for many North
Carolinians in the southern piedmont region. The main purpose of the Monroe
Bypass/Connector is to improve access around the City of Monroe. The proposed
action also has local importance as a means of relieving traffic congestion along
existing US 74, through the City of Monroe, by separating local traffic from through-
traffic. US 74 connects the State's largest port with the State's largest city, and the
DOT, after examining level of service (LOS) and accident histories, determined that
improvements must be made.
The Monroe Bypass project is planned to have controlled access since access will only
be allowed at major intersections and interchanges. No frontage or service roads are
planned at this time. Freeway design speed will be 110 km/h (about 70mi. /h) with
ramps being 60-100 km/h (about 35 - 60 mi./h) and the loops being 40 - 50km/h (25-
30 mi./h).
The Monroe Bypass project will be located north of existing US 74, bypassing Monroe
and Wingate located along US-74. It is planned to be a four-lane, median-divided
freeway along a new location, approximately 9 miles in length. It begins between the
towns of Wingate and Marshville at US 74. After bypassing Wingate and Monroe, it
would either connect back to US 74 just west of the Rocky River Road/US 74
intersection or connect with another TIP project: R-3329 (Monroe Connector) near
Roanoke Church Road north of US 74.

Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
= R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
'41P
February 11, 2003
'
Major interchanges/intersections will be located at both termini, John Hamilton Road,
Roanoke Church Road (SR 1507), Concord Highway (US 601), Morgan Mill Road
(NC 200), Austin Chaney Road (SR 1758) and Forest Hill School Road (State Road
1754). The four-lane cross section will be a median-divided freeway with controlled
access. It will have a 328-foot right-of-way. This right-of-way may vary depending on
' the intersection and travel demand at that intersection. The four lanes are proposed to
be 12-feet wide separated by a 70-foot grass median.

r

Year 2020 traffic projections were developed in 1994 for the 1996 Environmental
Impact Statement. For US 74 with a no-build scenario for the Bypass, average daily
traffic volumes west of US 601 were 36,800 and expected to increase to 75,000 by
2020. For the second segment, from US 601 to NC 200 the traffic volumes were 40,100
and expected to be 77,900 by 2020. From NC 200 to SR 1758 traffic volumes were
27,900 and expected to be 55,200 by 2020. For the last segment of the road East of ST
1758 traffic volumes were 25,200 and by 2020 they are expected to rise to 52,800.
Average daily traffic volume projections for 2025 along the Monroe Bypass were also
completed in 1998. West of US 601, traffic volumes are anticipated to be 29,900. From
US 601 to NC 200 they are projected to be 23,000. At the next segment from NC 200 to
SR 1758, the traffic volumes are projected to be 30,900. Between SR 1758 and SR
1754, traffic is expected to decline some with volumes at 28,500. For the area east of
SR 1754, the volumes are projected to decline even further to 13,800.
Along US 74, with the Monroe Bypass being built, the traffic volume projections are
reduced in 2025 due to diversion of traffic to the Bypass. From US 601 to NC 200
projections are from 38,000 to 39,700, depending on which alignment is used for the
Monroe Connector. Just east of SR 1751 projections are higher at 46,900. Traffic
volumes from SR 1751 to SR 1758 range from 41,500 in the east, to 30,900 in the west.
From SR 1758 to SR 1754 volumes are projected at 28,900 and for east of SR 1754
volumes are anticipated at 28,100.
Intersections along US 74 near the new alignment currently operate at a LOS of C. This
LOS is worse during the rush hour traffic times and depends on whether the
intersections are signalized or not. In general, all the signalized intersections are at
Level C. The worst intersections were at the NC 200 and the US 601 intersections,
which have a LOS of E. With the traffic volumes expected to double by 2020, the LOS
would decrease significantly in the next 20 years under the no-build scenario.
Between 1991 and 1994, there were a total of 175.4 accidents per 100 million vehicle
miles on US 74. For similar roadways statewide, there were a total of 219 accidents per
100 million vehicle miles. The total number of accidents from May 1991 to April 1994
was 973. The new projections of accidents are shown to be much less. By 2020,
without the Monroe Bypass/Connector, a total of approximately 2,279 accidents are
forecast, whereas with the Monroe Bypass/Connector, only 1,623 accidents are
projected.

?w
1.2 Monroe Connector (R-3329)
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
The Monroe Connector project is planned to be a four-lane, median-divided freeway
approximately 4 miles in length. The four-lane cross section will have controlled
access, with access only at major intersections and interchanges. No frontage or service
roads are planned at this time. The freeway design speed will be similar to that of the
Monroe Bypass. The proposed right-of-way is 328 feet. This right-of-way may vary
depending on the intersection and travel demand at that intersection. The four lanes are
proposed to be 12-feet wide separated by a 70-foot grass median.
There are five different alignments under review for the Monroe Connector project:
• Corridor G (Improvements along existing US-74): Connects with Monroe
' Bypass at Roanoke Church Road and forms interchanges/intersections with Rocky
River Road, US 74, Chamber Road, Sardis Church Road, Unionville-Indian Trail
Road, Indian Trail-Fairview Road, Stallings Road, and CPCC Drive.
• Corridor D-2 (New Roadway): Connects with Monroe Bypass at Roanoke Church
Road and forms interchanges/intersections with Rocky River Road, Unionville-
Indian Trail Road, Indian Trail-Fairview Road, Stallings Road, and US 74 at the
Mecklenburg County border.
' e Corridor D-3 (New Roadway,): Connects with Monroe Bypass at Roanoke
Church Road and forms interchanges/intersections with Rocky River Road,

' Unionville-Indian Trail Road, Indian Trail-Fairview Road, Stallings Road, and US
74 at the Mecklenburg County border
.
' • Corridor E-2 (New Roadway): Connects with Monroe Bypass at Roanoke Church
Road and forms interchanges/intersections with Rocky River Road, Unionville-
Indian Trail Road, Indian Trail-Fairview Road, and Sherm Lane near US 74.
' • Corridor E-3 (New Roadway): Connects with Monroe Bypass at Roanoke Church
Road and forms interchanges/intersections with Rocky River Road, Unionville-
Indian Trail Road, Indian Trail-Fairview Road, Sherin Lane near US 74.
For the Monroe Connector, traffic volumes are projected to the year 2025. For
Corridor D-2, from US 74 to SR 1520, the volumes are anticipated to be 28,300.
' Between SR 1520 and SR 1367, volumes are projected at 28,900. Volumes are
expected to be higher between SR 1367 and SR 1514 at 31,800 and decline again to
29,900 between SRI 514 and US 601. Corridor E-2 traffic volumes are the same
' between US 74 and SR 1520. Corridor D-3 has the same traffic projections east of SR
1520 as stated above.
'
For Corridor E-3, traffic volumes between US 74 and SR 1520 are projected to be
28,300. From SR 1520 to SR 1367 volumes are anticipated to be 28,700 with an

6

I I

r

n

Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
increase east of SR 1367 to SR 1514 to 31,800. Volumes decrease again east of SRI 514
to US 601 at 29,900. For Corridor D-3 volumes are the same between US 74 and SR
1520. Corridor E-2 traffic volumes are the same east of SR 1520.
For Corridor G, average traffic volume projections along US 74 east of SR 1520 are
44,900. Volumes just west of SR 1367 are expected to be 54,000. Traffic volumes
between SR 1515 and SR 2356 are projected at 57,000 and decrease to 54,700 just east
of SR 2356.
1.3 Related Projects
There are a variety of TIP projects under construction and proposed in Union County,
ranging from bridge replacements to urban roadway widenings. The three projects (see
Figure 1) that most relate to the Monroe Bypass/Connector project are:
• TIP R-2616 (US 601 South): Widens the existing two-lane facility to a four-lane,
median-divided facility with controlled access from Monroe to Union County line
• TIP U-4024 (US-601 North): Widens the existing two-lane facility to a four- and
five-lane facility with limited access from US-74 to the proposed Monroe Bypass
interchange
• TIP U-3412 Dickerson Blvd. Ext: A two-lane facility on new location from NC
200 (Lancaster Avenue) to SR 1162 (Goldmine Road)
1.4 Potentially Affected Area and Time Frame
There are two different boundaries for the area of analysis. The Potential Growth
Impact Area, or the area within which the Monroe Bypass/Connector project is
anticipated to induce land use changes, is generally defined by a five- to seven-mile
radius from each of the proposed interchanges (Cervero, see References). This area is
adjusted to not include existing urbanized area, areas not directly accessible from the
project, and areas with physiological barriers.
The Watershed Analysis Area, or the area within which water quality may be impacted
by the Monroe Bypass/Connector project, is comprised of all the creeks which traverse
the Potential Growth Impact Area, and is generally bounded by Mecklenburg County to
the west, Rocky River to the north, Anson County to the east, and the Lanes
Creek/Lake Lee/East Twelve Mile Creek basin boundaries to the south (see Figure 2).
The timeframe used for the analysis was through the year 2020. This was based on
research that indicates the land development effects of a new highway largely occur
within seven to ten years after construction is complete (Cervero, see References).

\ --r 1

4'

I'A
>0- z
t, (1 (
f:?l 11
c ?l l

o Z a

l
? y O
c
to z
n
-

c n
?
? O
3 C
? Z
_I
m
_.? cn

o
m (Q

to C C
o

? C '<

? w

CJ1 w

N

-? 4?6

-?
o
N
t? CO 01 N ?

w?
n' Z
G N
2 O

O
7
`, s c
r
yr
x 2

o 00
L ?
I TX-
r.
O
O
W
d
z
?\
--''T
)No-
cz
0 ° a
0 CD
o
3
D 0)
W rt
01 D
1
c?

r
m
i to
m

U)
>
c
:3 c
M
>
c
m
0 _

=r
N
o
CD
G)
o

.
D
N

n
(D -?

N
CD 3
CL

?'
D

' Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
I February 11, 2003
2. Project Area Description
2.1 Inventory and Data Collection
A field survey was conducted to identify any outstanding issues related to potential land
use impacts of the Monroe Bypass/Connector project, such as land development
patterns, traffic congestion, major destination areas, and commuting patterns. The five-
to seven-mile Potential Growth Impact Area, established as described in Section 1.4
above, was used as the boundary within which to inventory existing conditions and
collect data. Then, all the rivers/creeks within this boundary were traced to their
sources to ensure that every hydrological body that might be affected by development
within the Potential Growth Impact Area would be included in the Watershed Analysis
Area.
Several interviews were conducted with planners, transportation engineers, and
assistant county/town managers of the numerous communities within the Watershed
Analysis Area. A meeting with Union County was held on August 6a', 2002. On
August 13th, 2002, four interviews were conducted, one at Indian Trail, a second at
Stallings, a third at the City of Monroe, and a fourth at the Town of Wingate.
Telephone interviews were also held with the Mayors of Unionville and Fairview. All
of the interviews focused on growth management topics, local development activity,
and transportation-related issues. Data and opinions were collected and incorporated
into the overall analysis.
2.2 Community Profile
2.2.1 Regional Location
' Location within North Carolina
Anson County borders Union County to the east, Stanly and Cabarrus counties to
' the north, Mecklenburg County to the west, and the State of South Carolina to the
south (see inset Figure 1). It was founded in 1842 and lies on the southern border
of the state. The City of Monroe, with a 2000 population of 26,228, is the county
I seat for Union County and is situated almost directly in the center of the County.
Incorporated areas within the Watershed Analysis Area include Monroe, the Town
' of Stallings (pop. 3,189), Town of Indian Trail (pop. 11,905), Town of Hemby
Bridge (pop. 897), Village of Lake Park (2,093), Town of Fairview (pop. 2,495),
Town of Unionville (4,797), Town of Wingate (pop. 2,406), and Town of
' Marshville (pop. 2,360). Union County is part of the Charlotte-Rock Hill-Gastonia
MSA. Charlotte had a population of 540,828 in 2000, while Gastonia had a
population of 66,277 and Rock Hill, South Carolina had a population of 49,765.
' Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
04 imp = R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
' February 11, 2003

Physiographic Region
' Union County is within the Piedmont region of North Carolina. It lies in the
Carolina and Eastern Slate Belts. These are remnants of a major mountain system
that was created 300 million years ago. Volcanic activity occurred and folded
' existing rock in the area. After the seismic movements ended, erosion took over to
create the rolling plateau that characterizes the piedmont region. These old
mountains are now hills known as Monadoncks. When observed from a
' topographic map, Union County is physiographically characterized by its relative
lack of elevation changes. The mentioned hills are north of the county borders.
Soils that are present are Alfisols and Ultisols of the Central Piedmont, as well as
Ultisols of the Upper Coastal plain. The area receives generally about 46 inches in
annual rainfall a year, as well as about 4 inches of snowfall per year.
' According to the North Carolina Atlas, Union County includes hardwood-pine
communities as well as short leaf pine communities. Human activities such as
logging, farming, and urbanization in the region have irrevocably changed the
' pine/scrub oak plant communities.
The Carolina Heelsplitter is a mollusk that was listed as endangered in 1993. Since
' then, their populations have been declining. This rare mollusk exists in a very
limited habitat. Although aspects of its habitat are still not known, it is speculated to
thrive in silt free water with a granular riverbed. Since the occurrences of the
species are near developed areas, urbanization and general development has served
to degrade the Carolina Heelsplitter habitat. It is thought that their decline in recent

' years is due to siltation in the rivers and streams where it is located. Only six
populations of the species are presently known to exist, two of which are in Union
County. In the Catawba River system, the Catawba River's tributary of Waxhaw
' Creek hosts a small population. Another minor population was found in a small
section of Goose Creek, which is part of the Pee Dee River system and more
accurately a tributary to the Rocky River in that system.
' Another endangered species that lives in Union County called Schweinitz's
Sunflower. This species lives in open areas, clearings or edge habitat. It also grows
in Mecklenburg, Anson, and Montgomery counties, as well as scattered
' communities to the north of North Carolina. It tolerates a wide variety of soils
including clay, clay loam, and sandy clay loam. The members of the plant's
' associations are asters, long leaf pine and sand hills plant communities.
Regional Demographics
Union County is one of the seven counties included in the Charlotte Metropolitan
' Statistical Area (MSA). The total population of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
MSA was 1,499,293 in 2000. The MSA is predicted to add almost 400,000 people
during the next ten years at current growth standards. According to the Office of
' State Planning, its total population will reach almost 1.9 million people by the year

1 2010 and over 2.2 million by 2020 (see Table 1 below).
' Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
4sp = R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
'
According to the US Census Bureau, Union County's share of the Charlotte MSA
population growth increased from 7.2% in 1990 to 8.2% in 2000. Other than
' Mecklenburg County, which encompasses the City of Charlotte, Union County's
8.2% share in 2000 represented the highest of any of the MSA counties. The North
' Carolina Office of State Planning projects that Union County's share of Charlotte

MSA population will continue to increase in both 2010 and 2020
Table 1. Forecasted Population Growth
Union Countv and Charlotte MSA
PON Unl Shjrt
Union 00aWr M `of
1990 84,210 1,162,093 7.2%
2000 123,677 1,499,293 8.2%
2010 166,838 1,858,977 9.0%
2020 212,811 2,252,015 9.4%
Source: US Census Bureau, NC Office of State Planning
' The Charlotte MSA population grew by 29.0% between 1990 and 2000, with Union
County leading the way with the highest growth rate (46.9%) of all seven MSA
counties, as well as all 100 counties within North Carolina. However, according to
' the Office of State Planning, Union County's population growth rate, along with the
Charlotte MSA, is forecasted to decrease between 2000 and 2010, as well as
between 2010 and 2020.

Table 2. Forecasted Population Growth Rates
Union Coun and Charlotte MSA
$

i
rowth flow
"c WMOr>f Chodoitts
ud?
1990-2000 46.9% 29.0%
2000-2010 34.9% 24.0%
2010-2020 27.6% 21.1
Source: US Census Bureau, NC Office of State
Planning
t 2.2.2 Relation to Major Urban Area or Regional Centers
' As stated earlier, Monroe, the county seat of Union County, is a part of the
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA. In terms of population, Monroe is the largest
urban area within Union County. Downtown Charlotte is 30 to 45 minutes away
' from Monroe along US 74. Concord and Kannapolis are 33 and 39 miles away,
respectively, and are within easy reach by way of US 601. The project itself is no
more than two miles from existing US 74. It predominantly traverses through the

10
_ Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003

City of Monroe, Indian Trail, and Stallings, with some short segments through
unincorporated areas of the County.
2.2.3 Regional Growth and Development Influences
Major Growth Generators
As previously mentioned, Union County is one of the seven Charlotte MSA
counties, and is therefore experiencing tremendous growth. Downtown Charlotte
employment growth is the catalyst for much of the growth occurring throughout the
region, as Charlotte remains the second largest financial center in the country and
continues to take advantage of its central east coast location by growing its
transportation and distribution industries.
One of the major regional growth generators over the last 10 years has been the
construction of I-485 in Mecklenburg County. Because of the improved access and
mobility it provides, families and employers have been able to locate further from
downtown Charlotte, where land is more readily available and less expensive. I -
485 is complete throughout most of southeastern Mecklenburg County, with
numerous interchanges less than ten miles from much of northeastern Union
County.
Other regional growth generators include:
• Proposed mass transit along Independence Boulevard from downtown Charlotte
to Union County
• Expansion of Monroe Regional Airport
• The continued growth of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Central
Piedmont Community College, and Wingate University.
• Employment and residential growth within Ballantyne located in extreme
southern Mecklenburg County
Regional Office, Retail, and Industrial Market Trends
' According to CB Richard Ellis, a regional real estate consulting firm, Charlotte's
office market contained approximately 30.6 million square feet of office space at
the end of 2001, of which 40% was located in Charlotte's CBD and 60% in the
' suburban office markets. The year-end vacancy rate was over 12%. Charlotte's
retail market contained approximately 24.4 million square feet, of which 9.4% was
vacant at the end of 2001. Lastly, a total of 110.7 million square feet of owner-
' occupied and multi-tenant industrial space was located in Charlotte, with a year-end
2001 vacancy rate of 8.1%, the highest recorded since 1996.
' Unfortunately, no such data exists for Union County. However, commercial
development spillover from Charlotte has been occurring during the last decade,
' particularly in the towns of Indian Trail and Stallings in the extreme northwestern
portion of the county. Much of the commercial development is located along the

I1
1 4VI =I0 k 0

Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
Februarv 11. 2003
US 74 corridor, with predominantly retail and industrial uses. Office activity within
Union County has been less noticeable.
Leadership Commitment to Development
Union County and its incorporated municipalities have adopted a pro growth, but
managed growth philosophy. As was mentioned before, in terms of population,
Union County was the fastest growing county in North Carolina during the 1990s,
at a growth rate of 46.9%. Much of this growth was focused in lower-income,
starter home communities. Currently, the leadership of Union County would like to
see more commercial development in strategic locations as well as more high-end
residential development, both of which contribute more substantially to the tax
base. As it stands now, much of the Union County population work and shop in
Mecklenburg County. Attempting to reverse that trend by encouraging more
employment-based activity within Union County is a priority.
Path of Regional Development
Development within the Charlotte Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has
historically been focused along the 1-85,1-77, US 74, and more recently, I-485
corridors. Northern and southern Mecklenburg County along the I-77 corridor have
experienced substantial residential and commercial growth over the last decade, as
has the northeastern portion of the county along I-85 in the University area. Growth
outside of Mecklenburg County has been widespread, but the most concentrated in
Union County and York County, SC.
2.2.4 Local Growth and Development Influences
Water and Sewer Systems
According to local planners and officials, all of the incorporated areas along US 74
within Union County are either currently provided with water and sewer service or
will be by 2005. The Union County Public Works Department has a 20-year plan
for future water and sewer lines, which will serve much of the existing growth areas
in western Union County and along the US 74 and US 601 corridors. All of the
future main-trunk sewer lines follow creeks.
' As currently planned, the Duck and Goose Creek basins and a portion of the
Richardson Creek basin just north of Wingate are scheduled to receive sewer
service by 2005. The Crooked Creek basin, the Rays Branch area south of Wingate,
' and the entire Twelve Mile Creek basin in southwestern Union County are
scheduled to receive sewer service by 2020.
Environmental Controls
There is one state policy that currently affects growth and development within
Union County: the Division of Water Quality development regulations for the Lake
Twitty Water Supply Watershed (Class III) and the Richardson Creek Water Supply
Watershed (Class IV) (see Figure 3). The Class III regulations stipulate a
' maximum residential development of 2 units per acre or 50% built-upon area (with
12

I _

)No-

CD
C
? 3
o
CL

f
o ?

f S

D n?
m ?

Y

C ?
O
o n N
O?
z3
W=
CS
8 m
V!
O
C
i0o
/\,, 1m
l
i

u i
1
E U D E 0 0 I u CD
n
D
0

°
C-)
o C
:3

°
o
0 Z?
0

=r
W

:03
(D

(D gi
?

cD

G -u
°

N

G)

0 *
ID

m
So-

CD

:3 /u
?

a S
co

3 ?
-U

N

Cil ?

?

W
12

fl
<D

< D
v
f I I l ? ?, ? J`!
t .
_ Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
AJW R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
storm water controls) in the protected area and 1 unit per acre or 30% built-upon
area (with storm water controls) in the critical area. The Class IV regulations
stipulate a maximum residential development of 2 units per acre or 70% built-upon
area (with storm water controls) in the protected area and 2 units per acre or 50%
built-upon area (with storm water controls) in the critical area. These
environmental controls govern lot coverages, impervious surface allowances, and
development densities in order to minimize potential negative impacts upon water
quality.
In addition to these standard regulations, North Carolina's Water Supply Watershed
Ordinance, Section 304, states that for the Lake Twitty Water Supply Watershed, "a
minimum 100-foot vegetative buffer is required for all new development activities
that exceed the low-density option; otherwise, a minimum 30-foot vegetative buffer
for development activities is required along all perennial waters..."
Other than the State water supply watershed regulations, local growth and
' development controls consist of zoning regulations and subdivision ordinances,
both for the county as well as the municipalities. Growth controls within the
Goose, Duck, and Waxhaw Creek basins are currently under review by Union
' County, as well as State and Federal Resource agencies, in order to protect the
federally endangered Carolina Heelsplitter species that resides there. These
controls, as are currently proposed, would limit new residential development in
' these basins to 1 unit per every 2 acres, and would increase stream buffers to 100
feet on both sides of intermittent streams and 200 feet on both sides of perennial
' streams.
2.2.5 Local Area Residential Growth Trends
' In order to determine the amount of influence the Monroe Bypass/Connector would
have on growth and development within the Potential Growth Impact Area and
' Watershed Analysis Area, residential and employment growth with and without the
proposed roadway was forecasted between 2000 and 2020. The growth forecast for
the larger Watershed Analysis Area was separated from the forecast for the
' Potential Growth Impact Area, since no land development impacts as a result of the
proposed roadway were anticipated in the portion of the Watershed Analysis Area
outside of the Potential Growth Impact Area.
' The residential growth forecast was developed by following the steps below. All
data associated with the calculations are located in Tables 3-16 in Appendix A of
' this report. The various steps in the calculation process are grouped under the
tables within which they are located.
' Tables 3-6
1. Retrieved 1980, 1990, and 2000 population totals for Union County from the
US Census Bureau
13

r

k

0*w
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
2. Subtracted group quarters population (i.e. correctional facilities, military
barracks, dormitories, etc.) to determine population in households for Union
County in 1980, 1990, and 2000
3. Determined population for the Potential Growth Impact Area and the Watershed
Analysis Area in 1980, 1990, and 2000 using block group data from the US
Census Bureau (see Figure 4)
4. Subtracted group quarters population to determine population in households for
the Potential Growth Impact Area and the Watershed Analysis Area in 1980,
1990, and 2000
Tables 7-12
5. Retrieved 2010 and 2020 population forecasts for Union County from the State
Demographics unit of the North Carolina Office of State Budget and
Management (http://www.demog.state.nc.us/)
6. Estimated group quarters population to determine forecasted population in
households for Union County in 2010 and 2020
7. Forecasted 2010 and 2020 population in households for Potential Growth
Impact Area and Watershed Analysis Area by averaging their 1980 to 1990
share and their 1990 to 2000 share of Union County population in households
growth, and applying that average share to Union County's forecasted
population in households growth between 2000 and 2010, and 2010 and 2020
Tables 13-16
8. Converted forecasted 2010 population in households for Potential Growth
Impact Area and Watershed Analysis Area into forecasted households by
applying their respective average household sizes in 2000, available from the
US Census Bureau
9. Converted forecasted 2020 population in households for Potential Growth
Impact Area and Watershed Analysis Area into forecasted households by
applying their respective average household sizes in 2000, available from the
US Census Bureau
The household growth is the most important factor for this analysis, since it can be
used to calculate built-upon area. Built-upon area determines the impact on
stormwater runoff, which is an indicator of the overall effect on water quality.
Later in this report, it will be determined what the impact on water quality will be
with and without the Monroe Bypass/Connector being built.
2.2.6 Local Area Commercial Growth Trends
The commercial growth forecast was developed by following the steps below. All
data associated with the calculations are located in Tables 17-27 in Appendix B of
this report. The various steps in the calculation process are grouped under the
tables within which they are located.
14

0

CD N
0
Z?

C c
O o0

qt
a q z

N
CD OD
?
?.

)No- z

? ? 0
m

c
o S?
° 3
°-
3 G1
co G)
z

19 r

vi _
3
d
C
0) 2r
CD
N
041P imino
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
Tables 17-19
1. Retrieved employment by industry growth for Union County between 1990 and
2000
2. Forecasted total employment growth in Union County between 2000 and 2010,
and 2010 and 2020, by applying the Union County jobs to households ratio
(0.85) in 2000 to the forecasted household growth in Union County between
2000 and 2010, and 2010 and 2020
3. Forecasted employment by industry growth in Union County between 2000 and
2010, and 2010 and 2020, by applying the same share of total employment
growth each industry comprised between 1990 and 2000
Tables 20-21
4. Converted forecasted employment growth by industry in Union County between
2000 and 2010, and 2010 and 2020, into retail, office, and industrial jobs

C

Tables 22-23
5. Converted forecasted retail, office, and industrial jobs in Union County between
2000 and 2010, and 2010 and 2020, into square footage of building space by
applying industry standard square feet per employee ratios for each category
6. Converted forecasted square footage of building space for each category (retail,
office, and industrial) in Union County between 2000 and 2010, and 2010 and
2020, into commercial acreage consumed
Tables 24-27
7. Estimated a Potential Growth Impact Area (65%) and Watershed Analysis Area
(85%) capture rate (based on past shares and local interviews) of forecasted
commercial acreage in Union County between 2000 and 2010, and 2010 and
2020
2.2.7 Land Potentially Available for Development
In order to determine the amount of land available for development within the
Potential Growth Impact Area and the Watershed Analysis Area, land was divided
into two categories:
Land with physical constraints that are unlikely to be developed, such as:
• Floodplains (as defined by Union County link to FEMA metadata)
• Wetlands (as defined by National Wetlands Inventory - USGS)
• Lakes, Rivers, and Streams (shown in 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps)
• Slopes of 8% gradient or greater
• Parks and land conservancy areas
• Parcels already developed
15
- Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
Air R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
2. Land that is developable without physical constraints, such as:
• Vacant parcels
• Parcels that are developed, but larger than five acres in size (with minimal
structures)
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data was obtained from Union County in
order to assist in the derivation of the developable land. This data included a
structures layer from 1995, which was supplemented by a tax database query that
was used to identify parcels that had structures built upon them after 1995, and thus
unlikely to be developable. Again, if any of these parcels had post-1995 structures
on them and were larger than five acres in size (with minimal structures), they were
still considered to be developable.
3. Indirect And Cumulative Impact Analysis
3.1 Evaluation of Potential for Land Use Change
In order to provide context to the evaluation of the potential for land use changes as
a result of the proposed transportation project, the following is a description of each
scenario that will be analyzed throughout the remainder of the report. The "No
Build" scenario provides a projection of growth and development in the rapidly
growing Potential Growth Impact Area as a basis of comparison with the growth
and development influence of building the two road projects.
The major variable between the two "Build" scenarios is a set of development
regulations proposed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission for the Duck Creek and Goose Creek basins, where the
endangered Carolina Heel Splitter mussel is present. These proposed regulations,
currently under review for adoption by Union County, would limit development to
one dwelling unit per acre, and would provide vegetative buffers 200 feet from each
side of perennial streams and 100 feet from each side of intermittent streams.
Scenario 1: "No Build"
The "No-Build" scenario assumes that neither the R-2559 Monroe Bypass nor the
R-3329 Monroe Connector would be built. Access to the land within the Potential
Growth Impact Area would continue to be by the existing US 74 and local and
regional roads.
Scenario 2: Build Without Development Controls
' Scenario 2 assumes that both the R-2559 Monroe Bypass and the R-3329 Monroe
Connector would be built, but without implementation of the development controls
recommended by the Wildlife agencies for the Duck and Goose Creek basins.
16
t Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
= R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
41P
' February 11, 2003
Scenario 3: Build With Development Controls
Scenario 3 assumes that both the R-2559 Monroe Bypass and the R-3329 Monroe
Connector would be built, and that the development controls recommended by the
Wildlife agencies for the Duck and Goose Creek basins would be implemented.
3.1.1 Factors to be Used to Evaluate Potential for Land Use Change

In order to assist in the determination of the amount of growth (households and
jobs) that building both R-2559 and R-3329 would induce, sets of socio-economic
and political factors were evaluated based on their potential to change the land use
within the Potential Growth Impact Area. These factors were evaluated by
designated subareas of the Potential Growth Impact Area. The subarea boundaries
were created by analyzing local growth patterns, proposed land use plans, proximity
to major thoroughfares, and the presence of water and/or sewer services. This
subarea breakdown allows for an easier distribution of the forecasted induced
growth within the Potential Growth Impact Area.
For Scenario 1, the forecasted amount of households and jobs added to the Potential
Growth Impact Area without building the newly proposed roadway was already
determined in Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 of this report (see tables in Appendices A
and B for exact figures). Because of this, Scenario 1 was not evaluated with respect
to the potential for land use change.
Higher ratings indicate a higher induced growth potential for that particular subarea.
The ratings in these tables will be combined with the ratings in Table 31 under
Section 3.1.3 to help calculate the exact amount of induced households and jobs as
a result of building both R-2559 and R-3329 (section 3.11 and 3.3.1).
For Scenario 2, the Potential Growth Impact Area was divided into 13 subareas, one
of which (Area 14) does not include any residential land and is therefore excluded
from analysis. Each of the Scenario 2 subareas was evaluated with respect to the
four factors in Table 28 below.
17
4w Imino
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
Table 28. Scenario 2: Build Without Development Controls
Potential For Land Use Chan es

9c thto Z" " Suppord"
d Uee
PeHdes _
Dvelme,?#
In _tr itres Air i
Deed
Lana
t

wt*
l High High High High
2 High High High High
3 High High Low High
4 Medium High High High
5 Low Medium Medium High
6 Low Medium High Medium
7 Medium Low High Low
8 Medium Medium Medium Medium
9 Low Low Low Low
10 High Medium High Medium
11 High High Low High
12 Medium Low High Low
13 Medium Low High Low
*Only portions within Potential Growth Impact Area are included
**A "High" rating indicates a high potential for land use changes as a result of
existing pro-growth policies
Subareas located along US-74 and in close proximity to Mecklenburg County rated
highly with respect to all four factors, except the low availability of land in Subarea
3. Subareas 5, 6, and 9 ranked low regarding land use policies because they are
located within the Lake Twitty Water Supply Watershed, which regulates
residential development to a maximum of 2 units per acre or 50% built-upon area
(with storm water controls) in the protected area and 1 unit per acre or 30% built-
upon area (with storm water controls) in the critical area. Furthermore, the 10/70
provision of this ordinance stipulates that for 10% of the land area within the Water
Supply Watershed, up to 70% built-upon area is permitted.
Subarea 4 is also located within this watershed, but the land use policy in this area
' supports higher density development as a result of planned water/sewer extensions.
Thus, it receives a medium ranking. The subareas east of Monroe typically rank
low to medium with respect to local development incentives and investment
' climate, but rank medium to high regarding land use policies and the availability of
developable land.
' A similar analysis for Scenario 3, which includes the Monroe Bypass/Connector
and additional environmental development regulations in the Duck and Goose
' Creek basins, was also performed (see Table 29). Under this scenario, development
in the Duck and Goose Creek basins, represented by Subarea 1, is limited to 1
dwelling unit per every 2 acres, as is currently under review for adoption by Union
' County. Regulations also include additional streamside buffer requirements along
' 18
' Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
ri R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
' February 11, 2003
both intermittent and perennial bodies of water that feed into Duck and Goose
' creeks, including the creeks themselves. Both of these environmental stipulations
were recommended by the Wildlife agencies in order to protect the Carolina
Heelsplitter endangered species which reside in both creeks.
With the implementation of the environmental controls in Subarea 1, the ratings for
three of the four factors decrease to either low or medium. The availability of land
decreases to medium because of the additional streamside buffer requirements, and
land use policies and development incentives no longer support the potential for
growth. It should be noted that our forecast concludes that none of the growth
induced by the Monroe Bypass/Connector project is to be located in Subarea 1,
which is more directly impacted by 1-485 in Mecklenburg County.
Table 29. Scenario 3: Build With Development Controls
Potential For Land Use Changes
son - a 4N*.
F?; i`se meat
Tn a De ?el
LrNnd
1 Low Low Medium High
2 High High High High
3 High High Low High
4 High High High High
5 Low Medium Medium High
6 High Medium High Medium
7 Low Low High Low
8 Medium Medium Medium Medium
9 Low Low Low Low
10 High Medium High Medium
11 High High Low High
12 Low Low High Low
13 Low Low High Low
*Only portions within Potential Growth Impact Area arc included
**A "high" rating indicates a high potential for land use changes as a result of
existing pro-growth policies
An analysis was also performed for both build scenarios that evaluated the potential
of land use change at proposed interchanges along the Monroe Bypass/Connector
project. A different set of factors was evaluated regarding this analysis. The
following Table 30 indicates how each of these subareas rated in Scenario 2 and 3:
19
- Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
Air R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
Table 30. Potential For Land Use Changes
Around Interchanges/Along Feeders

S,maido
?'d? 3'? atlSte to -
sJor Urban
FReater, - & MC on
I*thrseedng
dw.u `s 1
A ,=aer
Wut
1 High Medium High**
2 High Medium Medium***
3 High High High
4 High High High
5 High Medium Low
6 High Medium Medium
7 Low Low Low
8 Medium Low Medium
9 Medium Low Medium
10 Low Medium High
11 Medium High High
12 Low Low Medium
113 Low Low Low
*Only portions within potential Growth Impact Area are included
** Becomes a "low" rating in Scenario 3
***Becomes a "high" rating in Scenario 3
The closer a subarea is to Charlotte the higher it ranked with respect to the first
factor, "Distance to Major Urban Center". The other two factors evaluated traffic
on intersecting roadways and existing/future availability of water and sewer,
included mixed results by subarea. Outlying subareas located further from
Charlotte ranked low in terms of traffic on intersecting roadways, while subareas
closer to US-74, Monroe, and Mecklenburg County scored high. Those subareas
that were either further from Mecklenburg County and closer to US-74 or closer to
Mecklenburg County and further from US-74 ranked medium.
Regarding the availability of water and sewer, those subareas that currently have
service or are planned to have service by 2005 ranked the highest, while those that
have no plans for water and sewer service through 2020 ranked the lowest.
Subareas that are planned to receive service between 2005 and 2020 ranked
medium. It should be noted that Subarea 1, which is currently scheduled to receive
sewer service by 2005, is not likely to receive sewer service at all in Scenario 3, and
is therefore rated as "Low". Because of this situation, Subarea 2, which is currently
scheduled to receive sewer service by 2010 and is therefore ranked "Medium", is
upgraded to a "High" in Scenario 3 because sewer service would be provided by
2005.
20
1 Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
Air = R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
' 3.1.2 Consideration of Cumulative Effects
' As described in the NCDOT "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina (Draft),"cumulative impacts
are defined as "the impact on the environment that results from the incremental
' impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions". The analysis of cumulative effects has been incorporated with the
' assessment of indirect/cumulative effects because many indirect/cumulative effects,
including induced development effects, fall within the definition of cumulative
impacts (Berger, p. I-5).
h
at
The consideration of cumulative effects for this analysis focused on the effects t
might occur in a 7 to 10 year time frame, since any downstream effects on water
' quality would result from development induced by R-2559/R-3329. Developers
generally base investment decisions on a 7-year return on investment. Market
analyses and development pro formas that attempt to project absorption of new land
development beyond a 7 to 10 year period are generally considered speculative.
Further, empirical studies have determined that the land use effects of a new
highway project occur within the first 7 to 10 years of the completion of
' construction of the project (Cervero, see References).
Other actions that were identified that might affect the 7 to 10 year analysis horizon
' were:
• NCDOT TIP Project No. R-3329, the Monroe Connector
' • Extension of sewer service and annexation by Monroe northeast of US 74 and
northwest of NC 200
' • Extension of sewer service by Union County north of Wingate area and south of
Wingate
• Development occurring in the northern portion of the County because of the
' influence of I-485 to the north
• Newly incorporated towns of Fairview and Unionville taking control of their
own land use decisions
• Potential density restrictions in the Duck and Goose Creek watershed basins due
' to the habitation of the Carolina Heelsplitter, a federally endangered species, in
those basins
' Land use impacts for both R-3329 and R-2559 were considered as a simple
analysis. Considerations for development as a result of the entire corridor,
' consisting of both projects, were analyzed.
With sewer being extended by both Monroe and Union County those areas with
' sewer are anticipated to have higher densities and therefore more growth in the
future than those areas that will not have sewer. This is especially true in areas to

21
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
' the south of Union County that are known to have large areas of soil that is
' unsuitable for septic systems.
The Mayors of both Fairview and Unionville were asked about how those towns
plan to deal with growth. Both Mayors anticipated allowing for growth to occur but
in a planned and aesthetically pleasing way. Both towns already have some water
and hope to be able to get sewer in the future from Union County. Therefore the
' towns should not hinder growth, but some design guidelines may be put in place for
the type of development that will occur.
' By restricting growth in the Duck and Goose watershed basins, as is the case in
Scenario 3, growth is anticipated to shift east into the Crooked Creek Basin. This
will result in a higher growth forecast at a higher density for this basin.
' 3.1.3 Magnitude of Land Use Change

0

u

ECONorthwest and Portland State University, in March 2001, developed a
Guidebook for the Oregon Department of Transportation Research Group titled, "A
Guidebook for Evaluating the Indirect Land Use and Growth Impacts of Highway
Improvements". This guidebook, adopted by ODOT, was based on a full literature
review and on consideration of best practices. The guidebook assists in determining
the magnitude of indirect land use impacts of new or improved highways by mostly
quantitatively evaluating a set of seven factors related to growth inducement.
Each of the seven factors have been evaluated for the Potential Growth Impact Area
in Table 31 below. The placement of the "X" in the table reflects the quantitative
and qualitative assessment of how this project relates to these factors, from strong
to weak. The results of this analysis will help calculate the exact amount of induced
households and jobs as a result of building both R-2559 and R-3329 (Section 3.2.1
and 3.3.1).
Table 31. Monroe Bvuass/Connector: Magnitude of Land Use Change, 2000-2020
CNA-Age In um sup1ly Wdterl rW
ft? #rl Property Fofte"W vt4 t"d Sewer ;% Pu lfc
VtduIN Growl, d Av ! Policy
Strong X X X
A
it X X X
Weak X
Source: Oregon DOT, HNrB
22
' Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
= R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
' February 11, 2003
In order to provide context to the evaluation, it is necessary to attach quantitative
' measures, where possible, for each factor rating. The values used are based on the
"default values" in the Oregon Department of Transportation Guidebook. This is
accomplished with the bullet points under each factor evaluation below.
' Change in Accessibility:
• Strong = Travel time savings of more than 10 minutes
• Weak = Travel time savings of less than 2 minutes
' The Monroe Bypass/Connector will substantially improve the mobility and
accessibility of vehicles currently travelling on US-74 and new vehicles that will be
added to the Potential Growth Impact Area between 2000 and 2020. Based on the
t forecast traffic volumes and a future travel speed averaging 60 miles per hour (as
opposed to a "best case" 30 mph along US-74 today), commuters can reduce their
travel times by approximately 30 minutes along the 13-mile length of the project.
Therefore, a very strong rating is given in this category.
' Chance in Property Values:
• Strong = More than 50% increase
' • Weak = No change
Because of the increased mobility and accessibility, property values for land
surrounding interchanges and along feeder routes are likely to escalate. The percent
' increase in property values is likely to be higher surrounding rural interchanges
further east, which now become more accessible, as opposed to closer to
' Mecklenburg County, where property values are already the highest in Union
County because of the existing residential attractiveness and market strength.
' Forecasted Growth:
• Strong = More than 3% annual population/employment growth
' • Weak= Less than 1% annual population/employment growth
Based on the growth forecasts in sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 of this report, the Potential
' Growth Impact Area is expected to add 13,690 households between 2000 and 2020,
an increase of 3.8% per year. In addition, employment is expected to increase by
3.5% annually during the same time frame. According to the above criteria, these
statistics would rate the Potential Growth Impact Area very strong in terms of
forecasted growth.

u
23
4w
Land Supply vs. Land Demand:
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
• Strong = Less than 10-year supply of land available
• Weak = More than 20-year supply of land available
In terms of the amount of developable land, the Potential Growth Impact Area has a
total of nearly 83,000 acres, when land already developed, floodplains, slopes
greater than 8%, and wetlands are all considered as unlikely to develop. Only
10,445 acres in Scenario 1, 10,775 acres in Scenario 2, and 11,573 acres in Scenario
3 are forecasted to be developed upon between 2000 and 2020. Therefore, the
Potential Growth Impact Area obviously has much more than a 20-year supply of
land available for development, and rates very weakly in terms of its supply of
available land.
Water/Sewer Availability:

• Strong = Available Now
• Weak = Not Available and Difficult to Provide
The majority of the Potential Growth Impact Area is scheduled to receive water and
sewer service by 2020, with the exception of a few pockets in the interior of the
Potential Growth Impact Area and some outlying areas to the southeast and
northeast. All of the incorporated areas within the Potential Growth Impact Area
are already provided with water and sewer service. Should the additional
development controls be implemented in the Duck and Goose Creek basins (as is
the case in Scenario 3), this area would be unlikely to receive sewer service.
However, the proposed roadway is not anticipated to impact land use changes in
this area anyway. Therefore, we give the factor a fairly strong rating overall.
Market For Development:

• Strong = Strong Market
• Weak = Weak Market
Union County was the fastest growing county in the State of North Carolina over
the last decade, increasing from a population of 84,211 in 1990 to 123,677 in
2000(a growth rate of 46.9%). It was, and to some extent still is, a bedroom
community for the second fastest growing city (Charlotte) in the United States
during that same time period. The Potential Growth Impact Area has an extremely
strong rating for market strength of the area.
Public Policy:
• Strong = No growth management policy; weak enforcement
• Weak = Growth management policy in place; strong enforcement
24
' Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
ri = R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
' February 11, 2003
Other than proposed land use densities and zoning ordinances, Union County, the
' City of Monroe, Indian Trail, Stallings, Wingate, Marshville, Unionville, and
Fairview do not have any policies in place that would regulate the amount or rate of
development that can occur.
Each of the above jurisdictions have a pro-growth philosophy, particularly when it
comes to commercial development, which, on a percentage basis, is more likely to
be impacted by the Monroe Bypass/Connector project than residential development
would be. Because of the higher level of intensity of use, commercial development
contributes more to the tax base than does residential development. Conversations
with local staff and officials confirm that commercial development is being
encouraged as it relates to the proposed roadway project.

The Lake Twitty Water Supply Watershed and the potential of development
regulations in the Duck and Goose Creek basins are the only other public policies
that limit (could limit) growth potential within the Potential Growth Impact Area.
3.2 Scenario Development
3.2.1 Scenario Writing
In order to determine the amount of induced growth that could result from the
Monroe Bypass/Connector project, a methodology was developed which worked in
reverse to determine the land use impacts from an estimate of the increased amount
of average daily traffic attributable to the proposed project. While there is limited
reliable research on induced demand, the best work is arguably that of Dr. Robert
Cervero of UC Berkeley. In a recent study of 20 freeway corridors in California' he
concludes that, on average, about 12.5% of new traffic capacity on freeways can be
absorbed by land use shifts in response to the highway itself (i.e., secondary
impacts or induced growth). Given the relatively strong growth management
regimes in California, Cervero guidance was that in North Carolina, if a facility
were located where growth pressures were very strong and growth management
very weak, such as the case in Union County, one could reasonably assume this
percentage could increase.
Based on the results of the assessments within sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3 of this
report (Potential and Magnitude of Land Use Change), it was determined that the
amount of new traffic capacity along the combined Monroe Bypass and Connector
project that could be absorbed by land use shifts in response to the new highway
itself (i.e. induced growth) could potentially be 25%. Key assumptions made in the
methodology were therefore as follows:
Cervero, R. Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis, JAPA (forthcoming).
25
4W 1=11"Iml
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
• Of the forecasted change in Average Daily Trips (ADT) between 2000 and
2020, 50% is attributable to existing and anticipated growth in traffic due to
general population and employment growth.
• Of the forecasted change in ADT between 2000 and 2020, 25% is attributable to
shifts in travel behavior in response to new capacity and lessened congestion
(e.g. route shifts to the new facility, reductions in transit users and carpoolers,
shifts back to the peak hour from the shoulders of the peak, etc.).
• Of the forecasted change in ADT between 2000 and 2020, 25% is attributable to
induced growth (new households and jobs) because the new roadway is built.
3.3 Growth Assumptions for Potentially Affected Area
3.3.1 Quantity of Assumed Growth
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has forecasted a change in ADT
of an average of 30,000 additional vehicles per day between 2000 and 2020 along
the 13-mile Monroe Bypass/Connector project. It was assumed that this forecast
did not account for induced growth, or growth that occurred as a result of building
the Monroe Bypass/Connector project. Therefore, since 25% (amount of the
change in ADT attributable to induced growth) represents a third of the change in
ADT not related to induced growth, an additional 10,000 vehicles per day, or one-
third of the 30,000 ADT, was added to this forecast, making the total 40,000
vehicles per day. This assumption reflects a conservative, "worst-case" approach.
Based on these model assumptions, the following calculations were completed to
' produce the number of induced households as a result of the forecasted 40,000 ADT
volume on the Monroe Bypass/Connector between 2000 and 2020:
' Step 1: 40,000 ADT x 25% (induced growth share) = 10,000 ADT as a result of
induced growth.
' Step 2: 10,000 ADT x 1.1 persons per vehicle (estimate based on trends in the
surrounding area) = 11,000 person, not vehicle, trips.
' Step 3: Average of 3 person trips per household per day assumed to be made on
Monroe Bypass/Connector = 3,666 new households (11,000 divided by 3).
' These person trips reflect all trip purposes. (Again, this is a conservative
assumption; if, say, each household made 5 person trips per day, then the
number of induced households would be reduced to 2,200).
' To determine the induced jobs as a result of the proposed project, we applied an
estimated jobs per household ratio of 1.105, which is higher than both the 0.85 jobs
' per household ratio forecasted for Union County from 2000 to 2020 and the 1.05
jobs per household ratio forecasted for the Watershed Analysis Area from 2000 to
2020, but lower than the 1.49 jobs per household ratio forecasted for the Potential
' Growth Impact Area from 2000 to 2020 (see tables in Appendices A and B).
' 26
t Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
= R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
3,666 induced households x 1.105 jobs/household = 4,051 induced jobs
1 These additional households and jobs were added to the Scenario l estimates (see
Appendix A and B) to come up with the total amount of forecasted households and
' jobs to be added to the Watershed Analysis Area between 2000 and 2020.
3.3.2 Location of Assumed Growth
' Upon completing the forecast of the amount of future growth for each of the three
scenarios, households and jobs were then distributed throughout the Watershed
Analysis Area based on a number of different factors including:
• Discussions with local planners on development trends
• Proximity to I-485 and US-74
• Existing and future water/sewer lines, as phased
' • Development controls/guidance (water supply watersheds, proposed land use,
zoning)
• Annexation policies
' • Municipality jurisdictions
Higher weights were allocated to physical location of the land area and future
public utility locations. The 3,666 induced households and 4,051 induced jobs
estimates were only to be distributed within the Potential Growth Impact Area,
since land development outside of the Potential Growth Impact Area is assumed not
' to be influenced by the proposed roadway project. This additional growth is only
applied to Scenarios 2 and 3. In Scenario 1, we begin by distributing the official
forecast for households and jobs into various subareas and converting these into
' acres.
Scenario 1: "No Build" (Residential
h
d
e
Using the factors above, a total of 19 subareas were created within the Waters
Analysis Area (see Figure 5). For an evaluation of the potential for land use change
in each of these subareas, see section 3.1.3. Growth within the Potential Growth
Impact Area was distributed separately from growth outside the Potential Growth
Impact Area. It should be noted that each of the five alternative alignments (G, D-
2, D-3, E-2, E-3) for the Monroe Connector portion of the project was treated
equally in their impact on residential development.
' Densities in Table 32 on the next page were determined by what was proposed
within Union County land use plans as well as municipal plans. After calculating
the amount of total developable land within the Watershed Analysis Area (see
' Section 2.2.7), a sum of 23,614 acres of additional residential developed land is
forecasted to be built upon within the Watershed Analysis Area between 2000 and
2020. This number only represents 13.6% of the total area available for residential
27

C

J

I
1
® 1
CL v m o c ((D o= -{
T
cn p C CO) c V! <
.. O U)
N W
N C a Ck) CD -0 CD CD 0 w
O a a co
c?D CNO
O 0 p1 `
3 N 0 c a
it
+ c 0 c
0 c<D
C 0 o
`Q
0 a
@ cu
? ? ? ? = m m

ai ?? i
1' I ? •

' Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
I
_ Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
Air R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
' February 11, 2003
development. Most of the future developed land is considered general residential
' (71.7%), with low density urban and medium-high density urban only representing
14.7% and 13.6%, respectively.
Table 32. Scenario 1: "No Build" - 2000-2020 Additional Residential Developed Land (Acreage)

I
I

Wattenhed
Analysis Area

(0-1 DU/ AC) LDUrban
(1$3
DU/AC) ` A ftl _ -
&WIW
DO/A : Total
Dwebp tl
Lend T
A*41101
ArdA"
Av'
"n mmmft"
1 265 796 308 1,369 6,487 5,118
la outside P.G.I.A.- 468 468 1,522 1,054
la 29 299 493 821 4,838 4,017
lb outsideP.G.I.A. 586 586 1,356 770
1 b 1,643 1,643 5,167 3,524
2 356 356 2,311 1,955
2a 685 685 4,949 4,264
2b outside P.G.I.A. 303 704 1,007 6,626 5,619
3 outside P.G.I.A. 2,342 2,342 6,292 3,950
3 2,003 26 24 2,053 14,949 12,896
3a outside P.G.I.A. 881 378 1,259 3,878 2,619
3a 72 168 240 995 755
4 15 470 62 547 9,144 8,597
4a 274 274 1,856 1,582
5 outside P.G.I.A. 2,836 10 200 3,046 16,830 13,784
6a outside P.G.I.A. 2,578 2,578 27,006 24,428
6a 1,330 40 1,370 17,534 16,164
6b outsideP.G.I.A. 1,874 1,874 21,090 19,216
6b 1,0% 1,096 20,561 19,465
Total: 161943 3,470 3 23,614 73 149,
' *Proposed for residential
**Potential Growth Impact Area
' Table 32 indicates the residential growth distribution by subarea in acres. Please
note that in each of the tables within this section, development is assigned to
various density categories, using the classifications available. It is then summed,
compared to the total developable area, and then subtracted to yield the remaining
acres of available land after 2020. In almost all cases, substantial available land
remains.
Subarea 3 is forecast to have 4,395 acres of residential development occur between
2000 and 2020, the most of any subarea. A major reason for this is because of its
relatively close proximity to both 1-485 and US-74, as well as the fact that its entire
area, which is the largest subarea within the Potential Growth Impact Area, is
scheduled for sewer services to be in place by 2020. Please refer to Figure 5 to see
the exact boundaries of each of the subareas.
28
' Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
Air R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
' February 11, 2003
Scenario 1: "No Build" (Commercial):
A total of 17 commercial subareas were created within the Watershed Analysis
Area, 14 of which are at least partially located within the Potential Growth Impact
' Area (see Figure 6). Most of these subarea boundaries were designated by
following county and municipality proposed land use boundaries. The Secrest
Short Cut Road corridor (Area m), just east of the Mecklenburg County border, and
' the US-601 corridor north of US-74 (Area a) were the only areas designated for
future commercial development that were not already so designated by Union
County or the municipalities.
I
Table 33. Scenario 1: "No Build" - 2000-2020
Additional Commercial Developed Land (Acrene

III ' nett
lndu" .
4a tr n
4W W T+Dttt
Developed
Glud
A l?
i lmgin
`A vnili ,
L
'
a 60 60 530 470
b 100 100 1,911 1,811
c 26 26 663 637
d 15 15 165 150
e 16 16 790 774
f outside P.G.I.A." 50 50 508 458
9 50 50 133 83
h 55 55 447 392
I 135 135 1,424 1,289
It 109 109 975 866
m 60 60 94 34
n 38 38 53 15
o outside P.G.I.A. 20 20 178 158
P 170 170 602 432
q 5 5 34 29
r outside P.G.I.A. 20 20 76 56
s 5 5 9 4

Note: In addition to the 934 acres total, 169 acres to be distributed randomly throughout
area outside of the Potential Growth Impact Area
*Proposed for commercial
**Potential Growth Impact Area
I In this scenario, a total of 1,103 acres of commercial land is forecast to be built
upon within the Watershed Analysis Area between 2000 and 2020 (see Table 33
above). Of that total, 934 acres are located in the subareas, whereas 169 acres are to
29

II I lil', P! III
¦
¦ Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
= R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
¦
be distributed randomly throughout the area outside the Potential Growth Impact
Area. The 934-acre total only represents 10.9% of the total area proposed for
¦ commercial development within the 17 subareas of the Watershed Analysis Area.
Of the estimated 934 commercially developed acres, 844 acres (90.3%) are
forecasted within the Potential Growth Impact Area.
¦
To more accurately distribute the forecast commercial acreage, it was divided into
industrial, office, and retail categories. Each subarea was then evaluated based on
¦ its ability to attract specific types of commercial development. The areas closer to
1-485 and Mecklenburg County were assumed to attract more office development,
while areas along the US-74 corridor were more attractive for retail development.
Industrial development was mainly focused in areas near the Monroe Airport and
northeast of Monroe, where a fair amount of existing industries are already located.
Subareas p and 1 have by far the most developed acres allocated to them. Subarea p
is the closest subarea to I-485 and straddles both sides of US-74, making it an ideal
location for spillover growth from Mecklenburg County. Subarea 1, near the
Monroe Airport, already includes an employment cluster of existing industrial
facilities that could be further expanded.
¦ Scenario 1: "No Build" (Summary):
This "No-Build', Scenario forecasts a total of 25,403 households and 23,614 acres
of residential development (10,454 acres of which are within the Potential Growth
Impact Area) within the Watershed Analysis Area between 2000 and 2020. Of the
¦ total amount of residential development, 16,943 acres, or 71.7%, is considered
General Residential (0-1 dwelling units per acre). Only 13.6% of the total area
proposed for residential would be built upon by 2020. Because it is expected to
receive 13% of the forecasted 1 l ,713 households outside of the Potential Growth
Impact Area, and these households are being developed at 1 unit per every 2 acres,
Subarea 5 occupies the most developed residential land area (3,046 acres) of all the
¦ subareas in the Watershed Analysis Area.
A total of 1,103 acres of commercial development (844 acres of which are within
the Potential Growth Impact Area) are forecast for the Watershed Analysis Area
between 2000 and 2020. As was the case with the residential forecast, only 12.8%
of the total amount of land available for commercial development would be built
upon by 2020. Subarea p, which is close in proximity to I-485 as well as US 74,
occupies 170 acres of the 1,103 total acres, the most of all subareas.
¦ Scenario 2: Build Without Development Controls (Residential):
As mentioned before, the proposed roadway project will only affect development
¦ inside the identified Potential Growth Impact Area. Table 34 below shows the
distribution of the 10,775 acres of residential growth between 2000 and 2020 within
residential subareas 1 through 13 (generated by a total of 17,356 households).
¦
30

4V Irk"M3
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
These subareas have different boundaries than those in Scenario 1 because of the
proposed roadway dynamics (see Figure 7). For an evaluation of the potential for
land use change in each of these subareas, see section 3.1.3. The Monroe
Bypass/Connector project would not only add an estimated 3,666 households at
various densities within the Potential Growth Impact Area over the next 20 years,
but to some extent it would also redistribute and change the densities of some of the
future growth that would occur without the roadway being built (Scenario 1).
Table 34. Scenario 2: Build Without Development Controls
2000-2020 Additional Residential Developed Land
¦???
?I?YR?MfR 4
A
n ? ? V?aAq?
f IE?Ji?
(??Ml_
????
?(V'? ? {
_.lY
,
F

u
1 359 410 359 1,128 9,659 8,531
2 275 328 492 1,095 11,313 10,218
3 858 858 1,275 417
4 1,051 1,051 5,181 4,130
5 137 137 1,153 1,016
6 342 342 3,078 2,736
7 2,256 22 40 2,318 18,498 16,180
8 174 174 1,401 1,227
9 347 347 1,426 1,079
10 1,153 1,153 7,568 6,415
11 574 574 1,743 1,169
12 483 483 4,751 4,268
13 1,115 1,115 15,949 145834
,
Nm
T
I
*These numbers would be added to the area outside the Potential Growth Impact Area in Scenario 1 to
determine the total for the entire Watershed Analysis Area.
**Proposed for residential
Although not as low density as Scenario 1, most of the 10,775 total acres to be
developed by 2020 will be low density in character, with 8,452 acres (78.4%)
forecasted to be developed at a density of up to 2.5 units per acre (General
Residential and Low Density Urban categories). The majority of that low density
development will be located in subareas 7 and 13, located in extreme northeastern
and southeastern Union County, where sewer service and growth momentum is at a
minimum.
Higher density development is forecasted in subareas 1, 2, and 3, which are all
either adjacent to Mecklenburg County or straddle the US-74 corridor west of
Monroe. Subarea 11, located along US-74 between Monroe and Wingate, also
should develop at a higher density. Mainly because of travel timesavings and
planned sewer services, future residential development in subarea 10, which
straddles US-74 east of Monroe and west of Marshville, should also increase. As
31

D

?•_ryA'.es ie?
CD ?
'
N.
r ,
D t
?? ;N I i N C u
A aD ;+ y
-46

e ?. A
v PL
.1 4 - f

16

t 1•

c v
° m d
(D
q S >
3 v,
U)

cD
001iii
5 9 r 0 -U m 0 0 * T w 2-1 _I
Q- 0 ;u 0) o c m ' o o Q
= (D cu < m S
C c
o
:3' C N O - '? ? N N co
(D CA to
t3 :3 CL
0
0 Z O co co
3 oN, D a
v' 0 c cu v CO
M
C D o
D 0 D
Q m
(D m o?
{
- Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
.JFP
February 11, 2003
was the case in Scenario 1, only approximately 13% of the total residential land
available for development is forecasted to be developed upon by 2020. As
explained earlier, the major reason for this is because the 17,356 total households in
this scenario are to be built at a much higher average density taking up less land
area than the 13,690 households in Scenario 1.
Scenario 2: Build Without Development Controls (Commercial):
1 With the addition of the Monroe Bypass/Connector project, employment areas
would be generated in addition to those designated in Scenario 1 (see Figure 8).
I Most of these additional subareas would be focused around the proposed
interchanges of the new roadway, as well as supplement the already developing US-
74 corridor between Monroe and Mecklenburg County. Table 35 below shows the
I forecasted distribution of commercial acreage by designated subarea.
Table 35. Scenario 2: Build Without Development Controls
211414)-21121) Additional Commercial Developed Land (Acreage)

Gra f Ti"
IToal A
A kk

Av f

JA
1 25 51 1,527 1,502 1,502 1,476
2 8 25 734 726 726 709
3 43 17 212 169 169 195
4 17 25 1,224 1,207 1,207 1,199
5 33 8 271 238 238 263
6 8 8 403 395 395 395
7 8 8 328 320 320 320
8 8 8 388 380 380 380
9 17 17, 499 482 , 482 482
tlll: 1
Rom
,
' 1
*In addition to the 1,103 commercial acres in Scenario 1
**I'roposed for commercial
' As a result of the proposed roadway, an additional 167 acres of commercial
development is forecasted within the entire watershed area, all of which would
occur in the Potential Growth Impact Area. This total is added to the 1,103 acres in
' Scenario 1 for the total amount of forecasted commercial development between
2000 and 2020 in this scenario. The distribution of the 1,103 acres of commercial
development in Scenario 1 would remain the same even when the Monroe
' Connector/Bypass is built. Therefore, only the induced commercial acreage as a
result of the roadway is shown in Table 35 above.
' Five alternative alignments are proposed for the Monroe Connector project. The
167 induced commercial acres are distributed differently within subareas 1-5
' because of the variation in the location of the roadway project. Corridor G is
32

? ?
1 4V Imik"m=3
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
Subarea 1 (51 acres), situated within the area bounded by Indian Trail/Fairview
Road, Monroe Road, the Mecklenburg County border, and the rail line.
Scenario 3: Build With Development Controls (Residential):

rl

n

With the environmental development controls (1 dwelling unit per every 2 acres
and additional streamside buffers) in place within the Duck and Goose Creek basins
(generally represented by Subarea 1 on Figure 9), only 4%, or 548 households of
the total 13,690 forecasted households within the Potential Growth Impact Area
were allocated to Subarea 1. In Scenario 2, without the development controls,
Subarea 1 comprised 20.6%, or 2,820 households. The density at which these
households are developed also changes between Scenario 2 and Scenario 3.
Whereas Subarea 1 households in Scenario 2 were fairly equally distributed among
the three different density levels, all of Subarea 1 households in Scenario 3 are
forecasted to be developed as GRes (0-1 DU/AC). Despite the substantially lower
number of households allocated to Subarea 1 in Scenario 3, its low density yields a
similar developed acreage total to Scenario 2 (see Table 36 below).
Table 36. Scenario 3: Build With Development Controls
2000-2020 Additional Residential Developed Land Acrea e
G
l ?C?
1131A (
, Davd?pec)?

Lod

i t ?i

1
lw
1 1,096 1,096 9,659 8,563
2 1,472 1,472 11,313 9,841
3 968 968 1,275 307
4 1,188 1,188 5,181 3,993
5 274 274 1,153 879
6 411 411 3,078 2,667
7 2,256 22 40 2,318 18,498 16,180
8 174 174 1,401 1,227
9 347 347 1,426 1,079
10 1,153 1,153 7,568 6,415
11 574 574 1,743 1,169
12 483 483 4,751 4,268
13 1,115 11115 15,949 14,834
T t : 1 111 11
*These numbers would be added to the area outside the Potential Growth Impact Area in Scenario 1 to
determine the total for the entire Watershed Analysis Area.
**Proposed for residential
An indirect effect of implementing the environmental development controls in
Subarea 1 is that the growth that would have occurred there is now distributed in
neighboring subareas, particularly in Subarea 2, whose boundaries match that of the
Crooked Creek basin (see Figure 9). Whereas in Scenario 2 this subarea comprised
34

Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
Februarv 11. 2003
located along existing US-74, connecting to the Monroe Bypass near Rocky River
Road, whereas all four other proposed alignment corridors are located on new
location to the north of US-74. Because of only slight variations in interchange
locations, each of the four alternative alignments, D-2, D-3, E-2, and E-3, include
the same amount of acreage by subarea.

n

As was the case in Scenario 1, we divided the total 167 acres into retail, office, and
industrial categories to more accurately distribute the induced growth. The share of
the total for each category (retail=92 acres, office=40 acres, industrial=35 acres)
was determined by what the share in Scenario 1 was officially forecasted to be
between 2000 and 2020. Most of the induced commercial development surrounds
the interchanges closer to Mecklenburg County, feeding off the Monroe
Bypass/Connector, US-74, and I-485. It was determined that most of the
interchanges closer to Mecklenburg County would have a combination of office,
retail, and industrial uses, while interchanges further east would tend to be
predominantly retail-oriented, with a certain amount of industrial uses as well as
building off such existing concentrations.
Scenario 2: Build Without Development Controls (Summary):
An additional 3,666 households are forecast for the Potential Growth Impact Area
because the road is built. This scenario forecasts a total of 29,069 households and
23,935 acres of residential development (10,775 acres of which are within the
Potential Growth Impact Area) within the Watershed Analysis Area between 2000
and 2020. Of the total amount of residential development, 15,188 acres, or 63.4%,
is considered General Residential (0-1 dwelling units per acre). Only 14.3% of the
total area proposed for residential in this scenario would be built upon by 2020.
Because of the low-density nature of its development (I unit per every 2 acres),
Subarea 7 is expected to receive the most forecast acreage of all subareas within the
Potential Growth Impact Area between 2000 and 2020, with 2,318 acres of the total
10,775 acres. The majority of the forecast households within the Potential Growth
Impact Area, however, were allocated to Subareas l and 2 (30.5% of 17,356 or
5,300 households). The slight variations in the interchange locations by alternative
alignment (Corridor G vs. Corridors D and E) of the Monroe Connector portion of
the entire project is not anticipated to affect the location of the forecast residential
development.
Because the road is built, an additional 167 acres of commercial development is
forecast for the Potential Growth Impact Area between 2000 and 2020, increasing
the Watershed Analysis Area total to 1,270 acres of commercial development
(1,001 acres of which are within the Potential Growth Impact Area). For Corridor
G, 43 acres of the total 167 acres caused by the roadway are located in Subarea 3,
which is situated along US 74 between Indian Trail/Fairview and Rocky River
roads. Most of the induced employment for the other alignments is located in
33

D u n

c m
o m m G.
O z
m
3

a-- v X N o a c°u o o= -q -i
'0 0
C = C N N t?D - N 0CD :1 ) 6 a?
n O N =r w
al W
Cn m
o v w cn tD
N N C a z
m cn U' y `<
+ v n m
c" v
C 0 m
m m °i D
? ? ? ? ? ? ? M* 'M m m m 1
4P IMILIM]
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
18.1%, or 2,480 households of the total 13,690 forecasted households within the
Potential Growth Impact Area, in Scenario 3, it comprised 25%, or 3,423
households (nearly 1,000 more households). Because of the high-density (2.5
dwelling units per acre) development nature within Subarea 2 however, the
resulting total of 1,472 acres is only 377 acres higher than the 1,095-acre total in
Scenario 2.
The distribution of the 3,666 induced households because of the proposed roadway
remains the same as it was in Scenario 2, with the Duck and Goose Creek basins
(Subarea 1) receiving no additional development as a result of the Monroe
Bypass/Connector in either scenario. Because of the location of these two basins
(adjacent to the Mecklenburg County border and removed from the US 74 corridor),
building the Monroe Bypass/Connector project would not add households within
the basin boundaries. In fact, Scenario 2 actually "steals" some of the households
allocated to these basins in Scenario I and redistributes them to locations that now
have improved access and mobility because of the roadway being built. Of the
3,666 induced households, Subarea 10, located in eastern Union County where the
Monroe Bypass/Connector connects with US-74, is forecasted to comprise 33%, or
1,210 households representing 605 acres (2 dwelling units per acre). This high
percentage allocation is mostly due to a substantial travel time savings of nearly 30
minutes for commuters to Charlotte, making Subarea 10 more attractive for
residential development.
Scenario 3: Build With Development Controls (Commercial):
The commercial impact in Scenario 3 is the same as Scenario 2, since none of the
identified commercial areas in either scenario are within the Duck or Goose Creek
basins.
Scenario 3: Build With Development Controls (Commercial):
Because of the aforementioned development controls being implemented within the
Goose and Duck Creek basins, a total of only 548 households (4% of the Potential
Growth Impact Area total) are forecast for development between 2000 and 2020,
much less than the approximately 3,700 households (27% of the Potential Growth
Impact Area total) in Scenario 1 and 2,820 households (21% of the Potential
Growth Impact Area total) in Scenario 2. Subarea 2, which is generally bounded by
the Crooked Creek basin, receives much of the growth (3,680 households compared
to 2,737 households in Scenario 2) formally allocated to the Goose and Duck Creek
basins in Scenario 2. In addition, the allocation of future Potential Growth Impact
Area households in Subareas 3-6 slightly increase in this scenario compared to
Scenario 2, while Subareas 7-14 remain the same.
35
4V
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
Overall Forecast Growth Summary By Scenario:
As can be seen in Table 37 below, the Potential Growth Impact Area's share of the
entire Watershed Analysis Area household and job growth increases in Scenario 2
and Scenario 3, which include the Monroe Bypass/Connector project. Although an
additional 3,666 households are forecasted within the Potential Growth Impact Area
in Scenario 2, only 321 additional acres of induced growth will occur as a result of
the roadway being built because of the higher densities at which the households are
developed. Whereas in Scenario 1, when 7,505 acres of the total 10,454 acres are
developed at a density level of 0-1 dwelling units per acre, in Scenario 2, only 4,972
acres of the total 10,775 acres are developed at that density. A similar situation,
although not as extreme, holds true for Scenario 3, when 5,571 acres of the total
11,573 acres are developed at a 0-1 dwelling unit per acre density. The project
itself is forecasted to induce approximately 26% more households and 20% more
jobs within the Potential Growth Impact Area between 2000 and 2020 than would
have occurred had the proposed road not been built.
Table 37. Forecasted Growth. 2000-2020

Scenario 1 - "No Build"
Potential Growth Impact Area
13,690
10,454
20,388
834
Watershed Analysis Area 25,403 23,614 26,662 1,103
P.G.I.A. % of
Watershed Analysis Area
54%
44%
76%
76%
Scenario 2 - Build w/out Dev. Controls
Potential Growth Impact Area
17,356
10,775
24,439
1,001
Watershed Analysis Area 29,069 23,935 30,713 11270
P.G.I.A. % of
Watershed Analysis Area
60%
45%
80%
79%
Induced Growth Increment 3,666 321 4,051 167
Scenario 3 - Build w/ Dev. Controls
Potential Growth Impact Area
17,356
11,573
24,439
1,001
Watershed Analysis Area 29,069 24,733 30,713 1,270
P. G.I.A. % of
Watershed Analysis Area
60%
47%
80%
79%
Induced Growth Increment 3,666, 1,119, 4,051, 167
Note: P.G.I.A. represents the Potential Growth Impact Area
Source: I INT13
36
I Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
- R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
' February 11, 2003
4. Hydrological Analysis
' 4.1 Hydrological Analysis Model
I The methodology used for the hydrological analysis for the Monroe Bypass/Connector
project was based on the Soil Conservation Service report, Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds. This methodology, combined with the computer program, HEC-HMS,
' developed by the US Army Corps of Engineer's, allowed HNTB to hydrologic engineer
to develop mathematical models of the existing and proposed conditions in 2020.
' The study site consisted of six watershed basins within Union County, NC. These
basins are: Lanes, Richardson, Lake Twitty, Crooked, Goose, and Duck (see Figure
10). These watersheds combined totaled a drainage area of approximately 260 square
' miles. The study area is located in the Southern Piedmont physiographic region and the
topography consists of gentle to mild slopes. Soils in this area are silty clays and silt
loams. These soil types have low infiltration rates and generally promote higher runoff
' volumes. Soils of this type predominately belong to Hydrologic Soil Group "C".
With the exception of the City of Monroe, the existing land cover within these six
' basins consists primarily of forest, pasture, and cultivated lands. Residential
development is sparsely scattered throughout these areas.
' Due to the proximity to Mecklenburg County, (and the Charlotte Outer Loop), and the
possible construction of the Monroe Bypass/Connector, this area is expected to change
' from a rural area to an urban area in the near future. This hydrological analysis studies
three proposed conditions:
' Scenario 1: "No Build"
Scenario 2: Build Without Development Controls
' Scenario 3: Build With Development Controls
' The Existing Condition model was also created to establish a baseline in order to
compare the peak discharges and runoff volumes to the three proposed scenarios.
' The 25-year storm event was used as the rainfall event for all the models in this
analysis. This corresponds to a storm event with a 24-hour duration and 6 inches of
rainfall depth.
' 4.2 Estimated Hydrological Effect
' The results of this analysis, separated per basin, are shown in Table 38 below. As this
table indicates, there will be an increase in both the peak discharges and the runoff
volume for all six basins. The percentage increases are dependent primarily on the
37

c
cD
Z
n
v
0
c
o'
c
100- z

M O
M

3
o
»' 2
a
j ?

y.

a

0 0
Ll
11
:
0 r

CD N W 2 -?
CL -I 3
S r
w
w
D o CO ?O
v' 3
D
m
m

*1 M I Lq k 0=1
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
February 11, 2003
increase of impervious areas. The increase of the impervious areas tend to do two
things:

1

1. Decreases runoff infiltration into the soil, thereby increasing the total volume of
runoff draining to the tributaries and streams.
2. Decreases the time in which runoff travels overland, (allowing less time for soil
infiltration), to the tributaries and streams, thereby increasing the peak discharge to
the tributaries and streams.
Increases in peak discharges can be managed by either regional or individual
development detention devices to temporarily store and release discharges at a
controlled rate. In the Lake Twitty basin, Lake Stewart performs a detention function.
The runoff from the Lake Twitty basin flows through various tributaries into Lake
Stewart, where it is temporarily stored and released at a controlled rate into Richardson
Creek, the main tributary through the Richardson basin. Another advantage for the
temporary storage of runoff is that it allows sediment to be removed from stormwater
runoff before it is transported downstream, thereby improving water quality.
Table 38. Monroe Bvnass/Connector Hvdroloeical Analysis. 2000-2020

Existing Conditions .
Total Drainage Area (sq. miles 52 100 32 42 23 11
Percent Impervious Area 2.0 8.7 9.4 11.0 6.9 3.7
Peak Discharge cu. ft./sec 25,602 52,537 17,284 22,831 13,629 5,797
Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 9,094 20,040 5,881 8,091 4,223 1,854
Proposed Conditions - Scenario 1

Percent Impervious Area 5.7 20.4 26.6 37.0 26.1 30.2
Peak Discharge cu. ft./sec) 26,834 61,787 23,534 31,192 19,374 9,189
Percentage Change 4.8 17.6 36.2 36.6 42.2 58.5
Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 9,486 22,327 6,899 10,000 5,129 2,510
Percentage Change 4.3 11.4 17.3 23.6 21.5 35.4
Proposed Conditions - Scenario 2

Percent Impervious Area 6.5 22.4 37.9 44.2 29.2 28.2
Peak Discharge cu. ft./sec 27,005 62,651 26,471 32,604 19,908 9,022
Percentage Change 5.5 19.3 53.2 42.8 46.1 55.6
Runoff Volume ac-11) 9,555 22,647 7,844 10,531 5,250 2,460
Percentage Change 5.1 13.0 33.4 30.2 24.3 32.7
Proposed Conditions - Scenario 3

Percent Impervious Area 6.5 22.4 37.9 47.3 23.2 21.7
Peak Discharge cu. ft./sec 27,005 62,651 26,471 33,146 18,957 8,516
Percentage Change 5.5 19.3 53.2 45.2 39.1 46.9
Runoff Volume ac-ft 9,555 22,647 7,844 10,733 4,985 2,319
Percentage Change 5.1 13,0 33.4 32.7 18.0 25.1
• Peak Discharge and Runoff Volume are for the 25-Year Storm Event.
38
- Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
"oft February 11, 2003
References
Several authoritative references were used as a basis of the methodology used in this
process:
• The Louis Berger Group: "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, Volume 11: Practitioner's Handbook"
prepared for State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation/Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina, November 2001
(Berger);
• ECONorthwest and Portland State University: "A Guidebook for evaluating the
Indirect Land use and Growth Impacts of highway Improvements, Final Report," for
Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon, and Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., March 2001 (ECONorthwest)
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 456: "Guidebook
for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects,"
Transportation Research Board - National Research Council, National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C., 2001.
• Cervero, R. and M. Hansen. 2002 (forthcoming). Induced Travel Demand and
Induced Road Investment: A Simultaneous-Equation Analysis. Journal of Transport
Economics and Policy.
• Cervero, R. 2002 (forthcoming). Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced
Travel: A Path Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association.
' • Gillen, D. 1996. Transportation Infrastructure and Economic Development: A
Review of Recent Literature. Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 32, No. 1,
39-62.
' • Giuliano, G. 1995. Land Use Impacts of Transportation Investments: Highway and
Transit. The Geography of Urban Transportation, ed. by S. Hanson. 2nd Edition,
' Guilford Press: 305-341.
• Grigg, A. and W. Ford. 1983. Review of Some Effects of Major Roads on Urban
' Communities. Transport and Road Research Supplemental Report 778. Washington,
D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
' • Hartgen, D. and D. Curley. 1999. Beltways: Boon, Bane, or Blip? Factors
Influencing Changes in Urbanized Area Traffic, 1990-1997. Charlotte: University of
North Carolina at Charlotte, Center for Interdisciplinary Transportation Studies.
' Transportation Publication Number 190.
1 39
_ Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
R-2559 & R-3329 Monroe Bypass/Connector
Februarv 11, 2003
• Hartgen, D. and J. Kim. 1998. Commercial Development at Rural and Small-Town
Interstate Exits. Transportation Research Record 1649, 95-104.
• Landis, J., S. Guhathakurta, and M. Zhang. 1994. Capitalization of Transit
Investments into Single-Family Home Prices: A Comparative Analysis of Five
California Rail Transit Systems. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional
Development. Working Paper 619.
• Ryan, S. 1999. Property Values and Transportation Facilities: Finding the
Transportation and Land Use Connection. Journal of Planning Literature, 13(4), 412-
440.
• Urban Transportation Center. 1999. Highways and Urban Decentralization.
Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, Urban Transportation Center. Research
Report.
40
?I

I

APPENDIX A:
LOCAL AREA RESIDENTIAL

1

GROWTH TABLES

Table 3. Population in Households Growth, 1990-2000
rotenum urowtn imp acz t+rea
AM, 66
lriilf3#t?kF3rau s
?
1 Aria'b Lt#ft4?t.
. ftxth,.......... 4pot
nn
77?? 2000 *A
CT 201/portion of BG CT
1,2,3 201/portion 1,514 2,035 521 34.4%
CT 202/BG 3,6,7 & CT
portion of BG 1,2,4,5 202.01/BG 3 6,527 9,305 2,778 42.6%
CT 203.02/BG 1 & portion CT
of BG 2 20102/BG 1 1,992 5,234 3,242 162.8%
CT 203.01/BG 1-5 & CT
portion of BG 8 203.03/BG 1- 6,652 11,741 5,089 76.5%
CT 204/BG 5 & portion of CT 204.01/1
BG 6 & ortion of 2 3,366 3,906 , 540 16.0%
CT 206/BG 1 & portion of CT 206/13G 1
BG 5 & portion of 2,048 3,438 1,390 67.9%
CT 207/BG 1-3 & portion CT 207/BG 1-
of BG 4 3 & portion of 5,280 6,757 1,477 28.0%
CT 208/13G 1-4 & portion CT 208/13G 1-
of BG 5 4 & portion of 4,395 4,830 435 9.9%
por ion o 115 162 47 40.9%
4. .1:%>
.
Source: US Census Bureau
Does not include group quarters (i.e. correctional facilities, military barracks)
Table 4. Population in Households Growth, 1990-2000
Watersnea Analysis Area
>::>3AEitiiAkgi
CT 201 CT 201 3,819 4,911 1,092 28.6%
CT 202.01 &
CT 202 CT 202.02 8,199 11,212 3,013 36.7%
CT
203.02/BG 1
&
CT 203.02/BG 1 & portion portion of BG
of BG 2,3 2,3 2,205 51947 3,742 169.7%
CT
203.03/BG 1-
4&CT
203.04/BG 1
CT 203.01/BG 1-5 & & portion of
portion of BG 8 BG 4 6,592 13,088 6,496 98.5%
CT 204.01 &
CT 204 CT 204.02 9,376 13,608 4,232 45.1%
CT 205 CT 205 41757 7,032 2,275 47.8%
CT 206 CT 206 7,134 9,359 2,225 31.2%
CT 207 CT 207 4,311 6,855 2,544 59.0%
CT 208 CT 208 4,384 4,911 527 12.0%
CT
CT 209/ portion of BG 1-5 209.01/ ortio 4,090 5,018 928 22.7%
CT
CT 210/portion of 1,7 & 210.03/porlio
50% of BG 8 n of 1,3
- 1,486 1,521 35 2.4%
77
9803/portion
CT 9803/portion of BG 1 of BG 1 556 632 76 13,7%
> Mail:
......... ......... ....:
Source US Census Bureau
Does riot include group quarters (i e. correctional facilities, military barracks)

Table 5. Population Growth & Share, 1990-2000
Source: US Census Bureau & HNTB
Does not include group quarters (i.e. correctional facilities, military barracks)
Table 6. Population Growth & Share, 1990-2000
union count ar watersnea Anat sis Area
Watershed Analysis Area 56,909 84,094 27,185 47.8%

Union County 82,633 122,011 39,378 47.7%
Watershed na ysls rea 68.9% 68.9% 69.0% N/A
Source: US Census Bureau & HNTB
Does not include group quarters (i.e. correctional facilities, military barracks)
Table 7. Population Forecast & Share, 2000-2010
union count a votenttal tirowtn tm act Area
}fjl. .. WftlM}M ... .
Potential Growth Impact
Area 47,407 64,562 17,155 36.2%
Union County 122,011 165,079 43,068 35.3%
Potential row mpac 38.9% 39.1% 39.8% N/A
Source: US Census Bureau & HNTB
Does not include group quarters (i.e. correctional facilities, military barracks)
Table 8. Population Forecast & Share, 2000.2010
union count a watersnea Anal sis Area
Watershed Analysis Area 84,094 113,872 29,778 35.4%
Union County 122,011 165,079 43,068 35.3%
Watershed Analysis Area 68.9% 69.0% 69.1% N/A
Source. US Census Bureau & HNTB
Does not include group quarters (i.e. correctional facilities, military barracks)

Table 9. Population in Households, Trend & Forecast
union Gount a rotentiai urowin Im act Area, laou-Lulu
Ate

.. .. .

1'80 .
:
.;:.. :.
neon
County 68,946 82,633 122,011 165,079 210,954
Potential Growth
Im act Area
26,427 "
31,890
47,407
64,562
83,053
o en is Rrow impact
Area Share of County
38.33%
38.59%
38.85%
39.11%
39.37%
'Estimate based on Dercent ch ance of impact are a share of county
between 1990 and 2000.
Source: US Census Bureau, NC Office of State Planning, HNTB
Table 10. Population in Households, Trend & Forecast
Union Count & Watershed Anal sis Area, 1980-2020
rsa "" S
5 if
.:
union
County 68,946 82,633 122,011 165,079 210,954
Watershed Analysis
Area 47,449 56,909 84,094 113,872 145,643
Watershed Analysis
Area Share Of County 68,82% 68.87% 68.92% 68.98% 69.04%
"Estimate based on percent change of impact area share of county
between 1990 and 2000.
Source: US Census Bureau, NC Office of State Planning, HNTB
Table 11. Population Forecast & Share, 2010-2020
union noun a rotennai urowm rm act Area
Impact Area
64,562 83,053

165,079 210,954

39.1% 39.4%

18,491 28.6%

45,875 27.8%

40.3% N/A

Union
Count
o en is row mpac
Area Share Of County
Source: US Census Bureau &
Does not include group quarters (i.e. correctional facilities, military barracks)
Table 12. Population Forecast & Share, 2010-2020
Union Count & Watershed Anal sis Area
Union
Count
Watershed Analysis
Area Share Of County
Snurre HR rnnsuc Rur-j P.
113,872 145,643

165,079 210,954

69.0% 69.0%

31,771 27.9%
45,875 27.8%
69.3% N/A
Does not include group quarters (i e. correctional facilities, military barracks)

Table 13. Household Growth & Share, 2000-2010
union count & Votentlal urowtn Im act Area
............
. ;{Otf54ttt
............. .. sas: ------ ...... ..
Impact Area 18,207 24,795 6,588 36.2%
Union
Count 52,594 71,159 18,565 35.3%
o en la row mpac
Area Share Of County 34.6% 34.8% 35.5% N/A
Watershed Analvsis
Area 34,709 46,999 12,290 35.4%
Union
Count 52,594 71,159 18,565 35.3%
a ers shed Analysis
Area Share Of County 66.0% 66.0% 66.2% N/A
Source: US Census Bureau, NC Office of State Planning, & HNTB
Table 15. Household Growth & Share, 2010-2020
union amount & rocenval urowm rm aci Area
:>:> 3Eeitf iNliA1 <.......€> ...... fF tit
Impact Area 24,795 31,897 7,102 28.6%
Union
Count 71,159 90,934 19,775 27.8%
Potential row impact
Area Share Of County 34.8% 35.1% 35.9% N/A
Source: US Census Bureau, NC Office of State Planning, & HNTB
Table 16. Household Growth & Share, 2010-2020
Source: US Census Bureau, NC Office of Slate Planning, & HNTB
APPENDIX B:
I LOCAL AREA COMMERCIAL
GROWTH TABLES
Table 17. Employment By Industry, 1990-2000
Union Countv

1

Employment Growth
Industry 1990 2000 # %
Agriculture 527 1,251 724 137.4%
Mining N/A N/A N/A N/A
Construction 4,119 7,206 3,087 74.9%
Manufacturing 14,015 12,681 -1,334 -9.5%
Transportation 856 1,247 391 45.7%
Wholesale Trade 1,435 2,641 1,206 84.0%
Retail Trade 5,353 7,332 1,979 37.0%
FIRE 968 764 -204 -21.1%
Services 3,058 5,574 2,516 82.3%
Government 4,300 6,226 1,926 44.8%
Total: 34,631 44,922 10,291 29.7%
Source: North Carolina Employment Securty commission
Note: Mining data not disclosed.
Table 18. Forecasted Employment By Industry, 2000-2010
Union Countv
Employment Growth
Industry 2000 2010 # %
Agriculture 1,251 2,361 1,110 88.7%
Mining N/A N/A N/A N/A
Construction 7,206 11,940 4,734 65.7%
Manufacturing 12,681 10,635 -2,046 -16.1%
Transportation 1,247 1,847 600 48.1%
Wholesale Trade 2,641 4,490 1,849 70.0%
Retail Trade 7,332 10,367 3,035 41.4%
FIRE 764 451 -313 -40.9%
Services 5,574 9,432 3,858 69.2%
Government 6,226 9,179 2,953 47.4%
Total: 44,922 60,702 15,780 35.1%
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission, HNTB
Note: Mining data not disclosed.
Table 19. Forecasted Employment By Industry, 2010-2020
Union Countv
Employment Growth
Industry ' 2010 2020 # %
Agriculture 2,361 4,457 1,183 50.1%
Mining N/A N/A N/A N/A
Construction 11,940 19,783 5,042 42.2%
Manufacturing 10,635 8,920 -2,179 -20.5%
Transportation 1,847 2,734 639 34.6%
Wholesale Trade 4,490 7,634 1,970 43.9%
Retail Trade 10,367 14,657 3,232 31.2%
FIRE 451 266 -333 -73.8%
Services 9,432 15,960 4,109 43.6%
Government 9,179 13,534 3,146 34.3%
Total:' 60,702 77,511 16,809 2
' Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission, HNTB
Note: Mining data not disclosed.

Table 20. Forecasted Jobs By Major Industry, 2000-2010
Union Countv
Forecasted Employees Added
Industry Growth Retail Office Industrial
Agriculture 1,110 0 0 666
Mining N/A N/A N/A N/A
Construction 4,734 0 2,840 1,893
Manufacturing -2,046 0 -205 -1,841
Transportation 600 0 150 450
Wholesale Trade 1,849 555 555 740
Retail Trade 3,035 2,428 607 0
FIRE -313 0 -313 0
Services 3,858 2,894 965 0
Government 2,953 148 1,920 738
Total: 15,780 6,024 6,519 2,646
' Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission, HNTB
Note: Mining data not disclosed.
Table 21. Forecasted Jobs By Major Industry, 2010-2020
Union Countv

Forecasted Employees Added
Industry Growth Retail Office Industrial
Agriculture 1,183 0 0 710
Mining N/A N/A N/A N/A
Construction 5,042 0 3,025 2,017
Manufacturing -2,179 0 -218 -1,961
Transportation 639 0 160 479
Wholesale Trade 1,970 591 591 788
Retail Trade 3,232 2,586 646 0
FIRE -333 0 -333 0
Services 4,109 3,082 1,027 0
Government 3,146 157 2,045 786
Total* 16,809 -6,416 6,943 2,819
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission, HN I tt
Note: Mining data not disclosed.

Table 22. Employment Growth Forecast
Union Countv
Industry 2000.2010
Sector Jobs Sqft Acres
Retail
Office
Industrial 6,024
6,519
2,646 3,011,819
1,629,635
1,984,693 69
37
46
Total: 15,188 6,626,147 152
Source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 500 sqft per retail job,
250 sqft per office job, and 750 sqft per
industrial job.
Table 23. Employment Growth Forecast
Union Countv
Industry 2010-2020
Sector Jobs Sgft Acres
Retail
Office
Industrial 6,416
6,943
2,819 3,208,104
1,735,841
2,114,039 74
40
49
Total: 16,178 7,057,984 162
Source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 500 sqft per retail job,
250 sqft per office job, and 750 sqft per
industrial job.
Table 24. Employment Growth Forecast
Potential Growth Impact Area
Industry 2000-2010
Sector Jobs Sgft Acres
Retail
Office
Industrial 3,915
4,237
1,720 1,957,682
1,059,263
1,290,050 45
24
30
Total: 9,872 4,306,996 99
Source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 500 sqft per retail job, 250 sqft
per office job, and 750 sgft per industrial job
Table 25. Employment Growth Forecast
Watershed Analvsis Area
Industry 2000-2010
Sector Jobs Sqft Acres
Retail
Office
Industrial 5,454
5,902
2,396 2,726,888
1,475,465
1,796,933 63
34
41
Total: 13,7521 '5,999,2871 138
Source: HN I B
Note: An estimated 500 sgft per retail job, 250 sgft
per office job, and 750 sgft per industrial job.
Table 26. Employment Growth Forecast
Potential Growth Impact Area
Industry 2010.2020
Sector Jobs Sqft Acres
Retail
Office
Industrial 4,171
4,513
1,832 2,085,268
1,128,297
1,374,125 48
26
32
'Cotal: 10,516 14, 87;690 , 105
Source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 500 sgft per retail job, 250 sqft
per office job, and 750 sqft per industrial job
Table 27. Employment Growth Forecast
Watershed Analvsis Area
Industry 2010-2020
Sector Jobs Sgft Acres
Retail
Office
Industrial 3,328
3,601
1,462 1,664,030
900,374
1,096,543 38
21
25
Total: 8,392 ` 3,660,946 64
Source: HN I B
Note: An estimated 500 sgft per retail job, 250 sqft
per office job, and 750 sqft per industrial job.
APPENDIX C:
' HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS
? STATISTICS AND TABLES

c4 ?
C V
m •O
U o
a` o z
N Z d
t
CL O
m O
Q? L)
0 O E
c ,_ E
2 ? cn
U N U) O Nr N N (D I ? O
V
3 r- (h O
? 00 O
co CO
- CO
U-) (o (0
co co
N O
C (o
(o IT
N N
co •
N Lo
C (D
cP CO
N Lo
N
O (o ?- 0 N

a)
U)

O

0) N

co

r

r-

N

N

(o

N 00

O C)

o

co

N

(Ln

O

-

LO

co

O
O N
0 N (D M CV rn
N O
O (6
IT N V
N M
N
00 O
M O) 00
?-
C N O V N j a

O
O
r r
CM
cc
O
O
O N
O
(D
(D O
O
O
(D
M
N
V' d
O
O
CO
N
Cl)
T
N
O
M
ti
' (D
ct
`-
N
LO co
M
~
f`
N
O N
N C M
CO M O N V CO V O co d M V O M
U L

3 000 co (D co N 0) co O W N V O ti
" N d
N N 00 (D (D 00 I? r- V co co co r-- :I co co m
CO 0 ? 0 (V CO M ( . M N (o M M N (o r M

J
C
O
N

O
M
(o
It
O
V
O
00
fl
(D
r
N
cyM
IT
;T
N r

0
M
0 I?
?
0
O
M
V
N .

0
M
rn ti

0
O
cM
00 CN O N
(D r- N
N N N
(D r N
N N N
(D ?- N
N
V (o N

d N O C) rn ? mqt 00 000 M ? U')
00 (0 ? . LO 00 (o ? a-
m 0 Cy (f) O cc 't V (D to 0 Lo (D (0 0 L6
J N O (D O N O N O
N M

Z Z Z
in O O O

O (a
O m
N m
d

u CU (n d
(? m
N t`
n
N
cm
a)
0) O
V
N m
a)
Q
a)
c
a)
c
U m
N
Q ?

$ O

c N

c
°'
m

Q)

j

U

N

p

j
U

m
L

U

m
L

N

7
U

m
L

i
U

m
L

N

N
:3

U
M

L

U

M
L
C Q :D
O U (? C p U S U >
p U (? U O D U
O m Z Q) O O
:_ O O O O = Z O O O O = i O N p N
m a a r ° cu c ° m m
a) c ° Co
c
a)
E o o U o c ) a o E U m o )
a o E

- U
N )
a \o a
)
0
U m
p -
c
0 >
t U
- -
C
: ` > ` U
'O Y
c
? L
a) > L
a) U
c
0 L
a) / L
O
C) ,G r
O p
d U 1 p
a O a)
a 0) U Y a. O a 0 U .X C- O a_
C m

O C)

a) m

a)
C
0
N
O
?
a)
m
a) - C

:3 (n

O ?

O m

(D C

D N

0 ?

a) m

a) c

=3
? a na al a s x ? a a o x

w o`.
N
Z_
Q
col U)
X
m
E
Cl)
U
a) O
o?
a`. _
N cN0
a a
m mC,
a) a) c
D o c
`c c c
o O
? ? c

H
6i
CQ
1 ?
O
' C
Q?

X
w
d
O
L
C
O

V

v
O
L
I ;L.

V
W
1

c
0
C_ U
(u

I

1

N
to
A
is
c
V
0)
O
L
V
.O
n.
to
rn
ca
Q
m
O
L
c
O
m
w
c
m
R

C V!
d ? O
` O N ?- N •- r `- N
d
o. W
m
E
m
N
Z
o cD (D (D U-) M oo (D t-
.
U F- r- ti r- r- ti t` r-
E
O
U
V
m
CD o CD LO o 0 LO o
> M ? ?t N N M M ?t
7
U
m
m CD 0 o o LO CD U') 0
y M M M M ? N V V'
d a
ea
rc

.
m
CD co o o CD Lo CD o
CL a

m
0
o C

U ?
m
o
0
CD
0
CD
LO
0
o
c D
co
J ?
?
a
C
4) C, LO LO C) LO LO LO LO

U)

a?
` O
M Lo
N LO
N LO
M O
CD LO
N U') Lo
?-
O
LL

L
Q
d OO M .- M Lo M N
CO aO (D O M CD d LO
C ?

C
c) LO (D fl- co
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0

.a
3

Z O rn d V N
U ti r` rn rn r` ?
W
CL
es
F
- _ _
a "
c (0

N
>
0
O in c to >
U o a " - m
0 =3
u. 0? :D S a U
X
C
N
X
W
O
a
ti =
V) (n
co m
a Q M
m m O
O O N
C C N
O 0-
2 2 N

- C
n 'v
V t
t
_i u
co
?f
Lq
O LO
O LO
O
CD
NO CN
O
d' LO
co

M

N

O
Q O co CO O r O N O D O N ( r M r
N

U.)
O
LO
O
'd
LO
O
p
NO
CN
O O
lLO
M
N
M
T
Q O M M O O
O N C C) Cy r r r
O N

<D
d
?
O
p
O
cf
O
p
0
0
O O
N
N
Q1
Q

O

M ?v
j O e- O
O

?
N G O
O

N M ?
O N Fl

LA
Q q.

O LO

co 0

M 0

O

r O

O C)

V) U

C N

D O

O cM

M Lo

"
c:
O
r
N
N
r
O O N O M

V) O p
Lo d: O p to O
C M N N r m
Q O M CO 0 r O

O lQ

N p

O ?

O co
?
r
M
r
O M
1
I M
d
0
0
d
O
p
w
N
O
co
O
O
Os
h
Q O M O O N O p p M ?j O N r
N

C, lf) LO
CD O
CD
w

CD N
0

'
00 O
CD

C>

00
O co M O
O
N O O ?
O N L M
O N

LO
C
, LO
C, O
C) N
00 LO
N
N
m
Q O co M 9 r O LO
N O p
C)
C/ NN
L
a?
a?
L
y
C ?
d C ?

E aci .c
U n
a ?o

O .
E U m F

H d N C O

y
L co tf
C 2 y
N L ?
++ 7) O q-- Un
~ 3
WO 3?
S n
O ? N C O
L
a+ a)
f4 ?- J

? cu
w C
>
.
C >. 00 c6
cn O N E J
L L
3 ?
O c
c
as ca
L ? L
N N
Y O 41
z
N
a)
U)
W
C C ?

U
.
C

U) C
m cn
-o ca
a C
C
s 0
o
U a)
LL
L) U
C)-
C (n M
V 0
O
Cn J D D)- .
C C C
p O L L D1
-i E U U =
s
c
O `
??. L
C ai
E
U
c j=
O
U
O J
C
(D
E cn
co
F= m
V
N
3 d, co M
N N M
a3 41
U) a
w?
a
LO r
46
? L
C
C 'gyp o U') O
IC ? r r N
L
U
a?
O O
C
10
V p
0
(n
X
m
C
N
X
W
L) ? o
N cn
m cu
a CL
m00o
a) m O
O O
N
N
C C
0 O
N

HMS * Summary of Results
Project MonroeEX Run Name : Run 1
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Lanes
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Lanes
Execution Time 12Feb03 1036 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-2 4693.0 24 Sep 02 0145 1583.2 8.800
Reach-2 4655.0 24 Sep 02 0215 1545.0 8.800
Subbasin-1 3812.8 24 Sep 02 0200 1337.7 7.400
Reach-1 3789.3 24 Sep 02 0215 1303.8 7.400
Subbasin-3 4618.9 24 Sep 02 0145 1497.1 8.300
Junction-1 8097.8 24 Sep 02 0200 2800.9 15.700
Reach-3 8053.0 24 Sep 02 0215 2753.9 15.700
Subbasin-4 3076.1 24 Sep 02 0200 1081.1 6.100
Subbasin-5 4027.4 24 Sep 02 0115 1048.7 6.100
Junction-2 18171 24 Sep 02 0200 6428.8 36.700
Reach-4 18122 24 Sep 02 0200 6419.2 36.700
Subbasin-6 2129.2 24 Sep 02 0200 757.12 3.800
Junction-3 20251 24 Sep 02 0200 7176.3 40.500
Reach-5 20056 24 Sep 02 0215 7124.1 40.500
Subbasin-7 3331.2 24 Sep 02 0200 1166.4 6.500
Junction-4 23353 24 Sep 02 0200 8290.5 47.000
Reach-6 23286 24 Sep 02 0215 8251.6 47.000
Subbasin-8 2409.2 24 Sep 02 0200 842.11 4.600
Junction-5 25602 24 Sep 02 0215 9093.7 51.600

jr
N
C
V
O
O
L
.a
U
O
.O
L
a
N
N
c?
Q
A
m
d
O
L
c
O
n
OI
II
c
O
U
C
.N
cv
co
d
c
J
A
W
+. Q
C N
O
` O
N
N
r O
M C)
N
d

Q.
E
d
N
a Z
(D
(D
CD
U'J
CO
CD
t-
t- t- r- r-- t` oo oo r
-EL)
O
U

r
> o CD CD Un CD o LO CD
M V' d' N N N N d'
7
U

o o CD CD Un (D o o
N M M M M ? ?- M d'
m a
?a
C
2°

U) o 0 0 0 0 ° ° o

C
L
a?
0
o C

U m
D
o
o
o
o
o
Ln
U-)
o
c
ca M
J ?
r
C
4) 0
Lc)
Lo
O
Lr)
N LO LO
0
U)
d

M N N M CD
LL
ca
i
Q
m 2 M M M Ln CD N
? Q. ti 00 M CO (D M CD V' ?
c y

O

c
Q
m Q Q Q Q Q Q 0

N
Z o rn v ? v N
V rn rn P- co
m
a

m a
c n

O
to
°
p
(C

N M
U m U) -0 N .J
o N L m 7
LL a. U
X
0
c
Q)
U
U)
U
0 0
ti 2
cn u)
u) (n
m m
0? CL
mm M
0
0 0
0 0
2 2 N
Ii
V
C
'v
R
X
l
Yj
co d' ?0 0 0 O p O NO O ' 0~O M N O
Q O M M O r O N O D O N O r M T-
N

ti
N
0
0
0
00
O
CD
O
CD,
O
0
'It O
00
M
CO
fG
Q O M M O O O
C) O
N p 0
O N r r N ?-
O N

to
N
O
p
O
00
O
p
O
O
V O
N
N
O
O
Q O M " O O O N O 6 C N ( r N r
N

O
tt
0
0
o O
0 O
O CD
p
O N
p N
O
M O
O
N
Q O M n O r CD N O (D co M O N r
O

?t
O
O
O
O p
O
O
co O
N
N
r
Q1
Q O M M O r O N O O M r M T-
M

M
0
0
0
O
p
O
NO
O
M O
CD
C11
07
ti
Q O M M o r OO N O O O M O O N r
N

N

-

O

O
O
O

It
U7
O
O
ID

O
N
O
N
O
O

co O
O
O

O

co
Q O M M O T- 0
p 0
N O O
CD N O " M r
N

r-
V
Uo
O
O to
O O
O O
CD
O
D N
O
CD
00 `o
eN--
N
Q1
Q O M M p r O
O O
N C; Ci
O CV r M r
O N
L
a
d
L

N C ?
d C v

E 0s
` U d

CL (u o
y o .
E
a?

d)
N C p
U)
O
y L
v
C
C?
N L

L
i+ O U)
~ 3 ? rnai
O O
N

m
L >
cn O N LL J
L L
3 a)
° c
3 -

Ri V a) V

++ z
Q)
3 a)
O ?
c

? c
c
?
R c
?
L

N C
O o

U) n
U)v m
D
O
C
r
U '0 m L
U
F
m
n 0)
c L N
?U
3 0
a) rn ._ 0
O U) J C .C C L
C C C ? ?
O L T
L
?
L
(nJLL m
a)
012 UT-
0 `
? L
C aj
E
U
C
o
U A
O J
O C
E m
F= m
U_
N _
7 3 "t co co
L N N CO
++ cl O '-
W P ?IttLO
(6 Ct
io C O
O
0)
U
c
o m
o A ?
C `
Y R Q
C ?
O
O
m
a)
m
a)
N
fn
N
7
m
O O O
- .-- N
O O
LO N
V O O
r
U
7
m
'D
T
a)
L
a)
O
Z
x
0
m
C
a)
U
U)
U
a) o
-a
a`i
cn (n
m m
0- 0-
m m M
0
a) O p
O O N
C C N
O 0-
2i 2 N

HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Scenariol Run Name : Run 2
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Lanes - P1
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Lanes
Execution Time 12Feb03 1105 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-2 4693.0 24 Sep 02 0145 1583.2 8.800
Reach-2 4655.0 24 Sep 02 0215 1545.0 8.800
Subbasin-1 3812.8 24 Sep 02 0200 1337.7 7.400
Reach-1 3789.3 24 Sep 02 0215 1303.8 7.400
Subbasin-3 4618.9 24 Sep 02 0145 1497.1 8.300
Junction-1 8097.8 24 Sep 02 0200 2800.9 15.700
Reach-3 8053.0 24 Sep 02 0215 2753.9 15.700
Subbasin-4 3076.1 24 Sep 02 0200 1081.1 6.100
Subbasin-5 4027.4 24 Sep 02 0115 1048.7 6.100
Junction-2 18171 24 Sep 02 0200 6428.8 36.700
Reach-4 18122 24 Sep 02 0200 6419.2 36.700
Subbasin-6 2895.7 24 Sep 02 0130 896.03 3.800
Junction-3 20620 24 Sep 02 0200 7315.2 40.500
Reach-5 20497 24 Sep 02 0200 7264.0 40.500
Subbasin-7 4440.0 24 Sep 02 0130 1417.3 6.500
Junction-4 24566 24 Sep 02 0200 8681.3 47.000
Reach-6 24425 24 Sep 02 0200 8643.4 47.000
Subbasin-8 2409.2 24 Sep 02 0200 842.11 4.600
Junction-5 26834 24 Sep 02 0200 9485.5 51.600

n

n

0
N
is
C
V
.0)
O
O
L
.a
U
a?
.O
L
a
N
N
ca
C.
co
m
O
L
c
O
2
N
O
Z
O
C
O
U
L
'u
n
u
d
m
i
a.+ Q
C 0
d 7
` O
N
r'
N V
M M
N to
(D
Z
CL
CL
E
d

a Z (O (p (D In M M I-

E
O
U

ar
m o o o LO o LO o o

7
U

W O CD CD o LO o o CD
N M M M M - r- M ,t
d a
c
CD
0 0 0 0 0 O N O
M
a.
-
d
>
o c
C, L,) CD
c ?
ca
J ?
C
(1) O U> LO
0
L,)
N
t!7
. C
N
d

N
L.
o
(`7
it)
N
LO
N
LO
M
C)
(O
?
-
U7
-
(n
r-
O
LL
R
a?
`
a
d ct 00 M r ?- 00 In (O N
M I- M M (D M M (D
C N

0
C
V1 N M 'V' LO (O r` CD a?+
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0

7
V7
Z o rn v ? It N
U ti ti rn rn ti o0
m
C.

?
G> C
O f0
? ?

O Y
N
-0
C Y
V)
Y ?
>
U
0 0 U co
U
X
N
0
O
U
+ U)
U
O O
a 2
in in
a- a
co >1 >1
m M
O
0 0 cli
C C N
O O r
? N

f!1
C
.y
td
.G
7
#I
c
ca
J

00
'IT
L
0

CD
0 l!')
O O
C3
LO N

O N

O

Nr I`

co

M

N

01
Q O M O r OO N O C, o N C r M r
N

h
N
?
0

O LO
0
10 to
O O
p
1o N
O N
O
d' O
M
to

tD
Q O M M C O O N 1 O O N
r N
r
N

w
N
V)
0 L
0
O
O CD
p
in
NO N
O
O
"T O
N
N
to
N
Q O cM M 0
O O O
O LO
N O 6
O N M r N r
N

LO
0
O LO
0
!r LO
O CD
p
lt7 N
O N
O
M O
In
r
r
N
Q O co M O r O N O Ci O M M O N r

t
In
0 LO
0 LO
O C)
p
NO N
O
M p
N
N

1
r
1

I
O
l
Q O M M O O r O
O LO

N O D

O co r m
r
co

M
d'
Lq
0 LO
0 N
O p
CD
ILq N
O N
O
cM O
p
O
O
ti
Q O M O r O N O O M N O N r
N

N
qt
LO
0 l[)
0
of LO
O CD
CD
U) N
O N
O
co O
p
r
a
CO
Q O M M O r O N O 0 O N r C) r
N

r
d'
0 to
0 tn
C) p
p
to
NO N
O
co LO
N
r
T
Q O M o r O N O (, O N 00 r M r
N
L
m
.a'c 3
V o
L/1 C +' Rf
O C :.. L

E a)
N •U
m jF= a)
O
a. a) 0 u
E N
o
a) 4
rn .C p _ m
N L
y C M C
>
m L
0)
=3 0 U) al

C
3 _
:ff (Ii
? v
O n.
d N C O
rn
¦- J O
m m
a) a) 3 a A
L >>._om L
cn O N LL J VJ
L L
3 d
o c
c
ms cu
L ? L
N. a)

z
a?
a)
_ Cn
m
c
c tf

L N
O U
C
)
_
7
3
? C
U) o o ca
3
L
O U (d
) Ctf U
a
O U O
-
_
U) J Q)
•
C .C C 0
O
O C C C IT
L
C

J E
N L O
a
j
U 2i U= J
L
CF
O
? L
C y
E
U
c p
O
U
O J
? C
E
m
y
•U
> > CO M
t0
R N N M
?' ? r
w N 't lf)
N C y
is c '?p_
'0 >
? L
c U
o m
O IC d
C `
C
O
N
m
a)
cn
'O
a)
N
N
7
.O
?o
IO In O
r r N
O O
r N
V U') O
r
U
m
'd
a)
(1)
6
z
(n
X
N
O
m
C
Q)
U
CO
U O
a)
O ?
d 2
to In
cn U)
a n
CO co co
a) a) O
O O N
C C N
O O
N
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
HMS * Su nmary of Results
Project : Scenario2 Run Name : Run 2
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Lanes - P2
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Lanes
Execution Time 12Feb03 1114 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-2 4693.0 24 Sep 02 0145 1583.2 8.800
Reach-2 4655.0 24 Sep 02 0215 1545.0 8.800
Subbasin-1 3812.8 24 Sep 02 0200 1337.7 7.400
Reach-1 3789.3 24 Sep 02 0215 1303.8 7.400
Subbasin-3 4618.9 24 Sep 02 0145 1497.1 8.300
Junction-1 8097.8 24 Sep 02 0200 2800.9 15.700
Reach-3 8053.0 24 Sep 02 0215 2753.9 15.700
Subbasin-4 3076.1 24 Sep 02 0200 1081.1 6.100
Subbasin-5 4027.4 24 Sep 02 0115 1048.7 6.100
Junction-2 18171 24 Sep 02 0200 6428.8 36.700
Reach-4 18122 24 Sep 02 0200 6419.2 36.700
Subbasin-6 2969.2 24 Sep 02 0130 922.80 3.800
Junction-3 20678 24 Sep 02 0200 7342.0 40.500
Reach-5 20559 24 Sep 02 0200 7290.9 40.500
Subbasin-7 4561.6 24 Sep 02 0130 1459.8 6.500
Junction-4 24730 24 Sep 02 0200 8750.7 47.000
Reach-6 24595 24 Sep 02 0200 8712.6 47.000
Subbasin-8 2409.2 24 Sep 02 0200 842.11 4.600
Junction-5 27005 24 Sep 02 0200 9554.7 51.600

T
N
_A
C
Q
cd
V
7m
O
O
L
A
V
d
.O
L
a
N
N
C.
./?
?A
W
O
O
L
C
O
2
M
O
Z
O
•L
t4
C
d
V
C
O

co

C N
d
` O
N
r
N
M LO
N

a
a
E
a?
N
(D
(D
(D
t)

M

M

?

ti
CL
EL)
EU
r-
r-
ao
0o
r--
O
U
'o
d
0
o
o
o
LO
CD
LO
o
o
>
3
U
m
w o CD CD CD LO CD CD o
N M M M CM M V
N
(D ?
a.
c

0 0 0 0 0 O N C)
d M
a 'a
` C
0
O C
U a CD CD o CD o ° Ln CD
C M

J ?
C
.? C) LO LO C) In N Uf) U7
.
y
d

N
O
M
LO
N
U')
N
LO
M
O
CD
LO
.
U')
U')
.-
O
LL
t0
d
Q
0 CO CO W LO M N
r-- w w (D (D M (D d' LO
C ?

0

C
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q 0

3

Z o rn v ? v N
U t` r? rn rn r? ao

Q

~ (U
L C
N (U
> .
N C
) (D
>
O
o
tL w
Ct?
:D
?
Q
U
X
M
O
C
a)
U
U)
U
O O
o?
T
Q 2
U) (n U)
co cv
Q a
m m
Mo
0 0
C N
C
O O
2 2 N
C
0)
U
V)
C
O
= V
b?
C V
O R
Ur
C
O U,
O
n.

co
Iq
«)
0 LO
C)
Cr LO
O O
p
Lo N
O N
O
It m
co

M

N

O
Q O M m o r pO N O O O N
N

N
LA
0
O LO
0
Co
O
p O
C)
L,? N
0 N
C)
O O
M
CD
w
Q OD M M p O
O LO
N J O
O N N
O N

O
N
Ln
0 LO
0
00 LO
O C)
p
W N
O N
O
V' LO
N
N
LA
LA
Q O M C) O O pO (N
LO O Co P N r' N r
N

1n
L(?
0 ?
0
d: "0
O p
p N
O N
O
m O
LO
r
r
N
Q O m o r O N O C; O cli o O N V-
c

Lo
0
0
d;
O O
O
LA N
O N
O
co
N
N
r
O
Q O M C, O r OO N Co O M r M r
co

M
v-
Lo
0
0 LO
O O
p
Ln N
C) N
O
C)
M O
O
m
la!
t`
Q O M M O r O N O M O N r
N

N
It
Lt)
O
CD
C)
U') LO
O O
p
UD N
O N
O
00 O
O
r
O
co
Q O M O r O N O Q O N V)
N

r
d'
L(j
O Ln
O L,)
O O
p
N N
O N
O
00 N
.-
N
r
O
Q O M C) 9
O r O
O L!7
N O p 9
O C-4
00 r M r
N
L
a
m
z

y c ?-
y -m
E ac) s
? U d

a. ro o
O O .
E
m `? C p
r u co cr-:
m rn c
t
Q1 0
~

p
a
C'? a
0 rn
'o N C:
O
_
CL) y (p N J -0
CU
z O T 0 c
> _
U) O N U- J
t L
3 a?
3 o c
c

ca v o v

3
N
?

LL N
C
C C f

ca
L
aim
b
? (n ? ? 0 ? 'D (C6
0

U O
N (9 L
? U
a m
o c LL. m
0
b
U) y
)- -
C
C
J
O
-0
O '
C
C C C ` )

J E = t N
U U= J
.L
O
?v s
c m
u E
F-
C O
U ?
0 J
O
d C
E
?- m
U
= N
` D d 00 M
O N N M
y Qq. Ln --
W ? '`f LO
d L
C
c ?p O LO O
m + • N
t S
U
0
tm p
ce
C ` Lt) N
LC Q V O
N
X
0
.7
c
m
U
U)
U O
N
O T
d. 2
(n (n
ca- Cl.
m m MO
Lv 0 Cl
O O N
C C N
O O
N

HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Scenario3 Run Name : Run 1
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Lanes - P3
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Lanes
Execution Time 12Feb03 1122 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-2 4693.0 24 Sep 02 0145 1583.2 8.800
Reach-2 4655.0 24 Sep 02 0215 1545.0 8.800
Subbasin-1 3812.8 24 Sep 02 0200 1337.7 7.400
Reach-1 3789.3 24 Sep 02 0215 1303.8 7.400
Subbasin-3 4618.9 24 Sep 02 0145 1497.1 8.300
Junction-1 8097.8 24 Sep 02 0200 2800.9 15.700
Reach-3 8053.0 24 Sep 02 0215 2753.9 15.700
Subbasin-4 3076.1 24 Sep 02 0200 1081.1 6.100
Subbasin-5 4027.4 24 Sep 02 0115 1048.7 6.100
Junction-2 18171 24 Sep 02 0200 6428.8 36.700
Reach-4 18122 24 Sep 02 0200 6419.2 36.700
Subbasin-6 2969.2 24 Sep 02 0130 922.80 3.800
Junction-3 20678 24 Sep 02 0200 7342.0 40.500
Reach-5 20559 24 Sep 02 0200 7290.9 40.500
Subbasin-7 4561.6 24 Sep 02 0130 1459.8 6.500
Junction-4 24730 24 Sep 02 0200 8750.7 47.000
Reach-6 24595 24 Sep 02 0200 8712.6 47.000
Subbasin-8 2409.2 24 Sep 02 0200 842.11 4.600
Junction-5 27005 24 Sep 02 0200 9554.7 51.600
W
C
O
b
L
C?
v
b
O
C
ed
W
v
O
L
C
rO
a?
.o
L
0.
cO

c

gy
c n.
o ?

ti
C
(0
Q
Q
n
x
U
W
c -?
tj)
I

V:
N
Ri
C
Q
t4
V
_O
O
L
V
d
.O
L
a
N
fA
m
a
co
0
C
O
2
U
C
r
X
W
C
.N
cC
m
O
N
L
t
V
w
m
m
+. Q
C N
d 3
` O
N
N
N ti

d co

CL
E
m
N
0Z
U .-
ao r-
ti co
ti u)
r co
ti co
ti co
?
E
O
U

d
> o Un LO 0 LO 0 cn
N N N M CM M

U

??. O LO O O U') 0 0
N N V' "T M M M
N M
a) a
m
c

Lo
LO
o
0
0
LO
0

a

m
O c
U ? `r Un 0 0 0 0 CD
c D
cv
J ?
C
a) Lo O O O
lf')
LO
U')
? N r r r
N
a1

a.+
N
` U) O U) O Lo o O
N M N co N M M

m
m
Q
d ? N N M N O I? O O
O N
~ r- O
C N r ?- r N r

O
0

M Q < m
Q --t
Q Lo
Q W
Q Q m 4.1
0

.C
7

Z O rn T -I- N
U ? ti rn rn ti aD
m
a

CD c0

` a)

..
o
U
o
LL a)
W
? o
? co
a
U
X
a?
T
X
W
U
O O
CL 2
(n U)
cn cn
Q- Cl-
mm MO
a) a)
O O N0
= N
O 0-
2 2i F
1

1

J

I

u

i
CI
n C
i
V N
? L
. L
e V7

h
?t
tf)
O M
Cl
O
O O
p
N N
O N
O
C)
co
I?
CD
co
Q O co M O
O r O
O LO
N O C)
O N M O N r

?p

sr

0 M

0

O O

p

A
N
N
O

M
O

O

w
O M M f Op N O D O co E r N
LO

LO
't
Ln
0 co
0
OO LO
O p
C)
N N
O N
O
0
00 C)
r
00
O
00
Q O M M o TI. O N O 6 0 N O
r O M V?

In
O Cl)
C)
a0 L
O O
C)
N N
O N
O
00 O
n
O
00
Q O M M o o N O o N O M r

{h
cr
0 In
0
'cf LO
O C)
p
NO N
O
M O
r
r
O
00
Q O M M O V:
o
N O
6
O
M

?
?

M

r
N

N
Q
?t
O
Lq
0 Ln
0
tt
O O
p
1p
O N
O N
O
co
M O
0
O
r
O
M
00
r
co M O r O N O r;
N

N
0 LO
0
00 LO
O C)
p
w N
O N
O
M O
O
1-
O
co
Q O c o O o N O 6 O CM W r M ?-
d'
L
a?
m
L

y c ?-

E aa) t
U a
d N ?
y
E O.
U io
H N C O
N L C Q'
? r
: o U)
3 0°zr
n
Nrn
LL
O
a
N _
a+
d M ?- J
>
3

L
cn > ,
0
> _
O N 6- -Cl
t t
3 d
0 c
c
A ca
L L
)
o
Z
m
(U
_ U)
d
C
C C

U) 3orbccu
?
QiY ? t
0U
m U
a 0)
O C
y CA- •U O
U) J C .C CC .L
C C `
3
0 R c m a m
cu
U
J E
2 J
U 2
t
C
O
? L
0) 0)
U E
c j...
o
U ?
O J
O C
E (mn
H [0
V
•7 > t co M
N N M
2 ?
N fl N ?-
W
N CL+
?p
_0 C 'p

L O LO O
r ?- N
O
c U
o m
Im
O
o
O `
C
E Lo N
4)
Y
` Q
V ? O

O
io
a)

m
a
m

N
7
m
!Y
U
(d
T
a?
t
m
6
Z
X
m
C
•X
W
U
? o
O
a 2
U) U)
U) U)
as
m m co
C)
O O N
C C N
O O
N

n

HMS * Summary of Results
Project MonroeEX Run Name : Run 2
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Richardson - Exist.
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Richardson
Execution Time 12Feb03 1047 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 13320 24 Sep 02 0145 4654.1 20.200
Subbasin-2 6389.6 24 Sep 02 0145 2185.5 11.200
Junction-1 19709 24 Sep 02 0145 6839.6 31.400
Reach-1 19505 24 Sep 02 0200 6782.7 31.400
Junction-2 19505 24 Sep 02 0200 6782.7 31.400
Lake Steward 500.00 23 Sep 02 1200 991.74
Reach-2 20001 24 Sep 02 0200 7760.8 0.000
Subbasin-4 3777.5 24 Sep 02 0145 1279.4 7.200
Junction-3 23718 24 Sep 02 0200 9040.2 0.000
Reach-3 23685 24 Sep 02 0200 9027.5 0.000
Subbasin-3 6595.6 24 Sep 02 0145 2229.2 12.300
Junction-4 30173 24 Sep 02 0200 11257 0.000
Reach-4 30026 24 Sep 02 0200 11187 0.000
Subbasin-5 7466.1 24 Sep 02 0145 2518.8 14.000
Junction-5 37372 24 Sep 02 0200 13706 0.000
Reach-5 36986 24 Sep 02 0215 13623 0.000
Subbasin-7 4340.7 24 Sep 02 0145 1406.9 7.800
Junction-6 41093 24 Sep 02 0200 15030 0.000
Reach-6 40888 24 Sep 02 0215 15009 0.000
Subbasin-6 11867 24 Sep 02 0230 5031.4 27.700
Junction-7 52537 24 Sep 02 0215 20040 0.000

i
1

t

1

s

T
N
c4
C
Q
V
O
0
U
d
.O
t`
a
N
rn
cv
II.
T
m
C
O

ra
m

V N (V r (D r- M - 'It
'T co N ?- O
N
O
d a)
a
E
m
N
z
C ?r N O co r- co (D
.
E U co co co F- r-- r-- F-
O
U

m
> o ?n LO 0 LO O LO
r ?- N N M
7
U
L
+.' O U') LO 0 O O
(p N co N co

d D.
C

i O O LO LO LO O
D

m
O C
U ? LO ? (O LO O O o
C M
cv
J ?
C
a) Lo 0 LO 0 LO C) LO
. q- (D (D IT Cl)
N
a)

r
N
a) O LO LO LO O O O
N N M
LL

d
Q
a) N N M N O r- CO O

C
Q O
N (V V
.- ti
N O
r

O

Q m
Q q
Q Lo
Q (D
Q r-
Q
O
'
.Q

Z O 07 'IT N
U F- ti 1-- 0) rn r-- ao
a)
Q

> C (d a)
O (n 0
N
>_
U
o
-0

coo
? ? d U
V)
X
O
C
ro
U
U)
U
Q) O
-a
o ?
d 2
V) V)
U) U)
n. a
m m M
O
O O N
C C N
O O
?E 2i N

1

C

C
O
D
C N
O C
J N
'a ca
O .O
O ?
fn
0-1
O C

HI
R
co
r_1
O

t?

V'

t!7

O
C
D
m
O
O

co
Lo
O
O

CD

NO

O

CO O

w

00

h
Q O M ,,
O r
O
N O
0 O
0 N O N r

to
Q

O

M

0 co

0
O

00 U7

O
o C)

p
Lo

tO
O

p
N
O
O

co
M O

0

O
-

r

l0
N
CO O r 1 O N O p O ?
1

LO
g
LO
0
co
O
co
O
O
CD
M
No
0
O
co O
co
O
00
Q O co
O r
O LO
N O
O
6 N
co O M r

N
In
0
0
o
O
O
O
p
w
O
O
M 0
ti
N
M
Q O M
O r
O
N O
o
0 N O N r
M N Lc) C)

:, 0

c 00 O

o p LO NO O

O M 0
r
er
Q O M ,
, !
O O O ?
N O
O
O c+ 06 .- N r
N
1

N
7
0
0
O
1O
O
p
LO
O
M O
-
O
O
N
Q O co M

O O O

o LO

N O

O O

O co
?-
N
r
N

r

0

LO
0

O

w

LO
O
p

p

w

D

N
O

O

o 0

h

h

D
Q O M 2
O O P
O U)
N O
O
O CM r N r

L
i+
a?
m
L
N

a) C '?
N O..
E C
or
` U p-
cv
d. i O
a) O
N O -
E U ca ?
a+ U C CD
o ?
N L C ?
> fp L L_
++ 7) UO
~ 3 ?= ma)
O O N C

U- O
C ()
.+
N (9 L J U)
a) T 3
L > 0
fn O N LL J
L L
3 a)
3 ° C
o ?
L
? ?v
t
C

N a+ O
z
3 a)
O _ cn
LL 4)
C C $ v
U
O O
d .
+' O

$ j C
C _0 m
O
C O L
O
U Q a)
O C u- (n CO
O)- •U O
_
O J C 'C C .?
c c c
0
O m

f= J LL L (U L T
U U 2
L
C
O
R ?
?.. L
C a)
CD E
U
C
O tm
U
0 J
O
m C
E
_ N
F- m
U
O
' Co Cl)
N M
m N
2 ?
L
L
CL
0 c1 rt Sri
LU
? L
C
C O In O
m r N
L
U
a)
O7m o p
C L N
` Q V O
N
X
r
O
(0
C
a)
U
V)
U
O O
0
O T
a. T
N U
N w
co cu
n. a
m co M
O
a) (1) O
O O N
C C N
O O -
2 N
J
1
n
n

i

HMS * Summary of Results
Project Scenariol Run Name : Run 3
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Richardson - P1
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Richardson
Execution Time 12Feb03 1106 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 15644 24 Sep 02 0130 5114.0 20.200
Subbasin-2 9979.5 24 Sep 02 0100 2681.6 11.200
Junction-1 25055 24 Sep 02 0115 7795.6 31.400
Reach-1 24852 24 Sep 02 0130 7736.7 31.400
Junction-2 24852 24 Sep 02 0130 7736.7 31.400
Lake Steward 500.00 23 Sep 02 1200 991.74
Reach-2 25238 24 Sep 02 0130 8715.8 0.000
Subbasin-4 5413.7 24 Sep 02 0115 1500.0 7.200
Junction-3 30396 24 Sep 02 0130 10216 0.000
Reach-3 30275 24 Sep 02 0130 10205 0.000
Subbasin-3 9244.3 24 Sep 02 0115 2708.2 12.300
Junction-4 39386 24 Sep 02 0130 12913 0.000
Reach-4 38922 24 Sep 02 0130 12843 0.000
Subbasin-5 7868.8 24 Sep 02 0145 2677.7 14.000
Junction-5 46586 24 Sep 02 0130 15520 0.000
Reach-5 46467 24 Sep 02 0145 15439 0.000
Subbasin-7 4340.7 24 Sep 02 0145 1406.9 7.800
Junction-6 50807 24 Sep 02 0145 16846 0.000
Reach-6 50626 24 Sep 02 0145 16827 0.000
Subbasin-6 12848 24 Sep 02 0230 5499.7 27.700
Junction-7 61787 24 Sep 02 0145 22327 0.000
I
I
I
P?
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

T
(n
C
V
_O
O
L
'O
r
V
d
.O
L
n.
N
N
Q.
m
d
O
L
C
O
E
N
O
Z
O
'L
V
N
'++
M
c
a
O
N
.0
L
f?
t
V
w
ra
m

d) 00 N rl- O ? ? M ? d
NT Cl) M N N

CL
CL
E
a?
N
aZ -Z M ? M r-- 00 (D
E U co co co ti ti r-- ti
0
U
a
d
c0
O
O
O O LO O LO
N N M

U
m

O
O
O cn Ln 0 0
cM N M
a
m
rv
c

° ° ° LO L ° O

a. ?

d
0 C
In N 0 0 O O O

C M

J ?
C
0 to U) O M LO O
a V CO r V M

N

N
O O LO 0 0 0
?- N N CO
LL
cv
d
Q
CD N N M N 0 r? Co
p
O N r-- V ti
r--
O
cn

O

Q cy)
Q q
Q Lo
Q (D
Q r-
Q
0
Q

7

Z O rn q .- V N
U ti r` m m r-- co
d
Q

_ '0
C (0 N

-o
r- Y
rn N
>
N Y

X
N
0
co
C
U
U)
U
N o
a 2
cn
m co
n. CL
m m m
O
O o N
C C N
O 0-
2i 2i N
H
1

n

I

C N
O C
U •N
? m
O
O N
a`
?I
N
f0
m
CI
O

v
Ln
O
O
p
00
O
p
00
UA
NP
O
00 0
LO
to
00
I-
Q O M ?
O a-
O ?
N O
O p
C) N

M O N r

(D

't

W)

O Cl)

O

p

00 C)

O

p p

C)

YY

N N

O

)
O
?

O

r

LO
Q O c') M
O r:
O
N O
C) p
CD
O r 'c}' N

V'

Lr)

O
C
D
(Y)
O
p

00
LO
O

p

NO

O

00 O
LO

00

O

00
Q O M C
'
)
O r O
O Lc)
N O
C) O
a N
M O M r

of
N
0
co
0
O
O
U')
O
p
p
w
p
0
00 O
h
N
C1
Q O CM M
O r
O ?
N O
0 p
0 N
rl- O N r

M
N
LO
0
0
o
DD
O
p
C)
N
NO
C)
M O
r
Q O cM M
O O
O L
N O
O p
O M
00 r N r
N

N
Lr)
C) LO
0
p
In L
O
p p
p
lA
NO N
O
m o
O0
O
O
N
Q O M M
O O
O Lr)
N O
0 p
p M r N
N

r
Lq
D
L-0
O
C
LO
LO
O
C)
p
NO
C)
CY) 0
C)
h
ti
CO
Q O M M
O O
O
N O
p C)
0 co r N r
IT
L
i+
d
m
r

fn
L C ++

w _
C
m 'd
E N .C
? U d
ca
a w
a) 0
d O .
E
+-' N C O
0) L ?
> N L `
R a? 0)
=O U)

O
U Q1 Q
N C O
-
r+ a)
W Lf J U)
0)
O m 70
O a)
O
L >
!/1 O N LL J
L L
3 d
O c

L .-- L
v O V

Z
O
Q1

0)
C C ?
L N 0)??
U .
+-' U O U C

Cf) O

3 °? m
Y

a oU
0)
m
O U) CO
U 0
p
-
_
U) .
)
d
r
C C C
m C M 'B
Jti U?U2J
L
C
'ZI O & -
cu
L
C y
u E
U
C
0
U ca
0 J
O
O C_
E cu
cu
H CO
V
U!
st 00 M
N N CO
cc
2 ?
4.,
r
in 0. "t
w d 'IT LO
? L
C
C ? O tf') O
R ? •- '- N
L
U
0)
a) 0 0
N LO r N
i
R Q V ? O
0
V)
X
N
O
cu
c
W
U
U)
U
? o
O
a I
to fn
U N
(6 (0
CL 0-
>1 >1
CO co M
O
(1) O O
O O N
C C N
O O
2- ?E 64

7

l

11

HMS * Summary of Results
Project Scenario2 Run Name : Run 1
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Richardson - P2
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Richardson
Execution Time 12Feb03 1115 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 15644 24 Sep 02 0130 5114.0 20.200
Subbasin-2 10266 24 Sep 02 0100 2771.6 11.200
Junction-1 25322 24 Sep 02 0115 7885.6 31.400
Reach-1 25101 24 Sep 02 0130 7826.7 31.400
Junction-2 25101 24 Sep 02 0130 7826.7 31.400
Lake Steward 500.00 23 Sep 02 1200 991.74
Reach-2 25493 24 Sep 02 0130 8805.8 0.000
Subbasin-4 5620.2 24 Sep 02 0115 1566.7 7.200
Junction-3 30838 24 Sep 02 0130 10373 0.000
Reach-3 30726 24 Sep 02 0130 10361 0.000
Subbasin-3 9698.8 24 Sep 02 0115 2872.1 12.300
Junction-4 40261 24 Sep 02 0130 13233 0.000
Reach-4 39836 24 Sep 02 0130 13163 0.000
Subbasin-5 7868.8 24 Sep 02 0145 2677.7 14.000
Junction-5 47499 24 Sep 02 0130 15841 0.000
Reach-5 47317 24 Sep 02 0145 15759 0.000
Subbasin-7 4340.7 24 Sep 02 0145 1406.9 7.800
Junction-6 51657 24 Sep 02 0145 17166 0.000
Reach-6 51490 24 Sep 02 0145 17147 0.000
Subbasin-6 12848 24 Sep 02 0230 5499.7 27.700
Junction-7 62651 24 Sep 02 0145 22647 0.000

I

1

1

M
' O
Z
N c
'
N
C
O

V
•
?
O c
O
' O U
= N
' a
it
., 0
a
L
a
=
N

Q N
cv
Co
.
m O
W
d
O 'a
?
C
V
O
2
m

., a
O
2
0 N r- O co
. v M M N
N
a1
IL d
CL
E

N
Q Z T M s m ti co O
EU w w co r-- r--- r- r--
O
U

r

>
0
0
0 o Un o Ln
N N M
7
U

N C) 0 o hi N O
c
4
)
4 a

c ??

° O ° LO Un ° o
a ? ?

-
d

O c
LO N 0 0 0 0 0

C ?
t6
J ?
c
m
' LO LO CD LO LO C)
G
. V' (D ti 'T ?- M
N
a)

w
a) o O LO 0 0 0
O ?- = = N (V cM
LL

y N N M N O r-- co O
O N
r
~ O
-
C A N c- ? .-- N ?

0
O
C
? Q Q Q QT Lo
Q (o
Q Q 0

.a
3

Z
U o
r` rn
r-- v
m -
m v
r- N
ao
d
Q

?
d C
a) (D
y
N ?

O

C
N
Y (d
Y
U p I -21 - N

ti W
0? I
D 0
S
a =
U
N
X
M
O
C
a)
U
r-.
U
a) o
o T
(n cn
cn cn
a a
m m M
a) a) 00
O O N
C C N
O 0-
N

1

> N
3 C
N
3 16
> .G
> L
Al CI)

t`
Q

O
L!')
M
O
C M
O
O
co LO
O
O P
p
Lo
lid
Co
NO N
O
O
00 O
tD
O
00
N
h

O r
O
N
O
O N C'i r

tD
?'
0
p M
0
O
00
O
O p
p
rn
NO N
O
O
, O
OO
am
r
N
Q O M ?v
j
O '-
O
N O
O
0 M
O r t1 N

N

t!')

0 (n

0
O

00 LO

O
O

p

to

NO

O
O

CO
O
N

00

O

00
Q O M M
O r
O LO
N O
O
6 N
OO O M ?

N

?

0

0

O
co

O

O

O

p

O

D

N
O

0 O

?

i

N

M
Q O co
M
O
r
O
N
O

O
O
O
N
r-
O
N
r-

M
N
to
C3 to
0
0
00 LO
O
O p
C)
LO
NO N
O
O
co O
LO
r
cr
'Cr
Q O cM
O O
O LO
N O
O
O M r N r
N

N
to
0
0

O ?
O

O O
p
lp
0
N
O
O

co
O
-

O

O

N
Q O M
O O
O
N O
O
O M ?-- N ?-
N
r ?-- 0 0
O O CD N 0 O M 0 ti ti lp
Q O M M
O O O
O ?
N O
O O
O M r N r

t
a?
m
L
N

N C Z-
? a
E C
O t
U Q
m
a- {?
E7-. N
N 0
N O -
E U cu Z
a) M
M
N L C
> N t
:3 0
~
rn a
o U N
C

U- O
c a)
(n
r.+ co ?- J
6
d
L > 0
O 7
fn 0 iNJ
L L
3 a?
o c
- c
is cv
L ? L
v O V
rr O
Z
m
N
?
OJ
C C
ca c
O 0) ?
+' O O O C
C/) $ 3 0
z
r
_
c
a
o U a?
d
O C LL O m w
V O
J y
C OC)C •
N L
-0 f0 C C O
M -0 C:
M _O
J LL L N L O
012 U= J
L
C
O `
C y
a? E
U
c ?.
O
U
O J
? C
N
t9
F- m
U
N
7 7 v co M
g N N M
2
L
a? ? r
j 0 It LO
0
O C r
(0 C C
'0
C: U
c
o
O fC ?
C `
C ?
O
0)
to
a?
ca
O
N
7
N
O
N
IO LO o
r N
o 0
? N
V i LO O
r
U
7
(6
T
2
0)
L
O
z
N
X
ri
O
cu
C
(D
U
U)
U O
N
O
T
U) N
a n
T T
m m OM
a) a) O
O O N
C C N
O O
N

u

0

i
i
i
i
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Scenario3 Run Name : Run 2
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Richardson - P3
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Richardson
Execution Time 12Feb03 1123 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 15644 24 Sep 02 0130 5114.0 20.200
Subbasin-2 10266 24 Sep 02 0100 2771.6 11.200
Junction-1 25322 24 Sep 02 0115 7885.6 31.400
Reach-1 25101 24 Sep 02 0130 7826.7 31.400
Junction-2 25101 24 Sep 02 0130 7826.7 31.400
Lake Steward 500.00 23 Sep 02 1200 991.74
Reach-2 25493 24 Sep 02 0130 8805.8 0.000
Subbasin-4 5620.2 24 Sep 02 0115 1566.7 7.200
Junction-3 30838 24 Sep 02 0130 10373 0.000
Reach-3 30726 24 Sep 02 0130 10361 0.000
Subbasin-3 9698.8 24 Sep 02 0115 2872.1 12.300
Junction-4 40261 24 Sep 02 0130 13233 0.000
Reach-4 39836 24 Sep 02 0130 13163 0.000
Subbasin-5 7868.8 24 Sep 02 0145 2677.7 14.000
Junction-5 47499 24 Sep 02 0130 15841 0.000
Reach-5 47317 24 Sep 02 0145 15759 0.000
Subbasin-7 4340.7 24 Sep 02 0145 1406.9 7.800
Junction-6 51657 24 Sep 02 0145 17166 0.000
Reach-6 51490 24 Sep 02 0145 17147 0.000
Subbasin-6 12848 24 Sep 02 0230 5499.7 27.700
Junction-7 62651 24 Sep 02 0145 22647 0.000

n

lI
u
F
LJ

.y
W
H
ar
x
ca
a
v
0
r
a
.N
c?
GG
W
v
0
L
C
O
i.+
u
ar
0
L
a
U
w
t
CO
C
(f)
(G
.L?
.C2

M
ro
m
C

c
.L M
? C
? O

C

11

1?

fl

N
.
N
A
ea

a

2
_
_

0
o
U

C

N
V x
d
W

a ?
.
y N
Rf
C m
L

in

O

= Y
' O

? J
R
m
„ Q
= to
0 7
`
o
°
Un
D
LO
LO
U)
,
a>
a ?
a
E
0

0Z o r- o r-- w Ln
EU co ? oo r r r`
O
U

m
o o LO LO o o
> N V N M ? N
7
U

LO 0 LO 0 C) LO
vJ r ?' N V' M N

0 o.
m
=
m
'
0 C
+.
O O O O

C.
a.
d
O =
U m U-) o ° Cl 0 0
c D
m
J ?

-
? LO 0 0 U)
o
. r r r r r
N
d

In
N l1')
r Lo
r In
r C)
r 0
?'
O
U-
m
a)

? Q (D 'V' rt CO m r M
co

O
D
c
Q Q Q Q Q Q O
?
.Q

N
Z O O S r q N
U r` ti rn rn ? ?
m
CL

(D C
0
Lu
b
a) a)
>
O 'J
(n
o c
rn fd
>
U
?
0
ti a)
I)f
z)
s ca
d
U
x
0)
c
N
x
w
U
? o
-o
a =
(D (n
m m
G. 0
>1 >1
m m m
O
() a) O
0 0 N
C C N
0 0
2 N

H

1
C

) u,
K C
u?
a VJ
lD V' U7 O
O o 00 O C) 1A N
O O V: ? ?- M
Q O M M p
O r ?
O LO
N O
O O
O N N
r O N r

w
Q
?Y
O

M
0 0 M
00
co
r to
00
pp

O
NO N
O
00 O
N
h
O
00
M O O N O N O N ?-

l!')

Co
O
co 0
O
CD
In

CD
O
00 CD
O
N

T
Q O M M O r' O N O 0 O N N r M r
N
M
.I-
U')

O

o

co
Lo
O
CD
CD

WA

N
C)

O

V

O

N

1A

In
Q O M ? O
O r O
O t
N O
O O
O N C
I O N r
n
N

Q d•

O to

M 00 o CO

?- O C) N

O N

O O
It O
O

O
co

?-

00
m O O N C
i ? N
r M r

r
v
?
0
o
co
O
CD
0
D
O
co 0
LO
co

O

a0
Q c, co M O r O N O p o N
r O M r
m
i+
a?
a?
t

m O L
? U Q
a ao
m 0 _
E U m
c
I- to
o
Ctf
M
Z L C
V

F-

3
:3 C) CO
O
2
l
?

O rna
l
-0
C

LL. N
O
C U
r+
CD M 1 J
-C M _0
w
O
L O
> _O
co 0NLL.J
L ,C
3 a,

?v v ? v
z a?
v? o

3
o cn

D C C
c af

?U) 3 0In 213
O OU_0 ca_c
n o,
_O C CO
O •V O
O U) J
c c
C (6
n
`
_
iLL
s
C
o `
m L
0) ?
u E
C
o
U ?
O
N _C
N
f0
H m
U
N
Ttco M
N N M
L
+' .
a
? j a V. Lq
V Sri
?p 0) L
C
? ? O LO O
.-- r N
O L
c U
o m
rn o
C (D LO CZ) cli
N
` Q V O
C
O
N
co
a?
c`a
a
m
N
N
b
co
Of
U
M
N
L
O
Z
N
X
m
C
X
W
U
0) O
Q. _
N to
m ?
1 Q.
>>
co m OM
O O pN
C C N
O O -
2i 2 N
J

I

I
L

i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
HMS * Summary of Results
Project MonroeEX Run Name : Run 3
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Lake Twitty - Exist.
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Lake Twitty
Execution Time 12Feb03 1037 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 3958.7 24 Sep 02 0145 1367.6 6.300
Subbasin-2 1966.9 24 Sep 02 0145 667.34 4.000
Junction-1 5925.6 24 Sep 02 0145 2034.9 10.300
Reach-1 5897.6 24 Sep 02 0200 2010.6 10.300
Subbasin-3 3156.3 24 Sep 02 0130 956.94 4.500
Subbasin-4 2846.0 24 Sep 02 0200 998.20 6.000
Junction-2 11613 24 Sep 02 0145 3965.8 20.800
Reach-2 11538 24 Sep 02 0145 3958.2 20.800
Subbasin-6 825.74 24 Sep 02 0115 238.65 1.300
Subbasin-5 4981.6 24 Sep 02 0145 1684.3 9.900
Junction-3 17284 24 Sep 02 0145 5881.1 32.000

J

i

I
' N t4
C

cn
Q
O

' •V

?
O
•a

p
o U

' =

U N
O
O

d c
' •
to

cC
a N
R
m
co

t O
=
O
n F'
?
co
co

m
wa
V O M It N V V
M N M N N N N
d
a
a
E
0

Z N o N O O O
a
E U ao ao 00 r- r- r-
0
U
V
d
ro
> 0 0 0 0 0 0

U

N
Lo
C)

LO

LO

LO

LO

N ?
a) a

r
a+
O C) O o

a ?
c
-
m
O c
U ? un o o o O C)
C D

J ?
C
U') LO LO LO LO U')
C co r- CD ti r- ti
N
d
Q'
N
LO LO U') 0 0 0
O
LL
?a

co 0 Lo CD m co C14
C Q cD V V C.6 rn
?- M
cn
S

C

Q (y
Q
Q q-
Q Lo
Q 0
Q m
0
m

7
cn
Z o 0> V - 'I N
U r- r m o> r- co
m
Q

a) ?
> -
o
-0
C
' +
to
7 (0
>
U u
) C
a
-e 0
0
LL (
l
) 7
U
x
0
ca
C
a?
U
U
N O
a
O >
(n N
co m
CL d
Co >1 >1
co M
O
N N o
O O N
C C N
0 0
2i 2i N

1
> N
' C
N
f {p
L
> L

t0
N
to
0 Cl)
0
O LO
O C)
C3
O N
p N
0
?t O
L
r
CO
a)
Q O M O
O r p
O LO
N O Ci 0
O N N O r O

O
N
to
C) M
0
O
O p
p
to N
O N
C)
O
ao LO
N
ti
N
M
Q O M ') 9
O r O
O U)
N O
O
0 N
(D O N r

N
p M
0
O LO
O
O C)
p
W) N
O
O
CO O
O
lA
Q O M c O
O r
O u7
N O
O
p N r N r
N

M
N
LO
0 Cl)
C)
O L
O p
p
to
p N
0
d' O
O
N
h
O
Q O C") c O r O
O U
N O CD O
O N (
W) O r r
O

N
N
C) co
0
O LO
O C)
p
)A N
O
C)
7 O

LO
00
M
Q O M M O
O r p
O
N O
O
O N
r- O N r

r
N
0 M
0
O UO
O C)
C)
UA
NO N
O
p
CO O
co
M
d'
Q O M p

O r O
O W)

N O
6

O
N

o
co

O

N

r
? c
C

E Lu -C
` U d
14 tF a)
a. a) o
0 ° -

E af
U Fu
•+ N C p
??
L C2'
V7 L
0)
.? ocn
C
'O
U- _O
N
c a)

acui 0
L >
cn O N LL J
L L L
d 3 d
L 3 ? c
v7 0 ? ca

Y f° (D

z
3 a)
a)
O _ cn
LL ?

v C
C
a)
+•
cv ? ? 4-
_
-
.C
C O C
i
a
cn C
30-0'0 m
O CU L
U a m
O u- cn m C) -
3 _ O
p cnJ C.C C L
C C C m
_ L

fn N O
-iE t O
N
U ?i U=J
L
c
O
w `
f0 L
C y
a)
E
U
C F-
O
U ?
0 J
O
m O
E
F- m
U
7 7 d co co
5 N N Cl)
2
7
a
W a) v ui
O L
C
C ? O Lo O
fC ? ? r N
) L
U
m
Q) p O
R
C ? ? ? N
L Q v O
0
N
x
O
m
C
m
U
U)
U
O O
W
a. T
U U
w U
CL a
m m CO
Cl
(L) a) O
O O N
C C N
O O
N

F

j
r

1
11

i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Scenariol Run Name : Run 4
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Lake Twitty P1
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Lake Twitty
Execution Time 12Feb03 1106 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 5085.7 24 Sep 02 0115 1509.3 6.300
Subbasin-2 2794.4 24 Sep 02 0115 822.50 4.000
Junction-1 7880.0 24 Sep 02 0115 2331.8 10.300
Reach-1 7850.1 24 Sep 02 0130 2306.3 10.300
Subbasin-3 4523.9 24 Sep 02 0100 1081.6 4.500
Subbasin-4 3949.9 24 Sep 02 0130 1214.5 6.000
Junction-2 15418 24 Sep 02 0115 4602.5 20.800
Reach-2 15276 24 Sep 02 0115 4595.9 20.800
Subbasin-6 1317.1 24 Sep 02 0045 289.98 1.300
Subbasin-5 7205.2 24 Sep 02 0115 2013.1 9.900
Junction-3 23534 24 Sep 02 0115 6899.0 32.000

I I

0
0

C

N
' O
Z
O

C
' N C

N

Q
O

•
0 c
' O p
O U

?+ N

O

V 0
a

N N

N ca
c
E m
5
' A
m ,
3
0

d
Y
O
? J
ca
d

7
O 0 r- 00 Cl) (D
l L V On
(D M IT C
) N N M
d
CL
a
E
d

aZ co c) I- N O (D
v co co co co co l?
E
O
U
.D
ar
A
> 0 0 0 0 0 0

U

N 0 Cl 0 0 0 0
N d
a
i
m
c

'
m L
"
v LO
' LO O
O
O
d u
) N co
r
a 'n
c
-
m
> c
U ? O O LO LO O CD
-
` N .- r ?
C D

J ?
r
c
d CD U') U') o o U')
C N LO V' (D CO f-
N
d

a
i o O CD O O
O
LL

d
Q
d M O Lo 0 M M (y
Ip CO V CD O) M
C N

O
O
c
fA N M V LO (D
Q Q Q Q Q Q

Z o rn v ? qr N
U ? ti rn rn l? oo

Q

?

d
:
C
a)
(0
0 .?
N C V) w >

l- ? d U
U)
X
N
O
(0
a)
U
U
? O
-v
0 I
u) (n
in u)
a n
m m M
O
a) C)
O O N
O O -
? ? N
11

n
7

1

J

?p
N
to
p Cl)
0
O Ln
O p
C)
N N
(D N
C)
?t O
In
r
w
a)
Q O M M O r o N O 0 O N ? O r O

LO
N
Lo
0
C:) co
0
O In
O p
p
O N
Co N
o
O
N
h
N
M
Q O M O r
pp
N I
O
O
D
N
CO
O
N
r
r

N

C83
O

0

O

O

p

LO

O

00 O
10

O

O
Q O co c pO r ? N O O N N r N r
N

M
N
-)
0 M
0
O LO
O C)
p
N N
O
d' O
O
N
1.
O
Q O cM 0 r
I O N O
C, O CV O r r

N
?O
CS)
O
O
C)
W)
CD
'IT Co
co

M
O m M O r CCD N O O D CV O N r
r

r
N
Lo
0

D
co
O
O
C)
%Q
NO
O

O
00 O
?
co

M
Q O M )
P o r pO N O Ci o N O N r
r
C
R
t
s
U
L

d
L
V7
N C .r'
m C v
N Q
E N?
RI U d
a ?o

O O -
E U m
d N C O
in A
O
y L V :;S
C
47 L
+- 7?0 (n
~ 3 Of
rna
1 l '0 N _O
a)
a1
t N
>
cn ONE J
L t
0)
O C
- C
R< R!
L ? L
N

z
ro
a>

a)
C C

U
U O C
cn 3 (D U) C
'0 s
t
d O U ?
LL
D)
O C m „-.
? - .? O
fn a)
- C •C C .L-.
D)
0 3
O C (6 L N
J E U? U= J
L
C
O
? L
C d
m E_
U
C F-
O
U c
O J
d C
E N
RI
F co
V
N
7 V. 00 M
? N N M
cts 2
? "8
v, a
W d
Lq -7
v LO
C «
C p O O
D m N
C U
o m
O m` v N LC) r o p
L A Q O
C
O
'D
a>
U
(6
N
m
'D
W
N
U
fn
U
(d
U
(9
T
N
L
H
N
O
Z
N
X
N
O
.r
C
m
Y V/
U
O O
O T
n a
CD CO M
O
O N O
O O N
C C N
O 0-
2i 2 N

J

HMS * Summary of Results
Project Scenario2 Run Name : Run 3
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Lake Twitty - P2
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Lake Twitty
Execution Time 12Feb03 1115 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 5783.8 24 Sep 02 0115 1764.6 6.300
Subbasin-2 3320.2 24 Sep 02 0115 990.23 4.000
Junction-1 9104.0 24 Sep 02 0115 2754.9 10.300
Reach-1 9043.0 24 Sep 02 0130 2730.1 10.300
Subbasin-3 4771.4 24 Sep 02 0100 1157.0 4.500
Subbasin-4 4658.5 24 Sep 02 0130 1454.3 6.000
Junction-2 17630 24 Sep 02 0115 5341.4 20.800
Reach-2 17494 24 Sep 02 0115 5334.5 20.800
Subbasin-6 1257.9 24 Sep 02 0045 278.82 1.300
Subbasin-5 7968.7 24 Sep 02 0115 2231.0 9.900
Junction-3 26471 24 Sep 02 0115 7844.3 32.000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

O
L
N
C

U)

Q
c,
1
O

' V
•O ;,a

O
o U
A

v N
O
O
`
a _
•
N

a y
cv
00
co

' o
O
O
?
G7

J
m

c N
,
00 C
l) (
D L
O, I
T 01
d Z (D M d M N N c ~Y

a d
a
E
m
N
a Z
(
? 00
co M
00 co
co N
co O
00 (D
1-
C
•
O
U

d
A
>
o
co
0
0
0
0
7
U
d

N 0 0 0 0 0 0
aNi a
?o
c

'
0 "
Lo LD Lo CD Lo
C3
Cl
O O u7 N M ?
a ?
c
-
a?
O
L) o 0 LO LO 0 0

C M
A
J <v
r
0 0 0 0 0 0 (n
C N LO IT (D w r
y
d

fA
m
0
0
0
0
0
O
LL
lv
m
Q
d co O Lo (D O M N
m ?• CD V V CD O) M
C ?

D
0
C
N
Q N
Q M
Q ?
Q U-)
Q O
Q

7
N
Z o rn v ? v N
U ti ? m m ti 00
m
M

f O
?-
d C
O T
C O N

>
V
fn

w
C
fn
0 `
>
cn M
>
o a) Q M :3
LL Of D a U
N
X
M
0
m
4)
U
cn
U
N O
a
d 2
u) in
ca m
T CL M
m m O
O O a) c)
N
C C N
O 0-
:2 ? 2E N

I

I

C
'u.
R
l
L
U,
i

?p
N
t0
p co
0
O to
O 0
CD
LA N
0 N
0
ll? O
L0
r
w
m
Q O co O CD N O D CD N ? O ? O

LO
N
i0
O
co O
O
O
p p

CD N
O
00 O
N
ti
N
M
Q O co Cl O r O N O O N O N r
r

s}
N
L0
Co
I
D
0
O
O
p
lO
NO
O
co O
iCD
O
d
Q O M C
,
O
r
o
N
C
C>
O
N
N
r
N
r
N

co N L0 0 0 O O p LO O N O ?t O
N
h
O
Q O M C,31 O C) N O p (D N ? O ?- e-

N
N
U.)
0
co
O
O
p
1A
C?
O
'IT O
LO
co
M
cf
Q O ,0 C, O ? O N O C3 O N O N r
•-

?-
N
LO
O
c
:'
O
O
O
p
N
NO N
p
00 O
q)
O
M
Q O M c' o ' o N O D O N M O N a-

L
m
m
L

c "
y C
N 0_
E L
` U Q
f0 a)
a a)0

E
d U)i?CD
L

fp
0 co
C V
L
: O $ (n
~ 0 a
- 0)
C N O
LL

m
O J
m (o
O 3
N
L 0
>
cn O N LL J
,C L

3 0 c
O

? Z

3 a)
?
O
? d

N
U
a
) a)
++ O j C

?

p C
Q) (n aS
Cp
t U cOL
U a m LL U) co
3 0 am m - 0
J
O' C C C N
0
N O
L
L T
to-i U ?USJ
L
C
O_
y L
f0 L
L
C O
N
U
C ?-
O m
U ?
O J
O C
E t(mC
p co
V
> > q co Cl)
l0 '
g N N M
A d'
x
-' d Lq 7
W d 'a' LO
f9 C
O In O
? L
c U
o
0 m p
c a1°i LOAN
L i
Q V O
C ?
O
a)
ca
a)
m
a
a)
N
7
n
(n
'L7
Rf
U
7
U
T
a)
L
H
N
O
Z
X
M
O
C
a)
U
.? cn
U
O O
-o
a =
(n N
n a
m m o
a) a) Cl
O O N
C C N
0 O
N

E

C

J
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Scenario3 Run Name : Run 3
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Lake Twitty - P3
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Lake Twitty
Execution Time 12Feb03 1123 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 5783.8 24 Sep 02 0115 1764.6 6.300
Subbasin-2 3320.2 24 Sep 02 0115 990.23 4.000
Junction-1 9104.0 24 Sep 02 0115 2754.9 10.300
Reach-1 9043.0 24 Sep 02 0130 2730.1 10.300
Subbasin-3 4771.4 24 Sep 02 0100 1157.0 4.500
Subbasin-4 4658.5 24 Sep 02 0130 1454.3 6.000
Junction-2 17630 24 Sep 02 0115 5341.4 20.800
Reach-2 17494 24 Sep 02 0115 5334.5 20.800
Subbasin-6 1257.9 24 Sep 02 0045 278.82 1.300
Subbasin-5 7968.7 24 Sep 02 0115 2231.0 9.900
Junction-3 26471 24 Sep 02 0115 7844.3 32.000

7

Y.
W
b
v
O
O
L
V
d
0
C
R
W
v
O
L
C
O
i
u
a?
O
L
a
x
U
W
x
N
C
N
(LS
,Q
N
C
O
U
C

C

L

1

0

N
cv
C
t6
V
.0)
O
O
L
'C
A
2
V
Q
O
L
a
N
N
m
n.
m
d
O
L
C
O
2
C
O
C
O
U
N
X
LJJ
C
ro

C N
d 7
0
i

N

04

N

N C
.

CL W
a
E
m
N
Z
O
ti
(O
V
Q
U co ? ti r?
E
O
U

m
r
m LO Cl O LO
N M
7
U

O O LO O
N N N M

d ?
(0
a+
C
?
,
N ?-
Lo U-) O O
CL

as
O
U m N LO O O
c :3
m
J ?
C
d LO O O O
.
N
d

N
Lo O ?n
o N M N co
U.

d
Q
y ?- (D O O N
N O 0()
,S cl)

D

c
Q Q Q 0

Z O rn v - v N
U r-_ rl_ O O r-- 00

a

H _
@ C
a) (0
>
0 D ? (n
>
U a)
" N N Y
O O ` (Q 7
LL ? d U
X
Q)
C
AQ
X
w
(D o
? T
U) U)
CL a
m m C)
O O N
C C N
O 0-
2 2 N

7

I

r J

N
n
K N
l
a
n cn
J3

d:
UA
p
° L
C)
0 CD
0
'
Ln
N O (N
O
°
00
N
M
N
m
Q O M ?
j °
O r O
O U
)
N O
O N r M
M

M
0
0
er
O
Lo

CD
C)

w?

D

O

M 0

N

N

r

i
Q O M CO O r O N l O O M ? r M
I r
M

t1')
O
O
d:
O
p
to
O
co O
O
La
O M M o r pp N O C) O M 0 r M N

r
N
?
0
C
=
) LO
C)
00 Lr)
O p
p
N
NO N
O
M °
00
N
to
Q O cM ,
) o O O q Lo N O 6 O M N r N r
Cl)
t
(D
a)
t

m c `-
y -a
aci c
m
L- U O.
m jF= a)
IL a) 0
y O -
E U m ?
F- D N - o
@ t
N C V
?.
?? a+ L
7) 0 (n
rn n

LL .
-0 N N _O
?J?
r+ m
m
O
L O T O ?

>
cn o E -i
L .C
3 a)
O c
- c
is ca

a)
o
Z
a)
a)
_ U)
N
C C ? ?

u m m
V '
L) Cl
a+
O N C

U) = 7
_
3 (DO O cu
ai L 0 (5 a)
CL 0)
O C
_ LL CO
N a)- •U O
J
. C.C C
C C C
a
c 3
m o Q1
m c m
t m L v r-
>,
a)
J u U U =
L
C
O
a+ V
R .C
C a1
V
C ?-
O Q1
U cv
O C
a)
E N
1= co
N
3 rt co
M
RS
N N Cl)
r-1 a Lq r
j d 'V' LO
? C a?+
(D C 'O
m
0) _
c U
o m
o ca ?
C `
L •?m.. Q
C ?
O
'O
O
m
m
c`u
m
D
N
U)
_7
m
w
O ? O
N
o°
V O
r
U
3
'D
Q)
L
I-
0
Z
X
D1
C
N
X
w
U
.O .a
4. 2
U) W
n. n
>1 >N
m m M
O
a) (L) O
O O N
C C N
O O
N
II

E

0

7

HMS * Summary of Results
Project MonroeEX Run Name : Run 4
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Crooked - Exist.
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Crooked
Execution Time 12Feb03 1051 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-2 5963.3 24 Sep 02 0200 2276.3 11.600
Reach-2 5935.6 24 Sep 02 0230 2233.6 11.600
Subbasin-1 8779.7 24 Sep 02 0130 2701.2 12.100
Reach-1 8713.0 24 Sep 02 0130 2676.2 12.100
Subbasin-3 5152.4 24 Sep 02 0200 1807.6 10.000
Junction-1 18889 24 Sep 02 0200 6717.4 33.700
Reach-3 18883 24 Sep 02 0200 6700.7 33.700
Subbasin-4 3947.8 24 Sep 02 0200 1389.9 8.000
Junction-2 22831 24 Sep 02 0200 8090.6 41.700
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
N
,
C
V
O
O
V
.a
1
r
V
d
.O
L
CL
N
N
ca
Q
m
d
O
L
O
2
r
Z
1
O
U
Q?
N
O
O
a
1
C
.N
cC
m
.a
m

V
0 M NT O M
L
- CD M N CV M

c.
E
a?
N
0)
N
co
m
0-
EU
EL)
co
co
t--
F-
O
U
a
a>

> O O o O
7
U
a?

N o O O O
N
w ?
a
m
c
+.
L Co
L-O
d j CD 04
(L fl
L C
d
>
O C
U o
C%4 0
- 10 10
a
c L
?
ca
J ?
C
d to tf7 O )
a
. r- IO CO r--
N
d

r
N
m
L.

O

UO

LO

LO
O
LL
f0
m
Q
y r CD O O N
N r 0 ,0

0
C

m
Q
Q
Q m
0
7

Z o O 'T 'd' N
U ti ti rn rn ? ?
m
Q.

F- cu a
L Y
c

U N N 7 N
O
LL N
G?
a
U
N
x
r
O
co
c
O
U
U)
U
a
CL 2
? N
m m
Q d
mm
O
O O CVO
C C (V
O O
2 2 N

u

I

H

n

N
C
.N
N
.C
7
co
i

N
U?
0
O
0
co
O
p
?A
NO
O
O 0
N
M
CO
<D
Q O M M O O o N O 6 O N - r N
co

M
N
U?
0 U')
0
00 Ul
O O
O
w
D N
O
co O
N
N
w
N
Q O M O Cl N O D P co
r,
N
CD co

N
N
Ul
0
0
00
O
p
w
D
O
co O
41
00
t?
Q O M N O O O N O p O M r N r'

T.
-
U')
O Ul
O
w LO
O O
O
N N
O
M O
N
N
M
Q O M C) O O N O C) C) M N c N r
M
t
m
a?
t

m c ;.-
m -?
E ac) C
? •U Q
Rf ? N
a o°

E
m O
?
in
O?
N L

?) o cn
~ 3 a ?a
N O
LL _
C
?+ m J
0)

L

C
O T
> O
cn O N LL J
t L
3 d
3 -° c
o ? m

U)

3 N
?
O
LL N
C C ?

N " o c
U) 30 6cco
O ai c 00 m?U
U a rn
m
LL U)
o C:
) 7@ o)-6 o
O (n
- ' C C C L
c c c
0
o
z s
c
s m
cnJLL i
a
U?U=J
L
C
O
f6 L
c y
N
U
c j-
O
U m
O J
O C
E
F- m
v
> > ?. co c7
? ? N N M
T a'
W d ;t- LO
0
(U C ?
f0 C 'p_
O L
c U
o
v?
O Rf
C `
C ?
O
W
N
M
wo
Q)
cu
a
m
w
N
7
0
m
of
IO 2 ON
.- r
IC) 0
U7 N
V U) O
r
U
7
T
N
L
O
Z
O
X
O
m
c
m
u
Cf)
L) O O
'D
d 2
(n U)
CL co
co >1 >1
m M
O
O O N
C c N
O 0-
2 2 -"

1

i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Scenariol Run Name : Run 5
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Crooked - P1
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Crooked
Execution Time 12Feb03 1106 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-2 8182.8 24 Sep 02 0145 2774.7 11.600
Reach-2 8141.2 24 Sep 02 0200 2732.6 11.600
Subbasin-1 11774 24 Sep 02 0115 3435.6 12.100
Reach-1 11669 24 Sep 02 0115 3410.0 12.100
Subbasin-3 6922.5 24 Sep 02 0130 2124.2 10.000
Junction-1 25934 24 Sep 02 0130 8266.9 33.700
Reach-3 25748 24 Sep 02 0130 8251.3 33.700
Subbasin-4 5443.5 24 Sep 02 0130 1749.0 8.000
Junction-2 31192 24 Sep 02 0130 10000 41.700

?I

u

J
N
?'
ca
C
CC
V
O
O
L
.O
A
V
m
.O
L
a
N
N
cv
Q
co
m
O
L
c
O
2
N
U
cn
C
O
C
O
U

O
O
L
U
m
m
C Uf
V 0
O
(D
O
Cl) N
L LO LO CO N
d Z
d d
CL
E
m
N
a Z
co
r-
U co co co r-
E
O
U
.c
m
lm
> Cl 0 0 0

U
d

+•
N 0 0 0 0
d a.
c ,
d
` y tO O O
O O

L c

o c
U m o 0 0 LO
c D
ca
J ?
C
d Cl O O U')
O N N f- r-
N
m
N
d o o U-)
O
LL
R
d
`
a
y CO CD 0 N
c N O CO
C N

D

C

Q Cf)
Q IT
Q
0

7

Z o rn v ? d' N
U ? ti rn rn ti ?
d
o.

C
0 N >

0
a) D
'0 in

:
3
U- or a 0
1
X
N
O
C
N
U
U)
U
O O
a 2
V) N
cn U)
cu m
a n
co >1 >1
m o
O O N
C C N
O O r-
2i 2 N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i

N
O u)
O
00 LO
O p
p
M
0 N
o
co O
N
M
l0
tD
Q O M M O O Q C? Ul
N
O
D
O
N
N
r
M

M
N

?
0

O
0
co LO

O CD

CD N

O N

O

M

N

N

?A
Q O
l M CO
I po O O N O O M r N r

l M

N
N
L
O
O
O M
O
O CD
O
p N
O
M O
0
M
00
t?
Q O M M O O O N O Q O M O N r
V-

?-
l1)
0
0
LA
Lf)
O
p
Lf)
p
O
o
Cl) 0
00
0
N
N
M
Q O cM ? o O O N O O c) C r N r
M
N
C
.y
a
.n
7
N
L
a?
m
L
N
C ar
y C
a
E a s
?? O a
a ai
y O -
E U co ?

d cn c,
?

H (n
C)
Cl)
d L
N C ? V
C
> +? 7 0 (n
a
d O
'? N a O
_
m L J
a0i ? >
o m
L > .
>
cn 0NU_.J
L L
3 d
3 o c
c

? y
N
"
N O
z

3 a?
0
O
u. d
C C

a U .
" O ? C
3 o U a M
O =
a o U 0 N L
FL
U
cn
3 o ro N m
rnID •- o
O J
-_ C 'C C .L
C C C ` O

N O
L
L O L

t
C
o `
c`a L
C y
V
C F..
o ?
U ca
0 J
O C
d
E
?- m
7 tr co co
N N M
41 Q ? c-
W G> `t
N L
C O O
m r r N
t
U
(D
m CD
C ` o
V I N
Q O
N
X
N
0
C
a)
U
U
O O
-a
'o
O.. 2
(n (n
(n (n
as
CO m M
O
O O N
C C N
O O
N

Ill

F

0

17,

i
i
i
i
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Scenario2 Run Name : Run 4
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Crooked - P2
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Crooked
Execution Time 12Feb03 1115 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-2 9114.8 24 Sep 02 0130 3160.1 11.600
Reach-2 9094.6 24 Sep 02 0200 3117.7 11.600
Subbasin-1 11619 24 Sep 02 0115 3374.8 12.100
Reach-1 11508 24 Sep 02 0115 3349.6 12.100
Subbasin-3 7518.0 24 Sep 02 0130 2330.2 10.000
Junction-1 27352 24 Sep 02 0130 8797.5 33.700
Reach-3 27160 24 Sep 02 0130 8781.7 33.700
Subbasin-4 5443.5 24 Sep 02 0130 1749.0 8.000
Junction-2 32604 24 Sep 02 0130 10531 41.700

0

F,

I?

I

I
I
N
tC
C
V
0
L
.a
V
d
.O
L
a
N
N
ca
O.
m
Q?
C
0
2
C
c
U
d
0
L
a
i
c
.N
ca
m

m
., Q
C N
rn
ti
d c"1
C U') LO M co
Z
L
a
E
a?
N
Qz co r? N ?
E U co co co co
O
U

m
v
> O O o 0

U

y 0 0 0 0
w a

c

L N Ln U-) O
O O L
a ?

a?
>
0 c
U m O Lo m 'o
c D
m
J ?
C
d O U-) O U-)
"C N N I? ?
N

E
! T
LI LO ?
O
U
-
m
d
Q
y ? CO CD O N
N ?-
r O
r co
C cf)

c
Q Q Q Q
0
7

Z
U o
? rn
? v
rn
rn
? N
w
d
a

C
a)
> N C
N
7 m
>
V 2 N 7
O
LL m
a
U
X
M
O
C
N
U
U)
U
O O
-v
CL _
W (n
V) (n
a n.
CD m M
O
O O N
C C N
O 0-
2 2 N

L

r
A
c
()
U
U)
C
O
'C y
C C
O y
U m
m a
O (n
01

N
Lo
O
O
O
co LO
O O
p
IA N
O N
O
O
N
M
w
w
Q O M M o O o N O ? o cq r N r-
co

M

N

p ?

0

00 ?

O p

p

O
N

O
N

M
O
N

N

117

N
Q O M C? O o N O C5
I CD co N r
co M

N
N
W)
0
0
00
O O
p
LO N
O N
O
M O
O
Ln
co
h
Q O M o O O N O Cl C; M CD
r
N
r

?-
?-
O
p
to
O O
p
M N
O N
O
co
0
O
N
N
M
Q O M o O o N O Ci o M cV r N ?-
M
t
d
c 3
y o

m c ? L

E a s
U
N
d ? 0)
0 o

0)
E O
O -
U m $ LL
C
H cn•cCD
d t
y c? v
L c

:3 0 U) d
r_
?- 3 00
, - a)
a

2 rn Q.

,T
U
.
LL C N N O 3
-j U)
a0i N 3 ?
to
L ?
O
> O L
U) O N LL J f/J

3 a?
O c
- c

L ? L
? v
+. o
Z
m
a)
_ U)
0)
C C ?
s
S a
I
i Q
v.
a+ U O (n C
V
U) C
3 0 =o M
U
L
? Y (6
O V
w C)
CL
C u- (n CO
O y 0)- •- O
fn J C C C L C: M
Q1
m C co 10
2
.JE J
U?U
T-
L
C
0 `
m L
C y
u E
U
c ?.
o
U
O
O C
E y
R
F- m
U
._ y
O 7 co m
lC '
N N M
L
L U cai Q ui
O t
C
C "gyp O to Cl
!fl ? r r N
L
U
0)
o
Q V O
0
U
X
(yi
O
.c
C
a)
U
.? cn
U O
a)
C _
(n cn
m m
CO m M
O
O N O
O O N
L L ?
C C N
O O
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Scenario3 Run Name : Run 4
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Crooked - P3
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Crooked
Execution Time 12Feb03 1123 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-2
Reach-2
Subbasin-1
Reach-1
' Subbasin-3
Junction-1
Reach-3
' Subbasin-4
Junction-2
9133.6 24 Sep 02 0130 3170.4 11.600
9088.3 24 Sep 02 0200 3127.9 11.600
11619 24 Sep 02 0115 3374.8 12.100
11508 24 Sep 02 0115 3349.6 12.100
7716.2 24 Sep 02 0130 2401.9 10.000
27559 24 Sep 02 0130 8879.4 33.700
27371 24 Sep 02 0130 8863.7 33.700
5775.0 24 Sep 02 0130 1869.4 8.000
33146 24 Sep 02 0130 10733 41.700
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.Y
w
i
O
O
v
O
q
Ca
Qa
w
d
O
L
C
O
U
CJ
O
L
a
x
v
w
x
N
M C
G_ ?

L.

I

i

0

7j'
N
A
cv
C
a
V
0
0
L
V
d
.O
L
CL
N
N
cC
Q
co
4)
0
L
c
0
a

0
0
all

ro
a?

c rn
0 N
tD
N

Q
E
m
N
0 Z Lo Lo cD
v ti r` r-
E
0
U

m
m o LO U')
a?

U

CD LO ?n
(p N r N
N m
0
r0
C
?

Lo 00 0

tL v
c
-
m
0 c
U LO 0 0
c
rv
J i
C
0 0 O O
.
N

` 0 0 0
0 In M
LUL
m
N
`
a
d 2 M Cp o M
M r- r-- 00
N
C ?

D
O
C
U)
M Q Q Q

7
cn
Z
U o
r-- rn
r- v
D1 -
rn v
r-- N
00
d
a

(ti _

> C (p m
(n 70 c coo
U t W E 7
0 0
LL S U
X
rn
X
W
U
O O
d 2
CL Q
?11 >1
CO m M
O
O N C)
O O N
O 0-
2 2 N

`F-
L

N
C
_) 'v)
K ?
u?
Cl)

M
U)
C) U')
0 LO
O C)
O
UA
NO N
O
00 O
(A
N
r
N
Q CD M M O
O r C)
O U-)
N O 6 O
O N r
Cl) O N r

N
Q
s1'
Lq
O
O
?f
O
p
to
O
Q
O
00 O
1n
?'
1p
O M M o r o N Ci 0 N N
.- O N r

r
t
to
O LO
O
O
[t LO
O
O CD
p
1f!
NO N
O
0
co O
B
(D
IA
to
Q O M M
O r
O
N O CD,
O N C' O N r
L
a?
m
L

C Y

E ms

a mo
O .
E U m
•+ N C p
F- -F
O
@ L V
C
> N L - `-'
a+ j 0 :3 'r
(n
~ 3 ? rna
U- N N _O

m L
fn > >. o
O N E J
,= L
3 a?
o c

?a c
cv

v ? V

z
a)
m

a?
c
c c ? ?
L
?
O a) ?
+' U O N C
O
?U_0 c°
s
a
o a)
?U
0- 0)
_O NCO
d ?- V O
(n J C .C C O L
? ? c0 C c0 -`O ?
E U 2i U 2:
.`c
0
? L
C ai
(D E
V
C ?
o
U ?
O
a) C
E N
co
= N
` O d' 00 co
N N co
2
? r
t j S It u•)

O C
:2
O O
-O f4
L r r N
O
c U
o
o m
cu
?
(1)
C)
N
LO
(D
C
0 Q

V O?
C
O
O
Cf)
.n
a)
`
c
a
a)
7
N
N
7
co

U
7
N
a)
L
H
(1)
6
z
X
01
C
X
W
U
a) o
'O
O
CL 2
(n to
o N
CL 0-
mm m o
(L) W O
O O N
C C N
C c
O O -
22N
u

u

H

i
HMS * Summary of Results
Project MonroeEX Run Name : Run 6
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Goose - Exist.
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Goose
Execution Time 12Feb03 1056 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 4568.5 24 Sep 02 0130 1386.7 7.300
Reach-1 4531.8 24 Sep 02 0145 1362.1 7.300
Subbasin-2 4730.5 24 Sep 02 0130 1433.3 7.600
Junction-1 9126.7 24 Sep 02 0130 2795.3 14.900
Reach-2 9065.6 24 Sep 02 0145 2752.0 14.900
Subbasin-3 5671.1 24 Sep 02 0115 1471.4 8.000
Junction-2 13629 24 Sep 02 0130 4223.4 22.900
u)
N
C
Q
t4
V
O
O
L
"a
A
2
1
V
.O
L
N
N
cv
00
d
O
L
O
G
C
2
C
V
L
'C
+
z
C
C
L'
Z
Q
u
C
C
C
n
r
u
a
a
d
u
c
C
L

Y

V O - Il
N M N N
d
CL
a
E
m
N
Z
co
T
O
Q
U ti co co
E
O
U

ea
>
LO
O
O

U

C?,
? O O
N
0
a
ca
c
..1
U) In ° In
d
a.

m c
-
O C
U m O LO Cl
.? ` T T T
c M
to
J ?
C
d O m Q')
? to ti
N
d
N
` O
co O
N O
T
O

V

d M CD O M
M Q ? r- co N
C ?

0
c
Q Q
M ?L

7

Z O rn v T N
U ti ? rn rn ? ?
d
a

O (6
Y N
> _ '0 C: N

°
? 75
u ? ? n. U
0)
x
T
O
m
C
O
U
U)
U
O O
-a
? T
(n (n
m m
>1 >1
m co M
a) a) O
O O N
C C N
O O T
2 2 N

N
C
.y
R
L
L
7
co

M
N
LO
0 In
0
co LO
O O
p
w N
O N
O
00 O
W)
N
Lo
m
Q O co O O O O O O N r O r O
O O N O M

N
N
L
O
O
O
00
O
O
C)
U?
O
0
CO O
O
11Y
c0
-:
Q O M M
O O
O
N J I
O 0
O N ?j
? O r
l 1 e-

N

Lq
0
C) LO
0

O
OO LO
O

O C)
p
?A 04

C) N
O

O
00 O
LO

CO

01

r
Q O M
Cl)

O O

O Lo

N O O

O N M

r O e'
r
C
? C

O L
? .U Q.
? N O
R O -
U c?-o
,. N C O
y L C O
N L
7

F-

3 0
0
Q? = s
n
rn
LO O
N
C
': J
N
a+
0 (U
CU _0
3:
N
L
f/) c
R >, 0 M
>
O N LL J
L L t
d 3 d
s 3 ? c
N O R R
?' R v a) U
O
Z
3 a)
N
O
LL ?
d C C
N w

+- 0
C
CD
O
C O
'D (U L
U
U Q Q1
3
O LL 0 m
0) 0
p(n-j c.C c c
C C C lu 0)
R m 00
L = N - 'O
cn-i Li U2U2?
t
C
0
` L
C y
(D
U
C
O
U R
o
d ?
co
U
- coM
D N N M
A ?
L
Lo ?-
CL "T
W 0 It LO
O L
C
C ? O N O
R + N
t 5
U
d
O R
R °
LO N
C L.
i
m Q V O
Q
N
X
0
(d
C
U
U
U)
U
0 0
'o a
IL T-
fn W
rn N
cu M
a Q-
>1 >1
m co M
O
N N O
O O N
C C N
O 0-
2i 2i N

HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Scenariol Run Name : Run 6
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Goose - P1
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Goose
Execution Time 12Feb03 1106 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 6268.9 24 Sep 02 0100 1564.0 7.300
Reach-1 6170.9 24 Sep 02 0115 1539.2 7.300
Subbasin-2 7114.7 24 Sep 02 0100 1794.0 7.600
Junction-1 12906 24 Sep 02 0115 3333.2 14.900
Reach-2 12745 24 Sep 02 0115 3292.3 14.900
Subbasin-3 8321.2 24 Sep 02 0045 1836.4 8.000
Junction-2 19374 24 Sep 02 0115 5128.6 22.900
N
N
A
Rf
V
0)
O
O
1
V
.O
a
N
N
ca
m
m
O
O
2
m
„a
CD LO Ci
N M N N

CL
a
E
m
N
Z
O
N
O
Q
U r- co co
E
O
U

m

> o o o

U
d
0
N O O
N
m R
n.
m
c
?+

U)
?
?n
°
u?
m
a ?
c
-
m
o c
U ? Ln 0 0
N
C D

J ?
C
d Lo Lo Lo
;g IT LO r-
N
d

E! Lr) Lo o
O N
LL
R
d
Q
Cl) CD O Cl)
?p r- ? 00 N
C ?

D
O
c
MM Q Q Q o

3
Cl)
Z
U o
ti O>
r? '
rn r-
rn V'
r? N
ao
d
Q

? C (U N
C to D C N > >
U p a) a m 5
tL ? D S d U
(n
X
N
O
cu
C
U
U)
U
O O
d 2
a Q
m m M
O
O O NO
C C N
O 0-
2i 2 N

N
C
.N
L
co

M
N
LO
O LO
O
co LO
O p
p
LO N
O N
O
00 Co
N
LO

01
Q O M o O o N O CD CV M O r O

N

N

10

0
O

0
Lo

OO

O
'o
O
p

to
N
O
N
O

co
O
?

U9

OD

r
Q O M M O O o N O C C; N O r ?-

r
N
?
0 LO
0
00 C)
O p
p
to N
p N
0
co ?
?
w
01
r
Q O M CO O O O N O Ci N M
r O r r
L
a
.? 3
N O

w
C t
y
(D .
E t rr
m n 3

a a? o
O
E O _
C)w ?
a? C
C
1- d N .
p
M fC
y L C
> (A L `_
m a-+ m 70 U
~ _ ' C . O
cm 0-
U
U- C: N C O
) 3

d co 3
N O 'D 0
t > O L
cn O N LL J fn
L L
3 a?
o c

L ? L
N O U
a+ YO ?'
Z
N
a?

N
C C
L
O O
r' U O N C
3"omc

w O N
arn
O C u- V) M
O
-
(n J m
-
C .C c
?
C:
O C C C ?- p
C:
t
L
_
J E O
a)
U 2 U 2 J
C
O `
l0 L
C N
u E
V
C
O
U ?
`0 J
O
d C
N
F- m
N
R co M
m N N M
f) r
+-i a, lq
W 1
O L
C
C ?
lC
L 5
U
O Ln O
? ? N
d
rn?
R d
C `
oa
0 0
V ? p
r
X
N
O
C
a?
U
U)
U O
a?
O
U)
(6 cti
a a
m m C)
O N O
O O N
C C N
O O ?-
N
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Scenario2 Run Name : Run 5
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Goose - P2
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Goose
Execution Time 12Feb03 1116 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 6499.4 24 Sep 02 0100 1630.7 7.300
Reach-1 6475.2 24 Sep 02 0115 1608.0 7.300
Subbasin-2 7300.8 24 Sep 02 0100 1848.3 7.600
Junction-1 13377 24 Sep 02 0115 3456.3 14.900
Reach-2 13279 24 Sep 02 0115 3414.1 14.900
Subbasin-3 8321.2 24 Sep 02 0045 1836.4 8.000
Junction-2 19908 24 Sep 02 0115 5250.4 22.900

T
N
c?
C
V
0)
O
O
L
A
v
d
O
aL
N
N
Q
m
m
O
L
C
O
2
M
O
Z
O
c?
C
d
V
:a
C
O
U
-a
d
O
L.
a
CD
ea

V 00 O co
M
L,
-0 .- N N N
d Z
a ?
a
E
m
N
aZ
U I--
ti O
co rn
ti
E
O
U

> O O O
v

U

O O
0 a
co
c

U) L ° (n
d

c
d
0
0 c
n LO ° U-)
c `
?
?a
J ?
c
d O Lo «7
C V) (D ti
N
d

m 0 LO
0
CO

?-
lL

Q
d m (O O M
t0 Q ti r- co N
.C
co
O
D
c
Q Q 0

7

Z O O ? ? V N
U ? ? rn rn ti eo
m
O.
H _
.O
C (0 a)
>

0
U)

p

C
M

N

)

tf
U o
li w I
? D -S , X
c-i
0
C
m
U
U)
U
O O
V) cn
m cu
d a
mmM
O
O O (L) a
N
C C N
O 0-
2i 2 N

z
N
C
.N
f6
7
N
4
M N ? 0 Ln
0 00 LO
O p O N
O O 00 LO N O OA
Q O M cc c)
O O O
O L
N O
O O
O N ~
Cl) O r O

N
N
?
p
O

O
Lr)
co
O

o
p

"
0
0

ao O
?

0p

r
Q O M M
O O
O u
)
N O
O
O N
r O r r

r
N
0
0
00
O
p

-
lA
N

O
O
co 0

tD

01

r
Q O M M ci
O O O
O U
)
N O
O O
0 N
M
r O r e-
L
w
a?
a?
L

d -?
0) .C
m u a
CL m o
m o_
E U m
N C O
O
0) L C
> fA L
0

~ a
3 0 U)
O 3?
rn

O W
C
l-
-o N C
o
_)
c:
d >
3

L >
> 0
_
U) O N LL J
L L
3 a?
3 -° c
o ? R

L

N ?' o

3 ai
o cn
F a?

v
m C C

d
C
O
C
U 'O W L
O
U
p rn
o c F c
nm0w
- - O
Q U) J a)
C .C C m L
- -p
O
C C c C p?
(0
a)
O _
L (
cnJLL L
L
UGUS J
s
C
O `
? L
C y
0) E
U
c
O
U ?
`0 J
O C
0)
E N
- R

v
•- 00 M
N N co
L
U-) r
W 0'I 4 ui
c L
C
C r N
f0
L
U
0
rn o 0
C 0) ? ? N
Q V O
U
X
M
O
C
0)
U
U
U
O O
d 2
U) U)
N U
m M
CL CL
CO m co
Cl
W (1) O
O O N
C C N
O O
2 2 N

HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Scenario3 Run Name : Run 5
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Goose - P3
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Goose
Execution Time 12Feb03 1123 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 6111.4 24 Sep 02 0100 1523.2 7.300
Reach-1 6037.3 24 Sep 02 0115 1500.0 7.300
Subbasin-2 6969.3 24 Sep 02 0100 1755.5 7.600
Junction-1 12641 24 Sep 02 0115 3255.5 14.900
Reach-2 12503 24 Sep 02 0115 3210.2 14.900
Subbasin-3 8072.9 24 Sep 02 0045 1774.8 8.000
Junction-2 18957 24 Sep 02 0115 4984.9 22.900
i
W
.:t
u
7
A
v
.fl
O
.y
CE
M
W
d
O
L
C
O
a.
u
v
o
L
00
cn
x
U
W
x
C
f0
Q
.L?

O
N U
S] C
m

1

n

T
N
C
U
0)
_O
O
L
A
2
U
d
O
L
a
N
N
Q.
A
m
d
0
L
C
0

O
'C
C
O
U
x
w
C
N
m
co
Y
U
?v
m

C N
a) 7
` O
CD
O
to
Q)
C
a
E
CD
N
QZ
co
V
U ti ti ti
O
U

m
m
r LO LO CD

U
m
L
LO co CD
N
co
N
d a
R
c ??

CO O N
a

m
O C
V a N O co
C D
fC
J ;
C
4) CD N U')
.
N
a)

r
N
a)

Lo

CD

CD

O
L.
I--
0c)
(D
LL
co
m
Q
O o
R Q .
N M
C
m

D

m Q `Q MQ o

7
Cf)
Z
U C)
r? m
? --T
rn
rn
? N
ao
m
CL

c
Lo
c
a)
a)
>
O N
a) v
,n (CO v ?i
cn cu
U O
L
L a) -o

C:
- m

P-1

x
m
C
x
W
U
O O
CL 2
U) ?
a n.
m mm
a) a> o0
O O N
C C N
O 0-
Z> 2i N

i
i
i
c
0
U
c_ C
~' N
N ?
x m
w?
c N
.N
t0
m
YI
V
0
M V U) O O

(D O

O p C?j ? 04
O
O
00 u?
r,-o
T
00
Q O M M
O !"
O Lr)
N O
O
O N O N r
N

N
V
-
p t(7
0
p
ej
O p
C)
IA?
C) 04 N
O
O
c0 C)
CO
Lp
lA

Q
O
M
M

O
r
p
O
Lo
N J 1
O

p

0
N

ce)
O
N
r

r
V
u7
p LO
0
p
'cr U')
O
p CD
p
?
? N
O
O
V p
?
T
00
t?
Q O M '
O ?-
O L
N O
O
0 N
co O N r
L
d
d
L
N

d
N L
U Q

y O -
E U m?
? _
0) tN/1 ? O
d L C
] N L ` v
?'

~ •? o cn
o W v rn a
C
O
N
c ) F
U- n
°' L > >, p c
U) ONJ
E:
L L
3 m
o c

L r. L
N
++ 16
r+
Z
4)
4)

N
C
C C ? $
L
N N
U .
+' U O C
7
(nom

U)? cco
3
0 70
ai m O U a)
O. O)
O LL U) co
-
V O
•
@ 0)
(n i
-O C .C C w
C C C `
C:
m O m
L (O Co >, a)
-i E U2i U=.i
L
C
O `
? L
C y
U
C ?
O ?
U ?
O J
O =
E N
I- m
v
N
` O V co M
N N M
7+ ?
a
W d ? V ui
0
Z L
c
r_ O U) O
m - N
L
U
m
Q1 O O
C ` N
L Q V U! O
N
X
rn
c
N
x
W
U
O O
O T
Q. _
? ?
n. n.
co >1 >1
m M
O
a) m O
O O N
C C C14
O O
N
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
HMS * Summary of Results
Project MonroeEX Run Name : Run 5
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Duck - Exist.
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Duck
Execution Time 12Feb03 1056 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 1290.0 24 Sep 02 0145 424.64 2.400
Subbasin-2 1851.0 24 Sep 02 0130 556.94 3.400
Junction-1 3122.7 24 Sep 02 0130 981.59 5.800
Reach-1 3086.2 24 Sep 02 0200 959.63 5.800
Subbasin-3 2726.9 24 Sep 02 0145 894.22 5.000
Junction-2 5797.3 24 Sep 02 0145 1853.9 10.800

I
I

T
N
C
V
O
O
L
'a
V
d
.O
L
a
N
N
cC
Q
A
m
d
O
L
O
G
N
O
a.
C
cC
m

m
a
00 00 Cl)
N
N N M
y ? M

a
E
m
N
aZ
O
O
N
E U co co co
O
U

ID

> o 0 0

U
CD

N O O O
N ?
a) a

c

C) o °

a s
c
-
d
O c
U m U-) U-) Lo
c D
co
J ?
C
d U) U-) LO
r- ti
N
a)

r
N

` 0 0 0

O r r r
a
tC
a1
Q
O V O ?-
M N CO L
C cn

O
O
c
Q Q Cl)
o

7

Z
U o
r? a,
? v
rn ?
rn v
? N
co
a)
Q

f- L _ p
C
0 D
C a) 0 C N > >
.n
o
U- a)
D ' Z3
U
N
X
O
c
Q)
U
U)
U
O O
d 2
(n (n
(n (n
T T
co m C)
a) O O
O O N
C C N
O O
N

N
.NC
N
L
L

m
N
lf')
0 LO
0
co LO
O
1 p
p
'
w N
O N
O
O
00 to
O
O
N
M
Q O M O
O O ?
O U
)
N O O
O N O N r
N

N
N
U.)
0
C)
0
00
O CD
C)
In N
O N
O
O
00 to
I-
w
Q1
r
Q O M O
O O O
O LO
N O
6
6 N O r ?-
r N Lo Cl 0 00 O p N N

O O It 0
U)
0
N
M
Q O M O O O N O Ci O N co
r O N r
L
CD
a?
L

a) L
V U d
a mo
O
E O -
U m

H ++ to C O
L C o

cLc +, °'o n
~ 3 0? rn Q
O - 0 N C O

_0
W
L O T _O ?

>
U) O N LL J
L L
3 a?
3 ? c
o m
m N a) v

Z
3 O
a)
O cn

C C
C _
ca
L
O a)
c U
.?". 0 uj C
?U) 3 0??
_o D co -c
?U
U am
O C m cnm
0
0 U)
-
M
0
f0
3
m 0 L cu L 'D
N

C
o L
fC L
L
U
c j-
O ?
U ?
0 .1
O
O C
E
f- m
v
7 r co M
N N M
r+
Lu ,4. t LO
O L
C
C 'gyp O l!7 O
L
U
m
O O
` Q V O
O
w
X
0
ca
C
U
?U)
ow O
O
N rn
(n U
0? Q-
co cu m
>1 >1
m M
Cl
a) a) o
O O N
C C N
O 0-
2i
i
i
i
i
i
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Scenariol Run Name : Run 7
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Duck - P1
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Duck
Execution Time 12Feb03 1106 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 1953.1 24 Sep 02 0115 549.33 2.400
Subbasin-2 3106.5 24 Sep 02 0100 781.36 3.400
Junction-1 5005.7 24 Sep 02 0100 1330.7 5.800
Reach-1 4937.9 24 Sep 02 0115 1309.3 5.800
Subbasin-3 4251.1 24 Sep 02 0115 1200.3 5.000
Junction-2 9189.0 24 Sep 02 0115 2509.6 10.800

n

1

lip
N
C
U
O
O
L
'a
2
V
O
L
a
N
N
m
Q
m
d
O
L
C
O
a
N
O
Z
•`
m
C
d
V
0
L
n.
C
N
m
Y
V
?o
m
C co O O N
L N N N 00
N
L
a
?
CL
E

aZ o 0 0
EU co co co
O
U
.O
m
> o 0 0

U

N O O O
d d
C6
C t0
r
N O O O

d
O.
3
? )
-
d
O C
U m Ln
r In CD
r
C L
D ?
m
J
C
0a Lo U-) U)
D n ?
N
d
N
o
o
Lo
O r `-
LL
R
d
Q
(D V V O r.
R N Co Lo

O

C
Q Q Q O

Z o m t ?- -rt N
U ti r? rn rn ti ao
d
Q

'
L }
C
N (0

? UJ
? .-+
fn
0 C y
(? N
?
U p N y) +
N
W M
a 7
U
X
N
O
m
C
U
++ U)
U
O O
d 2
cn N
U) V)
m co
a a
>1 >1
m m M
O N O
O O N
O O
N

N
C
.y
m
L
N
i
M N Co LO
0 co to
O p w N O co ?` <A N M
Q O M O O O N O D o N <D N r
N

f?
N
0
O
0?
O p
p
?A
CD N
O
co O
eR

?-
Q
O
M M O O C) N
O
p
O
N
?,j
m
s-
r N ul 0

CD
0 co O p 1A N

o O
S 0
?p
N

c
Q O M M O 6 O o N O D N . N I r

r
a?
G)
L

m -a
? a s
Q
ld
a ? N
a? o
m O _
?- O N C O
@ L C Q V
>
~
on
= m
3
N n
'D
LL
? O
to
.r m -J
N O
3
T 0
L > _
cn O N LL J
L
3 'v

z
N
(D
_ U)
d
c

+•' U
O to C
v ? _
N (n = C
c
0
0
:F m
O 0
.
w C)
a m
O c LL N m 0 w
O
m-
(n N
J -
C
c c = Y

C m
m '0
L
U O

(
M
L
N
JU- U :?i U=J
L
O
? L
C y
N
U
C
O
U m
O J
d C
E N
H m
v
N
?p O V a0 M
V a N N M
A d'
L
N Q.
W Gl
in
In -
4 L6
m a =
?p C Co LO O
-p L r r N
rn U
c
o d
c>
C ami
o 0
LO
O
Y
` Q i
V Cl
c
O ?
'O
(D
m
.t]

m
N
N

m

U
7
m
T
N
L
I-
2
O
z
cn
X
N
O
C
U
U
U
a)
.0
Q. 2
N N
m m
n Q.
mmM
p
N N O
O O N
C C N
O O *-
2 2 N
i
i

HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Scenario2 Run Name : Run 6
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Duck - P2
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Duck
Execution Time 12Feb03 1116 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1
' Subbasin-2
Junction-1
Reach-1
' Subbasin-3
Junction-2
1
1
1
1953.1 24 Sep 02 0115 549.33 2.400
3106.5 24 Sep 02 0100 781.36 3.400
5005.7 24 Sep 02 0100 1330.7 5.800
4937.9 24 Sep 02 0115 1309.3 5.800
4083.8 24 Sep 02 0115 1150.3 5.000
9021.7 24 Sep 02 0115 2459.6 10.800

I
Ir
N
c+o
C
V
tm
O
0
V
U
d
.O
L.
0.
N
N
Rf
Q.
co
0
O
C
O
G
C
'O
Q.
C
.N

„a

o rn rn v ~
'
u N N
M
CL
CL
E
0
y
oZ co co 0)
.
EU
r-
r-
r--
0
U

m
0
> 0 0 o

U

N O O O

d a
?a
c
0
w.
0 o o °

a c
`m -

0 =

U ?a
a
Ln
M
LO
c ?
ca
J ?
C

ti ? O
Vl
Gl

N
L O O O
0 N N N
LL

Q
d d' V' O
m N Co Lo r-
= fn

D

Q
N co
Q 71
0

7
A

?
v/
Z O O ch ?- N
(? f? I` O O ? 00
d
Q
-
H 6 _ -p
C

U (0
'C m
>
0
LI)

C

cn

7

t? ti U
N
X
M
O
(D
C
N
U
cn
U
? o
a
o ?
EL 2
O
U) cn
ca M
Cl- a
>1 >1
M
co co
0
Q) (L) o
O O N
C: c C'4
O O
? ? N

N
C
.y
m
L
L
7
N

M
N
?
0
0
co
O
CD
N
N
O
O U7
~
i
cn
N
M
Q O M O O O N O o N Cl N ?-
N

N

N

U')

Op LO

O
p

O LO

O
O p

CD

N

NO N

O

co
O

w

Cn

r
Q O M M
O O
O
N O
O O
O N
co O ?- r

r

N

In
I
O
to
0

a0

O

CD

Lq

Na

O

llf 0

?

N

M
Q Cl c') M O O O N O 6 O N O
r O N
t
rr
m
m
L
.yam.

a) C v
m -d
E C
a) L
` U Q
a ?o
0 O .
E U ?o E
a+ N C p
0 _
C O
0
> L
V7 L
f
C m7
`
f- Y O U)
0
0 N C
O
a+ L ? J
N 3
`
0
L a
)
> O
Un o N LL J
L L
3 d
3 o c

t6
L N
0
1 v
U)
f 6
ar z
3 m
o _ Un
E
O
O 0
C
C
C
C
a)
a

N a)
-
U
0 L2.
+'
O

rcn _
Z3 C
3 0U? (CO
O OU D caL
m?U
U CL LL v?
?
p (n J
- -n C .
C 7 L
c c c co ?
M e 3
L so c ?p o c
a
C
i»LL U?U2_
L
C
O
? t
C y
a' E
U
C
o ?
U ?
0 J
0
CD c
? m
.2 0
?t W M
N co
V m N
t
N O. ?, l0 r
W 0
fU CL
(9 C 'O
0 L
? U
o ?
a?
o ca ?
w •? Q
C ?
O
'D
0
Cl)
c?
.n
(0
a)
N
7
N
7
.O
(0
O LO O
r- - N
0 0
N
V
? O
U
7
N
_0
2
m
L
a)
0
Z
O
X
M
O
C
Q)
U
U
U
0 O
.0-0
U) N
U) U)
M ca
Q n
m m C'7
O
a) a) O
O O N
C C N
O O
N
i
i
i
i
i
i
i

HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Scenario3 Run Name : Run 6
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Duck - P3
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model Duck
Execution Time 12Feb03 1123 Control Specs Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1 1828.1 24 Sep 02 0115 509.02 2.400
Subbasin-2 2907.2 24 Sep 02 0100 724.18 3.400
Junction-1 4678.3 24 Sep 02 0100 1233.2 5.800
Reach-1 4600.9 24 Sep 02 0130 1213.0 5.800
Subbasin-3 3949.7 24 Sep 02 0115 1106.2 5.000
Junction-2 8515.8 24 Sep 02 0115 2319.3 10.800
t t r' YW'P. ? r t '? ,
r
i ..
44,
1 , see
y .
.
.
, x
?r a s
.+
i
r s
+ AMY
Pon
44
• ?;. ? J'+?.? Y`r 11 ? ) `a ' ,l%- ? V ..
Air
~f ?? .__kJ { '<: h•, pp 1. .,#*
r
t
F-
4-1
i ? • e?3 ? ? ? { ? ?Ja ' Y 'R ,?y ? r ? r t ,? n Y a
Alp
A?w
- s
, TM?
?,'.
-.. a •tF+ slot"1..?5 yy,e.. s YiRE i yG?y.. r '-? ?? 4 1V.sr 7tt!a ;Ix ?t s j 1.
'' -? ;..:?s-''aaEC ?:.r ?tE i + +?r'..1 '..' ?+ _ S.:.'A,-,? , ?r'?4'i'9tifi'?", ?• ? '? f4W ; s!1???.???a?': ? .. v 1?,?''_ P ?_?? 4 ? -. } ± a: _?'. _ .?:.:

INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT STUDY
NUTRIENT ANALYSIS
MONROE BYPASS
(R-2559 AND R-3329)
UNION $ ANSON COUNTIES
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
SEPTEMBER 2002
Uu ?
Monroe Bypass/Connector Project - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis 09/27/00
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HNTB North Carolina, P.C. was requested by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to review available information related to the R-2559 (Monroe
Bypass) and R-3329 (Monroe Connector) Transportation Improvement Projects (TIPs)
for creating a new roadway that would bypass the towns of Wingate, Monroe, Indian
Trail and possibly Stallings, North Carolina. There were three purposes for this review:
1. Provide information requested by the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in support of a
Section 401 water quality certification application by NCDOT for the R-2559 Monroe
Bypass project;
2. Provide projected land use analysis for support of the preparation of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), by others, for the R-3329 Monroe Connector
project; and
3. Provide projected land use analysis for support of the analysis of potential water
quality effects on a Federally designated endangered species, the Carolina Heel Splitter
Mussel, in three creeks nearby the two projects.
The review consisted basically of a two-part process:
• Estimate the land use change that might occur as a result of constructing R-2559 and
R- 3329
• Calculate the change in surface water flow in the 260 square mile watershed that
could potentially be affected by the land use change
Several authoritative references were used as a basis of the methodology used in this
process:
The Louis Berger Group: "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, Volume II: Practitioner's Handbook"
prepared for State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation/Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina, November 2001
(Berger);
• ECONorthwest and Portland State University: "A Guidebook for evaluating the
Indirect Land use and Growth Impacts of highway Improvements, Final Report," for
Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon, and Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., March 2001 (ECONorthwest)
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 456: "Guidebook
for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects,"
Transportation Research Board - National Research Council, National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C., 2001.
Monroe Bypass/Connector Project - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis 09/27/00
• Cervero, R. and M. Hansen. 2002 (forthcoming). Induced Travel Demand and
Induced Road Investment: A Simultaneous-Equation Analysis. Journal of Transport
Economics and Policy.
not ?N • Cervero, R. 2002 (forthcoming). Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced
Travel: A Path Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association.
Gillen, D. 1996. Transportation Infrastructure and Economic Development: A
Review of Recent Literature. Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 32, No. 1,
39-62.
• Giuliano, G. 1995. Land Use Impacts of Transportation Investments: Highway and
Transit. The Geography of Urban Transportation, ed. by S. Hanson. 2"d Edition,
Guilford Press: 305-341.
• Grigg, A. and W. Ford. 1983. Review of Some Effects of Major Roads on Urban
Communities. Transport and Road Research Supplemental Report 778. Washington,
D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
• Hartgen, D. and D. Curley. 1999. Beltways: Boon, Bane, or Blip? Factors
Influencing Changes in Urbanized Area Traffic, 1990-1997. Charlotte: University of
North Carolina at Charlotte, Center for Interdisciplinary Transportation Studies.
Transportation Publication Number 190.
d„ pp??,it • Hartgen, D. and J. Kim. 1998. Commercial Development at Rural and Small-Town
Ca hrsLI. Interstate Exits. Transportation Research Record 1649, 95-104.
• Landis, J., S. Guhathakurta, and M. Zhang. 1994. Capitalization of Transit
Investments into Single-Family Home Prices: A Comparative Analysis of Five
California Rail Transit Systems. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional
Development. Working Paper 619.
• Ryan, S. 1999. Property Values and Transportation Facilities: Finding the
Transportation and Land Use Connection. Journal of Planning Literature, 13(4), 412-
440.
• Urban Transportation Center. 1999. Highways and Urban Decentralization.
Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, Urban Transportation Center. Research
Report.
This Report summarizes the information we have been able to determine related to this
issue, in four sections:
1. Project Descriptions
2. Project Area Description
3. Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
Monroe Bypass/Connector Project - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis 09/27/00
4. Hydrological Analysis
The kev conclusions of the analysis are:
1. The two projects would have the potential to influence land development within
an area roughly 7 miles to the east and south of the two projects. This area includes
portions of six creek basins, with a total land area of approximately 260 square miles.
Existing development in the potentially affected area accounts for approximately 12.6
square miles of built-upon area (impervious cover), or approximately 4.9% of the
affected basins.
2. The Carolina Heel Splitter Mussel is present in two creek basins within the
potentially affected area: Goose Creek and Duck Creek.
Goose Creek is approximately 23 square miles, with existing development accounting for
approximately 0.37 square miles of built-upon area (impervious cover), or approximately
1.6% of the creek basin. Existing surface water peak discharge run-off in a 25 year storm
event is approximately 13,629 cubic feet per second, with a runoff volume of
approximately 4,223 acre-feet.
Duck Creek is approximately 11 square miles, with existing development accounting for
approximately 0.04 square miles of built-upon area (impervious cover), or approximately
0.4% of the creek basin. Existing surface water peak discharge run-off in a 25 year storm
event is approximately 5,797 cubic feet per second, with a runoff volume of
approximately 1,854 acre-feet.
3. One creek basin within the potentially affected area, Lake Twitty, is a Class III
Water Supply Watershed. The Lake Twitty basin is approximately 32 square miles, with
existing development accounting for approximately 0.96 square miles of built-upon area
(impervious cover), or approximately 3.0% of the creek basin. Existing surface water
peak discharge run-off in a 25 year storm event is approximately 17,284 cubic feet per
second, with a runoff volume of approximately 20,040 acre-feet.
4. If neither project is built, growth in the affected area would increase the built-
upon area (impervious cover) to approximately 32.9 square miles, or 12.7 % of the area.
This would increase surface water peak discharge run-off by approximately 34,230 cubic
feet per second in a 25 year storm event, or approximately 24.9% over existing
conditions.
For the "no-build" conditions, in the two creek basins where the Carolina Heel Splitter
Mussel is present, impervious cover would increase as follows:
Goose Creek impervious cover would increase to 1.38 square miles, or 6.0% of the basin.
Peak discharge would increase to 19,374 cubic feet per second, a 42.2 % increase over
existing conditions.
Monroe Bypass/Connector Project - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis 09/27/00
Duck Creek impervious cover would increase to 0.36 square miles, or 3.3% of the basin.
Peak discharge would increase to 9,189 cubic feet per second, a 58.5 % increase over
existing conditions.
For the "no-build" conditions, in the Lake Twitty WS-III basin, impervious cover would
increase as follows:
Impervious cover would increase to 2.72 square miles, or 8.5% of the basin. Peak
discharge would increase to 23,524 cubic feet per second, a 36.2% increase over existing
conditions.
If both projects are built, with no change in development controls in the G ose ek
basin, the impervious cover would increase to 6.7%, compared to 1.6% existing and 6.0%
for the no build scenario. The additional 0.7% increase in impervious cover would be
attributable to the influence of the R-3329 Monroe Connector project. Peak discharge
would increase to 19,908 cubic feet per second, a 46.1% increase over existing
conditions, and a 1.9% increase over the no build scenario. Runoff volume would
increase to 5,250 acre-feet, a 24.3% increase over existing conditions, and a`2.8%
increase over the no build-scenario.
If both projects are built, with no change in development controls in the Duck Creek
basin, the impervious cover would increase to 3.0%, compared to 0.4% existing and 3.3%
for the no build scenario. The 0.3% decrease in impervious cover compared to the no
build scenario is attributable to the influence of the R-3329 Monroe Connector project in
attracting development away from the influence of 1-485 in the Duck Creek basin. Peak
discharge would increase to 9,022 cubic feet per second, a 55.6% increase over existing
conditions, but a 2.9% decrease from the no build scenario. Runoff volume would
increase to 2,460 acre-feet, a 32.7% increase over existing conditions, but a 2.7%
decrease from the no build scenario.
If both projects are built, with the Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended
development controls in the Goose Creek basin, the impervious cover would increase to
5.3%, compared to 1.6% existing and 6.0% for the no build scenario. The 0.7% decrease
in impervious cover compared to the no build scenario is attributable to the influence of
the proposed development controls. Peak discharge would increase to 18,957 cubic feet
per second, a 39.1 % increase over existing conditions, but a 3.1 % decrease from the no
build scenario. Runoff volume would increase to 4,985 acre-feet, an 18.0% increase over
existing conditions, but a 3.5% decrease from the no build scenario.
If both projects are built, with the Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended
development controls in the Duck Creek basin, the impervious cover would increase to
2.3%, compared to 0.4% existing and 3.3% for the no build scenario. The 1.0% decrease
in impervious cover compared to the no build scenario is attributable to the influence of
the R-3329 Monroe Connector project in attracting development away from the influence
of I-485 in the Duck Creek basin combined with the effect of the proposed development
controls.. Peak discharge would increase to 8,516 cubic feet per second, a 46.9%
Monroe Bypass/Connector Project - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis 09/27/00
increase over existing conditions, but an U.6% decrease from the no build scenario.
Runoff volume would increase to 2,319 acre-feet, a 25.1% increase over existing
conditions, but a 10.3% decrease from the no build scenario.
If both projects are built, regardless of development controls in the Goose Creek and
Duck Creek basins, the Lake Twv_! WS-III asm wi expenence in impervious cover
increase to 12. ° , compared to 3.0% existing and 8.5% for the no build scenario. The
additional 3.6% increase in impervious cover would be attributable to the combined
influence of the R-2559 Monroe Bypass and R-3329 Monroe Connector projects. Peak
discharge would increase to 26,471 cubic feet per second, a 53.2% increase over existing
conditions, and a 17.0% increase over the no build scenario. Runoff volume would
increase to 7,844 acre-feet, a 33.4% increase over existing conditions and a 16.1%
increase over the no build scenario.

INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT STUDY
NUTRIENT ANALYSIS
MONROE BYPASS
(R-2559 AND R-3329)
UNION & ANSON COUNTIES
NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:

ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 101
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
SEPTEMBER 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A nutrient-analysis study was performed to compute indirect and cumulative nutrient-
loading impacts for a region of land expected to receive additional developmental
pressure from the construction of the Monroe Bypass (Bypass). As requested by the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, this analysis was completed using the Nutrient
Export Coefficient Method (Dodd et al. 1992, DWQ 1998) to compare three future
scenarios: 1) Year 2020 land use without the construction of the Bypass, 2) Year 2020
land use with construction of the Bypass using current Union County ordinances and
land-use controls, and 3) Year 2020 land use with construction of the Bypass employing
additional measures aimed at maintaining or improving water quality standards within
the county.
Nutrient modeling results suggest a 5-percent increase in total nitrogen (TN) and a-7---
percent reduction in total phosphorus) directly attributable to development generated
by the construction o the Bypass. If more progressive land-use policies are instituted
union County, nutrient modeling results suggest that a 20- and 22-percent reduction o
TN and TP, respectively, could occur as high-loading agricultural land converts into more
developed but less loading land-use categories These findings suggest that increased
re ulg ation of development and watershed protection measures have the potential to
reduce Bypass-induced nutrient loading through application of best management
practices (B P) and mitigation activities. Such applications may include development of
a regional land-use plan that may incorporate expanded use of wetland and stream
mitigation sites, regional storm water structures, expanded streamside buffers, additional
open space, and limitations on impervious coverage for future development.
Cooperation between Union County, North
' (NCDOT), and all municipalities within Union
working land-use template to guide in the
implementation of various land-use practices.

Carolina Department of Transportation
County is recommended to provide a
reduction of nutrient loading through

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................
II. DWQ Study Area, HNTB Impact Area, and Information Sources ............................. 3
III. Current and Future Land-Use Determinations ...................................................... 5
Current conditions ....................................................................................................... 5
Scenario 1: Year 2020 without the Bypass .................................................................. 7
Scenarios 2 and 3: Year 2020 with the Bypass ........................................................... 7
IV. Nutrient Analysis results ...................................................................................... 14
Scenario 1 ..................................................................................................................14
Scenario 2 ..................................................................................................................14
Scenario 3 ..................................................................................................................15
Sediment ...................................................................................................................18
V. Summary ............................................................................................................20
VI. References .........................................................................................................22
LIST OF FIGURES

J

Figure 1. Study Boundaries ........................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................... 8
Figure 3. Scenario 1: Year 2020 without the Bypass ....................................................10
Figure 4. Scenario 2: Year 2020 with the Bypass and Current Land-Use Policies ........12
Figure 5. Scenario 3: Year 2020 with the Bypass and Progressive Land-Use Policies .13
LIST OF TABLES
Tables la-d. Predicted nutrient export for current conditions and Year 2020 Scenarios
1-3 within the DWQ Study Area ............................................................................... 8
Tables 2a-d. Predicted nutrient export for current conditions and Year 2020 Scenarios
1-3 within the Impact Area ......................................................................................17
Appendix A: Synopsis of HNTB methodology for predicting Year 2020 land use

' INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT STUDY
NUTRIENT ANALYSIS
' MONROE BYPASS
NCDOT TIP # R-2559 AND R-3329

J

1

1. INTRODUCTION
EcoScience Corporation (ESC) has been retained to perform a nutrient analysis as part
of an Indirect and Cumulative Impact Study for the proposed Monroe Bypass (the
Bypass) in Union County, North Carolina. The Bypass is part of Transportation
Improvement Projects (TIP) R-2559 and R-3329. The nalysis includes current and
future pre tions of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus(TP) loading within a
defined study area that includes the region proposed to be affected by secondary
development instigated by construction of the Bypass. Results of the nutrient analysis
will attempt to quantify loading rates and percentage increases between three future
scenarios: 1) Year 2020 without the Bypass, 2) Year with the Bypass, and 3) Year 2020
with the Bypass using progressive land-use controls and development ordinances aimed
at reducing nutrient export and maintaining or improving water quality within the region.
In order to estimate loading-rate changes for each scenario, long-term, time-series
measurements of stream flow and nutrient concentrations for various stream stages in
the growing and non-growing seasons would be required. A detailed field study is
prohibitive for the current effort due to temporal constraints; therefore, predictive
modeling efforts have been employed to determine future nutrient-load trends.
Currently, very few models compute non-point source nutrient loads. Existing
approaches (SWAT, NLEWP, RIMDESS, BASINS, FLUX, and MODMON) were either
unavailable for the current effort, could not be undertaken within existing time
constraints, or would be more applicable for specific land-cover types, broader spatial
scales, or gaged stream systems.
One suitable technique, the export-gpeff icient method lExCo method), does allow for
preliminary estimates of current and future non-point source loads for the study area.
The ExCo method, which was developed by Dodd et al. (1992), computes a spatially
averaged nutrient-load value-(ExCo values) from surface contributions (runoff) for the
cultiv ted, forest/wetland, developed, and o ep n-water components of a watershed.
Nutrient values are reported for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) in
kilograms per year. Subsequent revisions to the ExCo method (DWQ 1998) further
refine the original land-cover categories (ExCo land-use categories) by zoning and
satellite-imagery analysis to include a total of ei LLpl ssifications. The ExCo land-use
categories used in this analysis are four non-developed (Cultivated, Forested/Wetland,
Pasture/Maintained Herbaceous, and Open Water) and four developed (General
Residential, Low-Density Urban, Medium/High-Density Urban, and Industrial
Commercial) categories.

' An advantage of performing nutrient analysis by the ExCo method is the limited amount
of required model-input parameters. The ExCo method only requires hectarages of
specific ExCo land-use categories within a defined study area. Land-use categories for
' all scenarios were calculated using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology
and multiple sources of digital land-use data. With these data available, simple
calculations are used to model nutrient export associated with runoff from a region.
' Furthermore, the median ExCo value for each ExCo land-cover category reflects
conditions based on characteristic coverage that may incorporate a range of land-use
practices on any given site, including the possible implementation of Best Management
' Practices (BMP). However, it is unclear what land-use controls have been considered in
the derivation of these ExCo values (Dodd et al. 1992).
The difficulty of applying the ExCo method to the current effort is arriving at accurate
estimates of future land-cover hectarages to be used in loading calculations. Predicting
' rates of development within the defined study area poses a challenging, yet necessary
task. Area estimates of current ExCo land-use categories (existing conditions) were
computed by standard, straightforward techniques. However, many assumptions were
' needed in order to arrive at similar estimates for future land-cover scenarios with and
without construction of the Bypass. Projected future land use was compiled by HNTB
based on building trends and available developable land. All necessary assumptions
' were reached through a cooperative discussion between the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT), the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ), HNTB
North Carolina (HNTB), and ESC. HNTB is developing the cumulative impact
' discussion for the Monroe Bypass Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and provided
land-use data to ESC for use in ExCo method nutrient modeling.

0

L

II. DWQ STUDY AREA, IMPACT AREA, AND INFORMATION SOURCES
The multi-lane Bypass is comprised of two TIP projects (R-2559 and R-3329) and
ranges from approximately 20.2 miles to approximately 21.1 miles in length depending
on which of three alternatives is selected for the proposed Monroe Connector (R-3329).
The Bypass will redirect traffic north of the City of Monroe and is designed to be a
limited-access roadway including nine interchanges. The Bypass will relieve congestion
along US-74 for commuters traveling from Union County into more heavily developed
and urban Mecklenburg County.
Two study areas were considered in this analysis. The DWQ proposed a study area
defined by waters--5-_e emits (DWQ Study Area). A second, more restrictive study area
has been proposed as part of the EIS investigation that is essentially limited to a 5-7 mile
zpr radiating around the Bypass. The 5-7 mile wide zone was applied to the entire
corridor based on HNTB research correlating land-use changes from secondary
development impacts resulting to roadway construction.
The DWQ Study Area (Figure 1) incorporates 116 84 ectares of developed and
undeveloped land, which drains out of the DWQ Study Area through 75 named stream
systems. Land use is characterized by predominantly rural, forested, and suburban
areas, with heavily developed areas occurring along the US-74 corridor and within the
City of Monroe and Towns of Marshville, Wingate, Indian Trail, and Stallings. The DWQ
Study Area is bounded to the west by the divide between the Yadkin and Catawba River
basins, to the northwest and north by the Union County line and the Rocky River, to the
east by the Richland Creek basin divide and the Union County line, and to the south by
the Lane and Richland Creeks basin divides.
The Impact Area incorporates 61,188 hectares of land (Figure 1). The Impact Area has
' been defined by HNTB as the outer limit of influence on secondarypmPnt
instigated by the Bypass. The Impact Area is proposed to experience different rates and
categories of development than the remainder of the DWQ Study Area. The Impact
' Area has been considered a central influence of the development of "with Bypass"
Scenarios 2 and 3.

The digital information used in this analysis includes materials provided by NCDOT, the
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA), Union County Geographical
Information Systems (Union County), Anson County Geographical Information Sytstems,
HNTB, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Digital data provided by
NCDOT include aerial orthophotography, U.S. Geographical Survey (USGS)
quadrangles, the Bypass alignments, and major roads. CGIA provided land cover,
Yadkin River hydrology, county lines, 14-digit hydrologic unit boundaries, and river basin
and sub-basin boundaries. Union and Anson Counties provided aerial
orthophotography, parcel data, future land use, and zoning classifications. Digital data
provided by HNTB include projected zoning and land-use data for Year 2020 scenarios.
Digital data distributed by EPA includes land-use data extracted from the "BASINS"
watershed management software.
3
?? u 1
, a
i6

I

f ?
t

a
a

E., MS
•pry' 4? y.,
!?

l I I
1 N
p "? 4Y -i,A 1,
`? yM K
"v
I
-qf 4
b ?
:?. I
P"w

4N
r
F 34t f
t4
1 ?. J

ry
I

m m m = = = m = = = = = = = = = = ?
n
s
m
H?
O
A
c
n
z
a
o'
o oTC o
N m CD D
'
c w C m °< C
ro ZZ. ro
-4
O ro 0 X 0 0 K 0 ID m a
3 rn C a 0 m
(D a: 0 0)
n d 0 C (D v a
?• N 7 a- ff
m
W
0
ro
N
'
o ro
d
N
O
N
0
I
O
? o
ro
W O N W
d
oo W N N) cy) (D O N V Off) Q NO
N ?j
O
-I
Z
w OD rn co -P. u1 a Z a
0 0 o tWD w CY) o 0 0 P- y n
O r-
0
N
? a
ro
N
_ N
V(0 N (0 N
O V 000 V OD Z O O
O tD W w N O N V ? ?, O
N (VD -4 O) CO N v f0 r
co 0
W
Lm
'
co
O O O O N O p<j
m
U1 v N N N 0 W y n
O
C
ro
N
N
U1 O p O
_a 0
v o ONO O) J W OO1 7r 7 N
cO •P N V 0 4 W o
a
0
O)I
W
OD
0
O
CL * n
ro D n

fD
0 so ?
ro
y
N O
o 0 3
=--I c 3 n
(D CO)
y ro ro m
ro o O.
O n
0 a
c

a o
o 0
?
0

ro O
ro
ro
ro N
0
°- o
CD t7
0
0
M 0)
o m
N
a?
ro a
m `r
N
o

3 s

on
N
0
d 3
o
c
d
d r.
a?
CD ro
C
O
)
D/ (D
D1 o
O_
01
ro
0 :E

o s

tD

N
N
3 0 0
v
7
ro
CL
00
'O
O
N j o N o
g v, c 0
ro
d C CL „%n+
m n
;u m
- o ro ?' > > a
r"D 3 C3 n
C
ro 7 C? 2 ° 01
w' a ro CO
w a
d ?
*
stoil
r
d
a

rn
N W
-4 w P. CY) 00 -4 CD w
w N W -4 N W N M
w
OD N (
D N
O OD Cn U1 G) O V) N
U1
O
OI
W
OD
w- co a) w -1, ?, d Z
O D O o w O C 0 in ron 0
O
m
d
1
N A N N -' Z O
L" 'o a N N W 4 -N O OO O
-' w
? ro
a
0
-i
<
0-0 0 0 N O pj
m
C°)71 V N N N O W y n
O
N
C1
' N
-` O
w v? CO W? w Ql W O
V O O O w Ln r
N o
ro
a
0
V
N
W
w
a n
n s
s ro
CD
0=1 fOD ro
o'
3
ro N
o n)
o O 0
3
a
00 0
r
D1
CL
C
0
ro
O
Z °
n?
CL
r
O
N
y ?1
s
O
0
y 1
v m 0 a_
c ro ro
0 C ° ro
co ¢ ro
T CD a
(D :3
0) C CD
a a
d :3
o?
ail
N J J .J J r
-4 0- 9.0 O (D OD °) - 0 :
Ml
W
co
co OD 0) co •D• d Z
0 0 0 (DD w o p o ?' y n
0
W W Op N W Z Or C1
C
co 0) -4 co N) --4 w
N
WA W -PL v N w a N
N W cn ?• • O N .P w f0
O O O O N O p<j
m
Ln V N N N O W y n
O
m w r
C> w -4 co 4h, Un 0)
co N r) :q
? 7 7
r') O OOD w
00
f0 .?
m
RL G) -u
d n? a m
C7 :Z7 y 41
° ro D o
COD-
CD a C m Oa
d
-4I
o
9
O
W
OD
r
ro
CL
W m
w ? CA W N o a m
O N O N
o w 00 O? 0 0
0 7 N
y O
co aD rn cD p w N Z
0 0 o (DD w o D o N N
C
0
c
ro
d
V N d1 w j N Z Q O
P6 -4 -P- 40
N OD W D w (VD w ? M ro r
O
aro
1n a,
7
0
0 0 0 o N o<
CA V N N N 0 w
O
N O
ro
Ca D1
T ?, N
J J .1 v n 0
L" 0 LvI -4
N
tD V N N 001 O O
A A_ r-
a °
0 M
7
co
N
N_
Z
N
CL
U)
N
ro
0
N
N
n)
N
0
N
O
I
r
d
a
C
0
ro

Z
Gl
7
a
v
Q
N
Z
V
D1
m
3
O
(O
lD
Z
v
Al
3
Q.
O
Im
M
3
O
N
M
z
O
2
N
-v
O
Al
a
O
2
0
O
O
G
7
O
7
O
7
y
w
a
Z
OD
N
O
N
O
N
n
fD
7
I1
M.
N
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

a
' ? yD
0 O N
c 0 c
'0 3
3
rt 0)
0 CIO
a Z
o
CA N COD
-0 o
o a
0
° n o
0 VV) p1
'
0
S
N
CD
N R
N
0 .?0+ Q
c ao
O 0-0
0 0
d v
at
O CD
(?D
? ? ra
• a ?
CD 0.
< q
(D N
N N
`<
CD 00
N 3
0
c
a,
N (D
0) Cp
C1 N
N O
0)
CL (D
O
3
0
CL
n
3
7
d
o'
n
z
Al
to
0
n
c
n
O
7
CL
E
0
c m o? y o o
m D (D Er <cM- M
c - (D a
c y p a
o 0 (n
d C 0 a 0 M
o = O d
a. 0) C CD
E0. y a y d
7
0
d
0
CL
r N W 0 G O
(?O w Co O N (00 O 0) j' N
OD (A 00
r lD O O N
O
(o OD rn (D U, < Z
O C O two w 0 0 N n
O
m
0
d
1
46 O O A V N 000 Z 0 O
N
OD D
000 (Nn CO (-O w N O (p r
O
CU
a'
5
O -? O O -° O N O p<j
U0t v N N N O W CD m
n
O
C
0
0
1
co -' N 0 0 W fv NO
v- W w A. N N 0 7C 7 N
N GO co V O
w w 0 co v (0n OD N r
O
d
a
9'
cc
T ?
Cn
w
O
O
n
m
tp
c?
a
n
C
n
0
a
0
N
co
m
oa
c o _
f°
C n

o

v N 0
C
c

n
13)
om
(D

y
' a

D 0
0
,. O
N 3
-
N
m (
>
N
>
O
a
..
,
3D

C
n
=
c
a

2
o

0
v

o

d
n O C CD y 7

0
d
r
o?
a
.0. N A, O N N_ W W N
J
? V v 0 W (w0 U1 W S
(0 0 (n W (O 0 Ln w d C Nn N
OD -1 N (D v
f/? O
O co 0 w . p<j Z
O C) O w w O N (D 0) c
O y n
0
N
0)
0 -' N A w (n Z p
r-i
O O?D OODD o v W -04- 7r:6
w N N O A--4 ((D (, r
O
d
a
(o
o o o O N O p<j
(On V N N N O w (D
O
N
1
O
N
v J N Cn w O
(ND W v O 0 (D W 7 O CY) N N t0D (wp W ccn w
-0+ r
0) o
a
cn
CA
O
cD
I
0
o
O
O
N
0
V1
0
0
of
o'
rn
of
N
0
N
O
I
O
5.
-I
Z
d
a

o w o
c
r
co i
0
N

o
an
c d
-
CD a
(D
m 1,
0
m a
n
o M y
y
--?
m <
3
3 T
c (r,
m o
CD & (a
o
CL
- N
7
-4I
o
m
n
J .1h, -4 w J W
0 P? W (O 0 00 S
co 0 w aCY) (o s O N O rl N O O
N (D O (D .?+
00 w O D O (wD w co
K) n
Vl O
0 0 N N v O c
Z
rn rn o w C 00 7r a -4 m
00 OD D (OD 00 1 0 f0 M
O -? O O O N O p<j m?m
i w v N N N 00 W y 0
O
A 0 (OD 'N N 0 0 N U O C
y 4 V o o U, 7r a s
o -N 0 O N D) (0n 01
d
-1
Z
n?
CL
a

N

.

o

o

G
cD

co)

°'
0 n
m

OD
C

C

'
0

ci
O

3

0.
d

d

_r

Cl*.
=

a

M
4. M=
y

d

o

n
°

2

a

ri
c.

N
`D 0

0
0
CD

p
N
o
cu
J
v
W
0
C
)
N
? VI
0
oo A
w
0) 0
0)
N
J -4
S
N
Uri 0 IV 0 (D OD 7 N C
O
fC C O

CD O

^*
<
rn (o Oo rn cD u, -? c
i m a
O w O (o w O O (D
E

%
CL O N
c 0
0

CD
CD '
A
O W
-?
4L rn
to o w
r) of
-66 w 0

co Z a 0

N Z

-I
\
V
(0D
w
w OD
0
O w
Ln
4 O
O a)
O
z O to .p C 00 -;h. N A o =
O
o (
R
a
• T
a
-? ?
Q r
0
CL
pr <
o O -? o O o o
O I U01 v m N N O W CD
co
O

D)
W
Co O
00 (D
-4
A V
-P6
00
w
N W

O 0

A
w
0 0
-N
O W

N L O
pr ct
O
p
w A 0
0 V 0 O O
N w
a
(n
a
CO)
C
CL
?a
N
n?
7
O
V?
fD
Z
V
r
a
r*
O
'a
Z
O
N
V
O
2
V
O
At
a
0
2
O
O
n
c
O
CL
w
O
N
0
CL
f?D
m
N
O
N
O
N
C7
fD
7
At
OH
? ? ? m m m m m m m m m = m m m = m m

' PLUPs considered for Scenario 3 include: 50-foot riparian buffers, regional storm water
containment ba 'ns, and more stringent Best Management Practices (BMPs) applied to
new development. For the purpose of this analysis, PLUPs are only applied to the
' I act ce it became clear durin this analysis that road-induced im uts would
primarily be limited to an area smaller than the tudy Area boundaries
(determined in coordination with DWQ staf owever, it as been assumed that buffers
' will result in an increase in land remaining or converting to the Forest/Wetland category.
Regional storm water containment has been applied to all new development (assuming
undeveloped areas converted to the four developed categories). A 30-percent nutrient
' reduction goal has been assumed as a result of this storm water capture. B Ps were
found to have negligible impact on nutrient retention but significant impact on sediment_
removed (See Section IV, Sediment). An increased buffer width (between 100 and 200
' feet, depending on watershed size) and reduced density development restrictions have
been considered in Goose and Duck Creek watersheds specifically geared toward
' protection of mussel resources.
Predicted nutrient export for Scenarios 2 and 3 are provided in Tables 1c and 1d,
' respectively. The land-use predicted for Scenario 2 is provided in Figure 4, and the land-
use predicted for Scenario 3 is provided in Figure 5.

11
1
r. N
IC11®1. _ II_?1 a
o(D = ov?i ?vw 3 °° o
C cn W <
icn C.) 0
?CCDDE? <n= CD -Z
3=?ma Duo
?; ?2cn ca m m a c r N
CDCCO) o m? ?`c = Ill
a?8
C: 3 -3 0-= D` G) CD 0 2) m
M W CD n w Z
?o_? B W o
T a ?.
N
Cn °
d ° n
3
? X c
? ? C O ? ? O
N
o _

j =r CD CD
0

o* 0 o
co
C 0 co 0) :3
-3 :3 -
CD .10
CD
IK
CD m
U) n

0 a) --0 IV

m O
' -+

C
O rf'

?' • n

D CD 0
° 3 a
W
N5
No
C vi O N
af
16< -0
o
-4
?3
C/)
o a ? Cl)
N
n W N
y? I ? III lil ?, ', 'I .
I
}

i '
,II i.
i
I,
i
i

e i ? I.
i
E
F
-?.
I

- ? I
t ,' }
E
& ,.
I

?
` ?
?, ? _ ? ?
?

i I
f . -
?. ii
i {{ i
?
i I
'

i
4
} i
ME-m
NAIR ?zzooo
OoK g nKovCi
c
-v cum a ?
a? N ?= mm vw 3 0

?'w o
??'?v?N
=mma COCOA
Duo
C;DU =cn ca m
cnco`o m m a c
m `< = r
m
a?C3 a-=
°'
CD a- 3 D` G)
m
0
.=mm a)
Z
0
c
C
CD
?i N Rot
33 C-
m X
N
-n o
(C N
(D n
co n a
(n O a
o n
co
(D cn
0? ?CD N
n(D.
NI-? O ?
N ? c !) c o
p.
CL 90 W
Cl)
(D
a
C 0
?. O
CD 0
O
c a
C04
Cl)
c7 I
N
0
?Z
N
N
r,
o
O n
I K

t _' I I
I I i

I
?
I I
1
d Il
I 1 ?
? I
?
? I II ! {

i? I
1
??I 1
!
tI
I,I
I
d
?? ? i II I
,
N
5
y j
1 '

? ? III

I I

1 I I
1

I
1
I
I ?
I

I
1
I
1 1

f C I I
1
I
I
1 I 1'
I ? I

I

i I

II
I
i i II I I
I

' I
I I I

I
I
i I I
I

j ??

- III _
I
X11
1 I
I
III I ..
I
,I
I
f
i 1

E II ?

I I

`I
j ? , I ? I

U1111 Ul0) 000
ac 0m v
= !R F-*o n<0 ccn 0 U)
WO
=?ma D o
Q:?2cn moo- cu m a c r
CD ) co' ` o (=D ai = M
a?C3 ?-? D` G)
D a N m
(D z
0 co
cn c
c
N
c
m

O CD cn
0
00 N
?p N
O
N o ?
cn
v
a
c p
o' C7
? -O
CD
a?
.0
);;-,p-Z
n
rD
n ?
° o
Q A
04 o".
? ? rD IK

= m = = = = m = = m m m m = = = = = 1h,

IHINIDDI CL
o n?ocn
N:3 Q C;T:3 @CD
7 (? C C < fn
* 9 (D
7 N (D d
R w co `Z o cD iv
?C3 a'?.
(D 3
?W m CD
o
cn
c
c
m
aoa
p c: o
0 ' ?Z
n ? ?o
? N n
(D a c r IV
D `- G
CD m
z
co 0
c ?
CL
w

IT

cn
g Cl) v
CD :'
-v `D 0

co
3
(D C-

- N
o
cc r*j

rn c
p n

a
o
a

o .
rn
0

o m
aU
PH
-o
C p
o' C?
-O

O (j) CD
f- ca
C
c a `<

Cl)
0
`? O n
Old
IK
? ? rD
m
m m M
n a
a ,Q `S D. ????o k j4 2m
o Z
0) Q) 0 Ei
N
A O 0 ? o
000 G N
xc= m
z2.z z
M 9 M o
m = ' m m m ' m m m = = = m = = = ¦

1 III. CURRENT AND FUTURE LAND-USE DETERMINATIONS

Based on the consensus of project participants, the analysis began by calculating the
current nutrient loads exported from the DWQ Study Area to serve as a baseline. After
baseline nutrient loads were calculated, conditions in the Year 2020 were predicted for
three scenarios using data provided by HNTB: 1) without the road using an extrapolation
of current baseline building trends, 2) with the road while accounting for incidental and
cumulative development impacts under current land-use policies s), and 3) with
the road while accounting for incidental and cumulative development impacts with
progressive land-use policies (PLUPs) proposed for adoption by Union County and local
municipalities to update existing zoning. For the purpose of this analysis, PLUPs are
and officials
considered to be the result of cumrent negotiations the between Union tone all aerennal County
intermittent ,, inrh - m---
' The DWQ Study Area is divided among the jurisdictions of Union County, the City of
Monroe, and the Towns of Marshville, Wingate, Indian Trail, and Stallings. Each
government has unique zoning classifications and regulations. Through interpretation of
' zoning regulations, ESC personnel collapsed the existing zoning classifications into the
eight ExCo land-use categories using the allowable build-out percentage, amount of
required open space, and maximum area of impervious surfaces allowed for each
' zoning classification. ESC used the collapsed zoning created by NCDOT planning
personnel for the similar Knightdale Bypass Nutrient Study (ESC 2002) to mimic ExCo
land-use categories used in the previous analysis. ESC personnel multiplied the
t hectarage of each ExCo land-use category by the median ExCo value associated with
that category to predict nutrient export for current and future scenarios.
The HNTB data provided a unique opportunity to anticipate future zoning and land-use
changes within the DWQ Study Area and for comparing Year 2020 with and without
Bypass scenarios. A short synopsis of the HNTB methodology for predicting Year 2020
' land-use within the Impact Area can be found in Appendix A, but for a full description of
the methodology and assumptions used by HNTB, the full technical document should be
consulted (HNTB 2002). ESC personnel used the HNTB data to update existing land
' use within the Impact Area to predict future ExCo land-use categories for Scenarios 2
and 3. The hectarage contained within each ExCo land-use category in Scenarios 2 and
3 were used to calculate nutrient export. The nutrient export loadings from Scenarios 2
' and 3 were compared to Scenario 1 (without the Bypass) to predict what the impact of
the Bypass will be, both with current and updated progressive land-use policies.
' CURRENT CONDITIONS
' An analysis of current land use/land cover was performed using GIS. A variety of digital
data layers were used to develop a map that depicts current (circa Year 2000) land-use
1
5
1
streams, vregional storm water contrQLs and implementation of erosionk and sediment
control features on all new construction.

1

conditions within the DWQ Study Area. The ultimate goal was to determine the
hectarage of each ExCo land-use category for use in nutrient export calculations.
Spatial analysis using GIS allowed for summarization of data into eight land-use
categories in accordance with Dodd et al. (1992). The eight categories include open
water, natural/managed vegetation, and multiple categories of developed areas.
Developed areas can be difficult to categorize accurately with single data sources. As a
result, a variety of data types were utilized to more accurately reflect current extent and
usage type of urban and residential development. These data include EPA land-use
classifications, CGIA land cover data, and Union and Anson County digital aerial
photography, structure, and parcel data.
The CGIA land cover data were created using Landsat remotely sensed satellite imagery
captured between 1993 and 1995 (CGIA 1996). The dataset contains two classes for
developed areas, low-intensity developed and high-intensity developed. These two
classes were used to define the Low- and Medium/High-Density Urban ExCo land-use
categories described in Dodd et al. (1992).
The EPA BASINS program was developed for use in watershed planning throughout the
United States (EPA 2002). The land-use dataset packaged with BASINS includes an
Anderson Level II type classification (Anderson et al. 1976) for Region 4, the southeast
geographic region. These data include eight separate classes to define urban or
developed areas. In conjunction with CGIA land cover, these classes were condensed
into four analogous development categories described by Dodd et al. (1992).
NCDOT provided data on road locations for Union and Anson counties. A 50-foot buffer
' (25 feet on either side of centerlines) was placed on these roads to account for the right-
of-way and associated paved area. This road buffer was classified as
Industrial/Commercial during compilation with re-classified land use data. Because the
I road data is more accurate than other data sources, in instances where data coverage
overlapped, the road buffer was assigned preference over any other land cover type.
' Upon close examination of digital aerial photography, the EPA BASINS, CGIA land
cover, and 50-foot road buffer combined data did not accurately represent developed
areas within the DWQ Study Area. To account for the additional developed hectarage,
' Union County parcel and structures data were utilized. By examining the digital aerial
photography, it was apparent that small, tightly grouped parcels tend to be located in
communities associated with new residential growth. To account for this new
' development, parcels that contain structures and are less than 1.5 hectares in size were
categorized as General Residential.
' Areas not currently developed were categorized as Forest/Wetland, Managed
Herbaceous/Pasture/Undeveloped, Cultivated, or Open Water. The CGIA land cover
' data was reclassified to coincide with one of the first three cover categories. Union
County GIS has a data layer of all lakes, ponds and open water bodies. This
hydrological data appears to be the most accurate representation of open water for the
' study area and was used for the Open Water category.
' 6

IV. NUTRIENT ANALYSIS RESULTS
DWQ STUDY AREA
Loading rates of nitrogen and phosphorus will vary as land-use patterns change within
the study boundary watersheds. In all scenarios, regardless of Bypass construction, !w.-
main factors are expected to cause an increase in loading estimates by the ExCo
method: localized addition of nutrients (fertilizers, pesticides, and/or herbicides -
generally associated with the Cultivated land use category) and increased coverage by
impervious aces (as seen in the urban, residential and industrial/commercial land
use categories).
In order to quantify nutrient export current conditions, nutrient export rates were
calculated by multiplying land-use dories by ExCo coefficient values for TN and TP
(Table 1). Under Current Conditions (Table 1 a), nutrient loading is controlled by outputs
generated from the Cultivated land-use category (435,777 kilograms per year [kg/yr] for
TN and 69,094 kg/yr TP), even though Forest/Wetland is the dominant land-use
category coverage. The lack of stabilizing ground cover, soil disturbance, and frequent
use of organic products (fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides) generally result in
Cultivated land having the highest ExCo value of all land-use categories. Cultivated land
accounts for more than 50-percent of the nutrients exported from the DWQ Study Area.
Scenario 1
Since land development in the area will occur irrespective of highway construction,
loading rates for Scenario 1 were generated to reflect expected development within the
DWQ Study Area (Table 1 b). All three scenarios account for predicted development to
occur on lands that are currently wooded, farmed, or managed herbaceous coverage.
Loading rates for Scenario 1 were calculated assuming that development within the
' DWQ Study Area will increase steadily. The amount of potential land development is
expected to occur based upon the amount of developable land that is in proximity to 1-
485 or US-74. Developable land is currently defined as lands that are 4) projected to
' receive water and sewer from a local municipality, `projected to be annexed by a local
municipality, abased in a region with soils that are compliant with septic systems, or4)'
offering reasonable commuting times on the existing roadway network (HNTB 2002). A
1 5-percent increase in exported TN and 6-percent decrease in exported TP over current
conditions have been predicted for anticipated development in Scenario 2 (Table 1b).
The predicted decrease in exported TP results from a conversion of high-loading
' Cultivated ExCo land-use category to more developed, but less loading categories of
land use.
Scenario 2
A 5-percent increase in exported TN and a 6-percent decrease in exported TP have
been predicted for Scenario 2 when compared to current conditions (Table 1c). This
' increase in TN is primarily a result of a conversion of undeveloped land to urban,
residential, and industrial/commercial uses. This increased is tempered somewhat by
14

' the fact that development will be concentrated around the Bypass corridor, with outlying
areas of the DWQ Study Area remaining largely undeveloped or in the General
Residential category
' When compared to Scenario 1, Bypass construction (Scenario 2) appears to have a
negligible effect (less than or equal to 1-percent) on nutrient export from the area. This
' lack of measurable change is largely attributed to the size of the DWQ Study Area.
Growth will occur with or without the road. Building trends remain relatively unchanged
between the two scenarios. However, land use distribution patterns are different with
' urban development slightly elevated as a result of the Bypass construction.
Scenario 3
' A 4-percent increase in exported TN and an 11-percent decrease in exported TP have
been predicted for Scenario 3 relative to current conditions (Table 1c). Relative to
' Scenario 1, Scenario 3 results in a reduction of 9-percent exported TN and 6-percent
exported. This reduction in loading can be interpreted as being indirectly attributable to
the more stringent land-use policies that could be adopted to minimize secondary
' impacts associated with Bypass construction. Although buffer acreage will increase with
new land use controls, the amount of Forest/Wetland land coverage decreases slightly
under Scenario 3 when compared to Scenarios 1 and 2, primarily due to the fact that
' development is expected to shift into upland wooded areas and away from riparian
zones. Storm water controls appear to be critical in nutrient reduction with obvious
decreases in TN and TP export when capture and treatment is applied to new
' development under the urban, residential, and industrial/commercial land use categories
(Table 1 d). Synergistic effects are anticipated from application of a multifaceted strategy
of land use controls to benefit water quality.
' IMPACT AREA
Data analyses of nutrient modeling techniques led ESC personnel to consider evaluation
of a smaller subset of the overall DWQ Study Area in an effort to attribute shifts in
nutrient export more directly to the Bypass. The Impact Area evaluated under the HNTB
study was chosen for further analysis reducing the area for evaluation by approximately
' 50-percent from 116,845 hectares to 61,138 hectares. The large size of the entire DWQ
Study Area, coupled with the primarily agricultural land use away from the highway
corridor, obscure clear trends in nutrient export data.
' Data generated for the DWQ Study Area suggests that ambient growth and agricultural
practices not attributed to the Bypass (i.e. outside of the Impact Area) counteracted the
' nutrient export trends that were occurring within the Impact Area. Therefore, the Impact
Area may provide a better representation of nutrient impacts directly attributed to
roadway development. Subsequently, hectarages were re-calculated for various land
' use categories within the Impact Area and nutrient export values were generated for
current conditions and for Scenarios 1-3 (Table 2).
' Nutrient trends under Current Conditions (Table 2a) and Scenario 1 (Year 2020 without
the Bypass - Table 2b) are essentially the same as occurred in the DWQ Study Area
evaluation. Cultivated land use continues to be the primary generator of nutrients.
15

' General Residential land use and urban development is expected to increase
dramatically in 2020 without the Bypass as homeowners move into underdeveloped
areas around Monroe.
Although Cultivated land will be converted to support some of this development, urban
expansion is the primary cause for the 5-percent increase in TN under Scenario 1 (Table
t 2b). Again, TP reductions are attributed to significant reductions in undeveloped land
through the Impact Area.
' Scenario 2
Within the Impact Area, a 10-percent increase in exported TN and an 11-percent
' decrease in exported TP have been predicted as a result of Bypass Construction in Year
2020 (Scenario 2) relative to current conditions. This trend is not unexpected. Bypass
development can be expected to spur growth of urban and resident development in and
' around roadway access points. Again, this growth is at the expense of the undeveloped
land categories with relatively lower nutrient export values.
' Relative to Scenario 1 (without Bypass), Scenario 2 (Year 2020 with the Bypass) results
in a 5-percent increase in exported TN and a 7-percent decrease in exported TP. This
5-percent increase in TN export is attributable to secondary development instigated by
' construction of the Bypass. Continuing trends in TP reduction can be attributed to a
continuing conversion of the high-loading Cultivated ExCo land-use category to more
developed, but less loading categories of land use.
Scenario 3
The implementation of land use controls result in reductions in nutrient export for TN and
' TP with road construction (Scenario 3, Table 2d) that are slightly more pronounced in
the Study Area as compared to the DWQ Impact area. A reduction in 5-percent TN and
22-percent exported TP was modeled between Scenario 3 and current conditions. If the
' Bypass is constructed, a 15-percent decrease in TN and 11-percent decrease in TP can
be realized with land use controls in place. However, when the actual TN and TP
loading rates for the urban, residential and industrial/commercial land use categories are
' compared between Scenario 2 and 3 (299,037 kg/yr versus 241,698 kg/yr for TN and
26,909 kg/yr versus 21,089 kg/yr for TP), land-use policies considered in Scenario 3
could result in an overall 20-percent decrease in exported TN and 22-percent decrease
t in exported TP from existing land-use policies (Scenario 2), even with the construction of
the Bypass. These trends could possibly be even more pronounced, except that
agriculture makes up such a large component of regional land use.

16
SEDIMENT
Sediment runoff any rPmovaLwere not considered in this ana However, sediment
impacts can largely be negated through land use changes, implementation of buffers
and storm water catchment (basins and treatment wetlands), and effective use of best
management practices during construction.

7

J

J

First, changes in land use can greatly affect non-point source pollution loads, including
sedimentation. Agricultural land has been shown to be responsible for 57-percent to 64-
percent of the non-point source pollution (38-percent of the sediment load is attributable
to crop land and 26-percent to pasture erosion) affecting area waterways as compared
to 5-12-percent attributed to urban runoff (Welsch 1991). In the DWQ Study Area, a 25-
percent reduction in agricultural land and conversion to other uses is expected over the
20 year planning period, potentially reducing sediment loads and other non point
sources of pollution as a result of this shift.
Land use controls have been proposed under Scenario 3 including the use of riparian
buffers, regional storm water basins, and employment of erosion and sediment control
measures during construction (primarily focused on "new development"). Riparian
vegetative buffers have been shown to trap as much as 80-90-percent of sediment from
surface water runoff (Gilliam 1994; Johnston 1991). Data from agricultural research in
North Carolina have shown that riparian buffers used in conjunction with level spreaders
account for an 80-percent total suspended solids removal capacity (North Carolina State
University 2002). Research has shown that it is not the width of the buffer but the length
through which runoff may flow that is critical to sediment and pollutant removal (Brinson
1993). By have long linear stretches of riparian buffer in place as proposed under
Scenario 3, significant capture and removal of non-point source pollutants, particularly
sediments, can be realized.
The use of regional storm water controls (primarily wet ponds and treatment wetlands)
has been shown to have significant impacts on removal of pollutant sources. Removal
rates of 70-80-percent of total suspended solids and 30-percent or more of nitrogen and
phosphorus are often achieved (North Carolina State University 2002; NCDENR 1998).
Storm water treatment wetlands have proven to be the most effective storm water device
currently employed and the benefits of these devices can be enhanced when utilized
with grassy swales and level spreaders.
Site-specific erosion and sediment control measures on construction sites such as silt
fences, infiltration trenches, sediment traps, and rapid re-seeding of the site can also be
utilized to enhance the removal of pollutants. These devices result in relatively minor
rates of capture and absorption of nutrients, but can have a significant impact on the
amount of sediment removed from a site (as much as 70-percent sediment removal). In
addition, the removal contribution is additive, resulting in cumulative benefits when
applied with other treatment methods.
In summary, land use controls proposed for Scenario 3 have been shown to result in a
reduction in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Although sediment reduction has not
18
been quantified as part of this analysis, available data suggests that significant amounts
of sediment (80-percent or greater) can be removed by implementation of proposed land
use controls. In addition, the benefits of employing multiple methods are additive,
resulting in cumulative removal benefits.

1

J

19
V. SUMMARY

• The 116,845 hectare DWQ Study Area currently supports a mixture of forest,
agriculture, rural-residential, sub-urban, and urban development along sections
adjacent to the existing US-74, and within the municipal limits of Monroe,
Marshville, Wingate, Indian Trail, and Stallings. Approximately 71,303 hectares
of developable land currently exists within the DWQ Study Area. The HNTB
Impact Area is a subset of the DWQ Study Area, and incorporates 61,188
hectares of land. The Impact Area is proposed to experience different rates and
categories of development than the remainder of the DWQ Study Area
• The Nutrient Export Coefficient Method (Dodd et al. 1992, DWQ 1998) was
utilized to calculate surface nutrient loading associated for current conditions and
three Year 2020 scenarios.
• Current and future land-cover composition were computed within the DWQ Study
Area for with and without Bypass scenarios. Eight ExCo land-use categories
were generated based on an analysis of digital data and collapsed zoning land-
use classifications.
• Within the DWQ Study Area, extrapolation of development trends was used to
predict land use in Year 2020 without the Bypass. An increase of 5-percent
exported TN and a decrease of 6-percent exported TP from current conditions
was predicted for Scenario 1. The reduction of TP from current conditions is
attributable to conversion of agriculture to other, more developed (but less
nutrient loading) land-use categories.
• Within the DWQ Study Area, two Scenarios were considered for the Year 2020
with the Bypass,. The difference between the two "with Bypass" Scenarios is
implementation of current or proposed, more progressive land-use policies.
Progressive land-use policies considered in this analysis include riparian buffers,
regional storm water facilities on all new development, and more stringent
sediment and erosion control measures (modeled after the Neuse River Basin
Riparian Area Rules).
• The large proportion of agriculture that currently exists within the DWQ Study
Area (accounting for >50-percent of all current nutrient export) reduced the
influence of development instigated by the construction of the Bypass.
Conversion of cultivated areas into more heavily developed land uses that export
a smaller amount of nutrients minimizes the increased nutrient and sediment
export impact of new development. If progressive land-use controls are in place,
this conversion of agriculture into new development can potentially improve
regional water quality over existing conditions.
20
• Nutrient modeling within the DWQ Study Area found that the data indicated that
ambient growth and agricultural practices not influenced by the Bypass (outside
of the Impact Area) counteracted the nutrient export trends that were occurring
within the Impact Area. Scenarios 2 and 3 (with the Bypass) were subsequently
restricted to the Impact Area boundary defined as the limit of growth instigated by
the Bypass. Current Conditions and Year 2020 without the Bypass (Scenario 1)
' were also evaluated based on Impact Area limits.
' • The indirect and cumulative nutrient load attributable to Bypass construction
(compared to Scenario 1 within the Impact Area) is an increase of 5-percent TN
and a reduction of 7-percent TP for Scenario 2, and a decrease of 10-percent TN
' and 19-percent TP for Scenario 3. Due to the proposed progressive land-use
policies, new development (after Year 2000) occurring within the Impact Area in
Scenario 3 will export 20-percent less TN and 22-percent less TP than Scenario
2.
It is recommended that case studies of existing and similar highway alignments
' be utilized for future indirect and cumulative impact studies. Changes in land-use
patterns can be predicted from these projects that more accurately reflect
roadway dependent zoning changes.
L

21

VI. REFERENCES
Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witmer. 1976. A Land Use and Land
Cover Classification System for use with Remote Sensor Data. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 964, 28 p.
Brinson, Mark M. 1993. Changes in the Functioning of Wetlands along Environmental
' Gradients. Wetlands Volume B N2:65-74
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
' Management Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
Dodd, R.C., G. McMahon, and S. Stichter. 1992. Watershed Planning in the Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuarine System: Annual Average Nutrient Budgets. North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources Report No. 92-10.
EcoScience Corporation (ESC). 2002. Indirect and Cumulative Impact Study: Nutrient
Analysis, US-64 Knightdale Bypass. EcoScience Corporation, Raleigh, North
' Carolina.
Gilliam, J.W. 1994. Riparian wetlands and water quality. J. Environ. Q. Vol. 23:896-
900.
HNTB North Carolina (HNTB). 2002. Monroe Bypass/Connector: Indirect and
' Cumulative Impact Analysis. HNTB North Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Johnston, C.A. 1991. Sediment and nutrient retention by freshwater wetlands: effects
' on surface water quality. Critical Reviews in Environmental Control Vol 21
(5,6):491-565.
' NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA). 1996. Comprehensive
Land Cover Mapping for the State of North Carolina. URL--
http://www.cgia.state.nc.us/cgdb/refdocs/lc96/index.html, visited 2002 August 26.
'
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resource (NCDENR). 1998.
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. Division of Land
' Resources, Raleigh, NC September 1998.
North Carolina State University. 2002. Stormwater BMP Academy. June 12-13, 2002.
Raleigh, N.C. N.C. Cooperative Extension.
' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002. About BASINS 3.0. URL--
visited 2002 August 26.
gov/waterscience/basins/basinsv3.htm
http://www
epa
,
.
.

' 22
Welsch, David, J. 1991 Riparian Forest Buffers. Function and Design for Protection and
Enhancement of Water Resources. NA-PR-0791. USDA, Forest Service,
Radnor, PA.

i
1

23

I

a
0 Appendix A
I Synopsis of HNTB methodology for predicting Year 2020 land use

J

1 22
1
1 1.1 Scenario Development
' In order to determine the potential induced development impacts of the Monroe
Bypass/Connector roadway project, three different land use scenarios were analyzed:
No-Build Scenario:
1. Household and employment growth (2000-2020) distribution within the
watershed study area (both outside and inside the potential impact area) without
the proposed roadway and without additional environmental regulations in both
the Duck and Goose Creek basins.
' Build Scenario:
2. Household and employment growth (2000-2020) distribution within the
watershed study area (both outside and inside the potential impact area) with the
proposed roadway and without additional environmental regulations in both the
' Duck and Goose Creek basins.
Build Scenario w/ Development Controls:
'
3. Household and employment growth (2000-2020) distribution within the
watershed study area (both outside and inside the potential impact area) with the
proposed roadway and with additional environmental regulations (1 unit per 2
acres & additional stream buffers) in both the Duck and Goose Creek basins.
' 1.2 Scenario Writing
In order to determine the amount of induced growth as a result of the Monroe
t Bypass/Connector project, a transportation/land use model, developed by Servano (first
name?), was used to convert the change in average daily traffic volumes (ADTs) along
the new roadway during a time period into the amount of additional households from
' which the traffic volumes would originate. The following are the assumptions made
within the model:
t • Of the forecasted change in ADT between 2000 and 2020, 50% is attributable to new
capacity, or new vehicles on the road as a result of general growth conditions.
' • Of the forecasted change in ADT between 2000 and 2020, 37.5% is attributable to
behavioral shifts in existing traffic from other roadways (route shifts, transit users,
carpoolers, etc.).
' • Of the forecasted change in ADT between 2000 and 2020, 12.5% is attributable to
induced growth because of the new roadway.

C

1
1 1.3 Growth Assumptions for Potentially Affected Area
1.3.1 Quantity of Assumed Growth
Based on the evaluation of the potential for land use change (see HNTB Final
Document), area characteristics indicate a strong potential for induced growth as a result
of the proposed project. Because of the findings of this evaluation, we have made
adjustments to the model to take into consideration this strong potential. Instead of
assuming that only 12.5% of the change in ADT between 2000 and 2020 would be
attributable to induced growth, we applied a 25% share. The resulting share attributable
to behavioral shifts was reduced from 37.5% to 25% to take this into account.
D
f
i
an
n A
T o
The North Carolina Department of Transportation forecasted a change
average of 30,000 vehicles per day between 2000 and 2020 along the 13-mile Monroe
' Bypass/Connector project. Since the induced growth factor equals one-third of the new
capacity and behavioral shift total (22,500 vehicles per day), we added an additional
33.3%, or 10,000 vehicles per day, to this forecast because of induced growth, making
the total 40,000 vehicles per day.
Based on these model assumptions, the following calculations were completed to come
' up with the amount of induced households as a result of the forecasted 40,000 ADT
volume on the Monroe Bypass/Connector project between 2000 and 2020:
' Step 1: 40,000 ADT x 25% (induced growth share) = 10,000 ADT as a result of
induced growth
' Step 2: 10,000 ADT x 1.1 persons per vehicle = 11,000 trips from new
households
' Step 3: Average of 3 trips per household per day on Monroe Bypass/Connector =
3,666 new households (11,000 divided by 3)
' To determine the induced jobs as a result of the proposed project, we applied the jobs per
household ratio (1.105) from the 2000 to 2020 forecasted increase in households and jobs
' in the impact area (see HNTB Final Document) to this new induced household total:
3,666 induced households x 1.105 fobs/household = 4,051 induced fobs
' These additional households and jobs were added to the Scenario 1 estimates (see HNTB
Final Document) to come up with the total amount of forecasted households and jobs to
' be added to the watershed study area between 2000 and 2020. The table below
summarizes the amount of forecasted growth by area and scenario:

1
1
1
1
n
L
1
1
1

1

C

Tahla 1 Fnrpcactprl Growth 2000-2020
Resid ential Commercial
Households Acres Jobs Acres
Scenario 1
-Impact Area
13,690
10,454
20,388
834
-Watershed Area 25,403 23,614 26,662 934
Impact Area
% of Watershed
54%
44%
76%
89%
Scenario 2
-Impact Area
17,356
21,229
24,439
1,001
-Watershed Area 29,069 34,389 30,713 1,101
Impact Area
% of Watershed
60%
62%
80%
91%
Scenario 3
-Impact Area
17,356
22,027
24,439
1,001
-Watershed Area 29,069 35,187 30,713 1,101
impact Area
% of Watershed
60%
63%
80%
91%
As can be seen in Table 1, the impact area's share of the entire watershed study area
household and job growth increases in Scenario 2 and Scenario 3, which include the
Monroe Bypass/Connector project. The project itself is forecasted to induce
approximately 26% more households and 20% more jobs than would have originally
occurred within the impact area over the next 18 years.
1.3.2 Location of Assumed Growth
Upon completing the forecast of future growth for each of the three scenarios, as noted in
Table 1, households and jobs were then distributed throughout the watershed study area
based on a number of different factors including:
• Discussions with local planners
• Proximity to I-485 and US-74
• Existing and future water/sewer lines
• Development controls/guidance (water supply watersheds, proposed land use, zoning)
• Annexation policies
• Municipality jurisdictions
Higher weights were allocated to physical location of the land area and future public
utility locations. The 3,666 induced households and 4,051 induced jobs estimates were
only to be distributed within the impact area, since land development outside of the
impact area is assumed not to be influenced by the proposed roadway project.
Scenario 1 (Residential):
Using the factors above, a total of 13 subareas were created within the watershed study
area (Figure 1 and Table 2). For an evaluation of the potential for land use change in
3

1
1
1
11

L

each of these subareas, see HNTB Final Document. Growth within the impact area was
distributed separately from growth outside the impact area. It should be noted that each
of the five alternative alignments (G, D-2, D-3, E-2, E-3) for the Monroe Connector
portion of the project was treated equally in their impact on residential development.
Table 2 Scenario 1: 2000-2020 Additional Develo ed Land Acrea e
Watershed
Study Area GRes
(0.1 DU/AQ LDUrban
(1-2.5 DU/AQ M/HDUrbon
(>=2.5 DU/AQ Total
Developed Land Total
Area* Available
Land
1 265 796 308 1,369 6,487 5,118
la outside impact area 468 468 1,522 1,05
la 29 299 493 821 4,838 4,017
lb outside impact area 586 586 1,356 770
lb 1,643 1,643 5,167 3,52
2 356 356 2,311 1,955
2a 685 685 4,949 4,26
2b outside impact area 303 704 1,007 6,626 5,619
3 outside impact area 2,342 2,342 6,292 3,95
3 2,003 26 24 2,053 14,949 12,896
3a outside impact area 881 378 1,259 3,878 2,619
3a 72 168 240 995 755
4 15 470 62 547 9,144 8,59
4a 274 274 1,856 1,582
5 outside impact area 2,836 10 200 3,046 16,830 13,78
6a outside impact area 2,578 2,578 27,006 24,428
6a 1,330 40 1,370 17,534 16,16
6b outside impact area 1,874 1,874 21,090 19,216
6b 1,096 1,096 20,561 19,465
Total: 16,943 - 3,470 3,20 1 23,614 173,391 149,77
*Proposed for residential
Densities were determined by what was proposed within Union County land use plans as
well as municipal plans. A total of 23,614 acres of residential development is forecasted
to be developed within the entire watershed study area between 2000 and 2020. This
number only represents 13.6% of the total area available for residential development.
Most of the future developed land is considered general residential (71.7%), with low
density urban and medium-high density urban only representing 14.7% and 13.6%,
respectively.
Subarea 3 is forecasted to have 4,395 acres of residential development take place between
2000 and 2020, the most of any subarea. One of the reasons for this trend is because of
the geographic size of Subarea 3, which has 21,241 acres of residential land available for
development, third highest of the watershed study area. Another reason is because of its
relatively close proximity to both I-485 and US-74, as well as the fact that its entire area
is scheduled for sewer services to be in place by 2020.
L
1
Scenario 1 (Commercial):
' A total of 17 commercial subareas were created within the watershed study area, 12 of
which are located within the impact area. Most of these subarea boundaries were
designated by following county and municipality proposed land use boundaries. The
' Secrest Short Cut Road corridor (m), just east of the Mecklenburg County border, and the
US-601 corridor north of US-74 (a) were the only areas designated for future commercial
development that were not already done so by Union County or the municipalities.
I
u
?I
1

L

Table 3. Scenario 1: 2000-2020 Additional Developed Land (Acreage
Watershed
Study Area Industrial/
Commercial Total
Developed Land Total
Area* Available
Land
a 60 60 530 470
b 100 100 1,911 1,811
C 26 26 663 637
d 15 15 165 150
e 16 16 790 774
f outside impact area 50 50 508 458
g 50 50 133 83
h 55 55 447 392
1 135 135 1,424 1,289
k 109 109 975 866
m 60 60 94 34
n 38 38 53 15
o outside impact area 20 20 178 158
p 170 170 602 432
q outside impact area 5 5 34 29
r outside impact area 20 20 76 56
s outside impact area 5 5 9 4
Totals 934 934 8,592 7,658
Note: In addition to the 934 acres total, 169 acres to be distributed randomly throughout
area outside impact area
*Proposed for commercial
A total of 1,103 acres of commercial land is forecasted to be built upon within the
watershed study area between 2000 and 2020. Of that total, 934 acres are located in the
subareas, whereas 169 acres are to be distributed randomly throughout the area outside
the impact area. The 934-acre total only represents 10.9% of the total area proposed for
commercial development within the 17 subareas of the watershed study area. Of the
estimated 934 commercially-developed acres, 834 acres (89.3%) are forecasted within the
impact area.
To more accurately forecast the distribution of the forecasted commercial acreage, it was
divided into industrial, office, and retail categories. Each subarea was then evaluated
5
1

1
1
1
1

U

based on its ability to attract specific types of commercial development, The areas closer
to I-485 and Mecklenburg County were assumed to attract more office development,
while areas along the US-74 corridor were more attractive for retail development.
Industrial development was mainly focused in areas near the Monroe Airport and
northeast of Monroe, where existing facilities are located.
Subareas p and I have by far the most developed acres allocated to them. Subarea p is the
closest subarea to 1-485 and straddles both sides of US-74, making it an ideal location for
spillover growth from Mecklenburg County. Subarea I, near the Monroe Airport, already
includes an employment cluster of existing industrial facilities that could be further
expanded. Most of the commercial subareas outside of the impact area received the least
amount of future growth, except for subareas c,d, and e, which are all east of Monroe
along US-74 near the Anson County border.
Scenario 2 (Residential):
As mentioned before, the proposed roadway project will only have an influence on
development inside the identified impact area. Table 4 below shows the distribution of
the 10,775 acres of residential growth between 2000 and 2020 within residential Subareas
1 through 13. These subareas have different boundaries than those in Scenario 1 because
of the proposed roadway dynatnics. For an evaluation of the potential for land use
change in each of these subareas, see HNTB Final Document. The Monroe
Bypass/Connector project would not only add an estimated 3,666 households at various
densities within the impact area over the next 18 years, to some extent it would also
redistribute and change the densities of some of the future growth that would occur
without the roadway being built (Scenario 1).
Table 4. Scenario 2: 2000-2020 Additional Developed Land (Acreage)

Impact Area* GRes
(0-1 DU/AQ LDUrban
(1-2.5 DU/AQ M/HDUrban
(>= 2.5 DU/AQ Total
Developed Land Total
Area" Available
Land
1 359 410 359 1,128 9,659 8,531
2 275 328 492 1,095 1 1,313 10,218
3 858 858 1,275 417
4 1,051 1,051 5,181 4,130
5 137 137 1,153 1,016
6 342 342 3,078 2,736
7 2,256 22 40 2,318 18,498 16,180
8 174 174 1,401 1,227
9 347 347 1,426 1,079
10 1,153 1,153 7,568 6,415
11 574 574 1,743 1,169
12 483 483 4,751 4,268
113 1,115 1,115 15,949 14,834
Total: 4,972 3,480 2,323 10,775 82,995 72,220
*These numbers would be added to the area outside the impact area in Scenario I to determine total for entire watershed
study area
**Proposed for residential

1

1
1

1

1

u

Although not as low density as Scenario 1, most of the 10,775 total acres to be developed
by 2020 will be low density in character, with 8,452 acres (78.4%) forecasted to be
developed at a density between 0 and 2.5 units per acre. The majority of that low density
development will be located in subareas 7 and 13, located in extreme northeastern and
southeastern Union County, where sewer service and growth momentum is at a
minimum.
Higher density development is forecasted in subareas 1, 2, and 3, which are all either
adjacent to Mecklenburg County or straddle the US-74 corridor west of Monroe. Subarea
11, located along US-74 between Monroe and Wingate, also should develop at a higher
density. Mainly because of travel time savings and planned sewer services, future
residential development in subarea 10, which straddles US-74 east of Monroe and west of
Marshville, should also increase. As was the case in Scenario 1, only 13% of the total
residential land available for development is forecasted to be developed upon by 2020.
Scenario 2 (Commercial):
With the addition of the Monroe Bypass/Connector project, there are employment areas
that would be generated in addition to those designated in Scenario 1. Most of these
additional subareas would be focused around the proposed interchanges of the new
roadway, as well as supplement the already developing US-74 corridor between Monroe
and Mecklenburg County. Table 5 below shows the forecasted distribution of
commercial acreage by designated subarea.

A
Inmet
rea*
Corridor G -A11 Other
Corridors Total
Area** Total Available
Land - Corridor G Total Available
Land - All Other
1 25 51 1,527 1,502 1,47
2 8 25 734 726 709
3 43 17 212 169 195
4 17 25 1,224 1,207 1,199
5 33 8 271 238 263
6 8 8 403 395 395
7 8 8 328 320 32
8 8 8 388 380 38
9 17 17 499 482 482
Totah, 167 167, 5,586 419 5419,
In addition to the 1,103 acres in Scenario 1
"Proposed for comrercial
' There are five alternative alignments proposed for the Monroe Connector project.
Corridor G is located along existing US-74, connecting to the Monroe Bypass near Rocl<y
River Road. Because of only slight variations in interchange locations, the other four
' alternative alignments, D-2, D-3, E-2, and E-3, all include the same amount of acreage by
subarea.

1
1
1
1

1

1

r

7

As a result of the proposed roadway being built, an additional 167 acres of commercial
development is forecasted within the entire watershed area, all of which would occur in
the impact area. This total is added to the 1,103 acres in Scenario 1 for the total amount
of forecasted commercial development between 2000 and 2020 in this scenario. The
distribution of the 1,103 acres of commercial development in Scenario 1 would remain
the same even when the Monroe Connector/Bypass is built. Therefore, only the induced
commercial acreage as a result of the roadway is shown in Table 5 above.
As was the case in Scenario 1, we divided the total 167 acres into retail, office, and
industrial categories to more accurately distribute the induced growth. The share of the
total for each category (retail=92 acres, office=40 acres, industrial=35 acres) was
determined by what the share in Scenario 1 was forecasted to be between 2000 and 2020.
Most of the induced commercial development surrounds the interchanges closer to
Mecklenburg County, feeding off the Monroe Bypass/Connector, US-74, and I-485. It
was determined that most of the interchanges closer to Mecklenburg County would have
a combination of office, retail, and industrial uses, while interchanges further east would
tend to be predominantly retail-oriented, with a certain amount of industrial uses as well.
Scenario 3 (Residential):
With the environmental development controls in place within the Duck and Goose Creek
basins (represented by Subarea 1), only 4%, or 548 households of the total 13,690
forecasted households within the impact area were allocated to Subarea 1. In Scenario 2,
without the development controls, Subarea 1 comprised 20.6%, or 2,820 households.
The density at which these households are developed also changes between Scenario 2
and Scenario 3. Whereas the Subarea 1 households in Scenario 2 were fairly equally
distributed among the three different density levels, all of the Subarea 1 households in
Scenario 3 are forecasted to be developed as GRes (0-1 DU/AC). Because of this, the
amount of developed acreage is similar between the two scenarios for Subarea 1.
Table 5. Scenario 3: 2000-2020 Additional Develo ed Land (Acreage)

Impact Area's GRes
(0-1 DU/AC) LDUrban
(1-2.5 DUTAC) M/HDUrban
(>=2.5 DU/AC) Total
Developed Land Total
Area**. Available
Land
1 1,096 1,096 9,659 8,563
2 1,472 1,472 11,313 9,841
3 968 968 1,275 307
4 1,188 1,188 5,181 3,993
5 274 274 1,153 879
6 411 411 3,078 2,667
7 2,256 22 40 2,318 18,498 16,180
8 174 174 1,401 1,227
9 347 347 1,426 1,079
10 1,153 1,153 7,568 6,415
11 574 574 1,743 1,169
12 483 483 4,751 4,268
13 1,115 1,115 15,949 14,834
Total: 5;571 2,948 3,054 11,573 82,995 71,422
*Only in impact area
**Proposed for residential

1

1
1
1
1

1
An indirect effect of implementing the environmental development controls in Subarea
is that the growth that would have occurred there is now distributed in neighboring
subareas, particularly in Subarea 2, whose boundaries match that of the Crooked Creek
basin. Whereas in Scenario 2 this subarea comprised 18.1 %, or 2,480 households of the
total 13,690 forecasted households within the impact area, in Scenario 3, it comprised
25%, or 3,423 households (nearly 1,000 more households). Because of the high-density
(2.5 DU/AC) development nature within Subarea 2, the resulting acreage total of 1,472
acres is only 377 acres higher than the 1,095-acre total in Scenario 2.
The distribution of the 3,666 induced households because of the proposed roadway
remains the same as it was in Scenario 2, with the Duck and Goose Creek basins
(Subarea 1) receiving no additional development as a result of the Monroe
Bypass/Connector in either scenario. Of these induced households, Subarea 10, located
in eastern Union County where the Monroe Bypass connects with US-74, is forecasted to
comprise 33%, or 1,210 households representing 605 acres (2 DU/AC). This high
percentage allocation is mostly due to a substantial travel time savings of nearly 30
minutes for commuters to Mecklenburg County, making Subarea 10 more attractive for
residential development.
' Scenario 3 (Commercial):
Same as Scenario 2.

I Reference data were combined to create a single land-use layer utilizing eight
categories reported by Dodd et al. (2002). Figure 2 depicts the current land-use
I conditions within the DWQ Study Area. The existing area of category was calculated,
and median ExCo values were multiplied by the area for each category to obtain total
_ estimated nutrient export for current land-use conditions (Table 1 a).
SCENARIO 1: YEAR 2020 WITHOUT THE BYPASS
I HNTB provided ESC with GIS data depicting anticipated development assuming that the
Bypass is not constructed by Year 2020. These data are based on current zoning, the
Union County future land use plan, developable land, and best professional judgment.
I Developable land is all land currently available for development after existing
development and constraining factors (poor soils for septic, floodplains, and steep
I slopes) have been removed. HNTB also provided ESC with the total hectarage of
predicted development for the four developed land-use categories
(Industrial/Commercial, Low Density Urban, Medium/High Density Urban, and General
I Residential). ESC used these data to derive future land-use within the DWQ Study
Area. Future development was predicted along road corridors, adjacent to similar land
uses, and away from constraining factors such as floodplains. Future development
I within the four developed land-use categories were derived separately in accordance
with HNTB guidance. During the process, some current land uses were converted to
different land use categories (example: Forest/Wetland may have been converted to
' Low Density Urban). Predicted nutrient export for Scenario 1 is provided in Table 1b.
The land use predicted for Year 2020 without the Bypass is provided in Figure 3.
SCENARIOS 2 AND 3: YEAR 2020 WITH THE BYPASS
The indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from Bypass construction have been
' determined by HNTB to be restricted to the Impact Area. Additional lands outside the
Impact Area (but within the DWQ Study Area) are expected to experience growth similar
to conditions without the road. After calculating Bypass-related land-use changes within
' the Impact Area, ESC personnel combined future development derived for Scenario 1
(without the Bypass) to future development with the Bypass (Scenario 2 or 3). The
cumulative, predicted future development was used to update current land-use
' conditions through the use of GIS spatial analysis.
For Scenario 3, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), DWQ, and N.C. Wildlife
' Resources Commission (W RC) have been negotiating additional land-use policies and
controls aimed at reducing nutrient and sediment run-off from future development in
order to prevent further degradation of 303d-listed (impaired) streams and protect critical
' habitat: for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). The heelsplitter is a federally
Endangered mussel endemic to the region. Two of three stream systems within North
Carolina that contain existing population of the species, Goose and Duck Creeks, are
' located within both the DWQ Study Area and the Impact Area. For this reason,
additional land-use policies are considered imperative by the resource agencies in order
' to protect water quality important to aquatic resources.
7

FH WA-NC-EIS-03-01-D
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
US 74 IMPROVEMENTS
1485 to US 601
Union and Mecklenburg Counties
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-74(21)
State Project No. 8.1690501
TIP No. R-3329
Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c)
Cooperating Agencies
US Army Corps of Engineers
. /7. O's
Date
11 •O(D • )03
Date
Gregory Thom , Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch,
North Carolina Department of Transportation
4VI Aon Liv HI,
Division Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:

John F. Sullivan, III
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[phone]
Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation
Mail Service Center 1548
Raleigh, NC
[phone]

The proposed action consists of improvements to the US 74 corridor between US 601, north of Monroe in
Union County, and I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop), in Mecklenburg County. This statement documents the
need for improvements to the existing US 74 corridor and evaluates alternatives with respect to costs and
social, economic, and environmental impacts. A Preferred Alternative will be selected basedon the findings
of this study, an evaluation of the comments received on this document, and comments received at the
Public Hearing.
Comments on the Draft EIS are due by 4UJ4and should be sent to Mr. Thorpe at the above
address.

I

Date
1

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
US 74 IMPROVEMENTS
I-485 to US 601
Union and Mecklenburg Counties
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-74(21)
State Project No. 8.1690501
1il' TIP No. R-3329
Ra?4 0%
its$ OCTOBER 2003
SEAL
11265
Documentation Prepared by:
?
"Zi
YTHQN?r? M16
111111/IN?I?
Raleigh and Charlotte, North Carolina
/O / I y/o3
llllfff???,
CARO
4 SEAL =
21082
AICP
Manager - NEPA Documentation
1O'S ? r>
Date Steve Drum, PE
\\\ \ a\\\\ u w u l l ? n w u, u ,,,,, ??
\\ 0 NMFN Project Manager - Roadway Design
For the:
JOHN G.
?- CONFORTI
REM North Carolina Department of Transportation b
9766 Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
/i ? '. \\ TOf'TH?
N R E P \a??`\\
!I! III 11111111\\\
??5- I-1 U3
Date Conforti, RFW
Project Manager
1. 17031703
Date
Brian F. Y oto, PE
Consultant Engineering Unit Head

I

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
l
i
1
1
SUMMARY
S.1 Federal Highway Administration
(X) Draft ( )Final
( ) Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation attached
S.2 Contacts
The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS):
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
John F. Sullivan, III
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation (NCDOT)
Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation
Mail Service Center 1548
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone: [phone]
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3319
DE/S - October 2003
S-1

S.3 Description of Proposed Action I
This project addresses proposed improvements to the US 74 corridor between US 601, north
of Monroe in Union County, and I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) in Mecklenburg County.
'
s 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has right-of-way
The NCDOT
acquisition scheduled to begin in FFY 2006 and construction to begin in 2010.
The primary purposes of the proposed action are to improve traffic flow and levels of service
along the US 74 corridor in the study area, improve safety and reduce conflicts between t?
through traffic and local traffic in the US 74 corridor, improve regional connectivity between
Union County and Mecklenburg County, and improve high speed regional travel along the
US 74 intrastate corridor.
S.4 Other Major Actions in the Project Vicinity
There are seven other TIP projects located in the study area. These are listed below:
• R-2559 Monroe Bypass. A four-lane divided new location roadway beginning near
Marshville. It will end at US 601 and tie into R-3329 (Monroe Connector). If the
Monroe Connector is not constructed, the Monroe Bypass will be extended to end at
US 74, where the original project terminus was proposed (see Section 1.5.2). Right-
of-way acquisition has begun on this project and a portion is scheduled for
construction in Federal Fiscal Year 2004.

• R-2123. Extension of I-485 from US 74 north to I-85 North. Construction has begun
on this project and the portion north of US 74 to Lawyers Road is open to traffic.

• R-4050. Widen Airport Road (SR 1349) to multi-lanes from Goldmine Road (SR
1162) to Old Charlotte Highway (SR 1009), a distance of 1.6 miles (2.6 kilometers).
The project currently is in right-of-way acquisition and construction is scheduled to
begin in State Fiscal Year 2002.
• U-4024. Widen US 601 to multi-lanes from US 74 to the Monroe Bypass (R-2559).
Right of way is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year FFY 2003 and construction
is scheduled to begin in FFY 2005.

US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 S-2
DEIS - October 2003

• U-3809. Widen Indian Trail Road (SR 1008) to multi-lanes from Old Charlotte
Highway (SR 1009) to US 74, a distance of 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers). Right-of-way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in FFY 2006, with construction beginning after FFY
2008.
• U-3825. Widen Stallings Road (SR 1365) to multi-lanes from Old Charlotte
Highway (SR 1009) to US 74, a distance of 1.4 miles (2.3 kilometers). Right-of-way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in FFY 2205 and construction is scheduled to begin
in FFY 2007. The 2004-2010 TIP indicates the need to coordinate this project with
R-3329. Its northern termini could be affected by the designs for Project R-3329.
• B-3544. Replace Bridge Number 446 on Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1510) over
Stewarts Creek. Right-of-way acquisition and construction are both scheduled for
FFY 2002.
In Mecklenburg County, the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) is studying transit
options and land use scenarios for five major corridors in the county: South, North, Northeast
Southeast, and West. The Southeast Corridor begins in downtown Charlotte and parallels
Independence Boulevard (US 74). It extends slightly into Union County to terminate at the
Central Piedmont Community College Campus just southeast of the existing I-485/US 74
interchange. A Major Investment Study (MIS) for this corridor was completed on
September 25, 2002 by Gannett-Fleming, Inc for CATS. On November 20, 2002, the
Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) approved CATS' recommendation for the Locally
Preferred Alternative. Bus rapid transit will be the predominant transit mode, but the MTC
also has asked that the light rail option continue to be studied during the preliminary
engineering phase (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission website:
www.charmeck.org, accessed 4/28/03).
I S.5 Alternatives Considered
A screening evaluation was conducted to identify the alternatives that could fulfill the
purpose of and need for improving the US 74 corridor between US 601 and I-485 (Charlotte
Outer Loop) in Mecklenburg County. Four types of preliminary alternatives were
considered:

r
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 S-3
DEIS - October 2003
I

• No Build Alternatives
• Transportation Management Alternatives
• Mass Transit Alternative
• Build Alternatives
The preliminary alternatives that could not fulfill the purpose of and need for the project, had
excessive undesirable impacts, or were considered impractical were eliminated from further
consideration. The potential for adverse environmental impacts on residential communities
and businesses, water supply watersheds, streams, wetlands, and natural areas also was
considered. The evaluations of the preliminary alternatives are included in Chapter 2 of this
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

Based on this first screening evaluation, only the Build Alternatives were determined to meet
the goals if the proposed project. These build alternatives included new location freeway
alignments as well as improvements and upgrades to existing US 74.
Land suitability maps of the project study area were created highlighting man-made and
natural features that make one particular area unsuitable or less desirable than another for
roadway construction. Such features included churches, cemeteries, schools, residential
communities, parks, known historic architectural sites, community facilities, streams,
wetlands (based on the National Wetland Inventory developed by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service), and protected watershed areas.
Potential roadway study corridors then were overlain onto the land suitability maps, avoiding
the sensitive features to the extent possible, and in accordance with the design criteria. The
locations of the preliminary corridor segments were closely coordinated with the local
governments, as well as State and Federal environmental and regulatory resource agencies.
An impact matrix table was developed for the fifteen preliminary study corridors to estimate
the potential impacts of each corridor. Based on the results of this second screening
evaluation, and consideration of comments received through public involvement and agency
coordination programs, ten of the preliminary study corridors were eliminated from further
consideration. The five Detailed Study Corridors remaining were D2, D3, E2, E3, and G.
These corridors are evaluated in detail in Chapters 3 and 4 of this DEIS.

r
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 S-4
DEIS - October 2003
I
f

r
a
i

1

I

w
S.6 Summary of Environmental Impacts
The following is a narrative summary of the primary environmental consequences associated
with each of the Detailed Study Corridors. Table S-1, found at the end of the summary,
provides this information in table form.
S.6.1 Socioeconomic Impacts
S.6.1.1 Land Use and Transportation Planning
The proposed project would be consistent with the state and local transportation plans for the
area.
S.6.1.2 Community Services and Facilities
Detailed Study Corridors D2 and D3 would require approximately 2.5 acres (1.0 hectares) of
undeveloped land in a strip about 35-80 feet wide from the northwestern edge of the Central
Piedmont Community College (CPCC) property. No developed area or structures associated
with the community college would be impacted. Access to CPCC would be altered and
expanded under Detailed Study Corridors E2, E3, and G.
Three churches would be impacted by the preliminary engineering designs within Detailed
Study Corridor G; Southeast Bible Church, Lighthouse Family Church, and Christ's Church.
S.6.1.3 Relocations
Detailed Study Corridors D3 and E3 would relocate the most residences of the five Detailed
Study Corridors, relocating 85 and 81 residences, respectively. Less than 3 percent of
residential relocations for Detailed Study Corridors D3 and E3 are estimated to be minority
households. No low-income households are estimated to require relocation.
1

1

The preliminary engineering design of Detailed Study Corridor G widens existing US 74 and
causes the largest number of business relocations. Detailed Study Corridor G is projected to
relocate 133 businesses, twenty being minority owned. The numbers of employees for these
businesses range from 1 to 100+ employees.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 S-5
DEIS - October 2003

Detailed Study Corridors E2 and E3 each would relocate the same 49 businesses located
along existing US 74. The numbers of employees for these businesses range from 1 to 100+
employees. Detailed Study Corridors E2 and E3 would relocate seven minority owned
businesses each.
S.6.1.4 Community Cohesion
Village of Lake Park. Detailed Study Corridors D2, D3, E2, and E3 would include a grade
separation over Faith Church Road (SR 1518), the northern entrance to the Village of Lake
Park. Access to the Village would not be changed, nor would the neighborhood be divided.
Detailed Study Corridor G would not pass near the Village of Lake Park and would have no
direct effect on this community.
Beverly Drive Neighborhood. Beverly Drive SR 1576) would be grade-separated under
the preliminary alignments of Detailed Study Corridors D2, D3, E2, and E3. Oakland
Avenue, which creates a loop with Beverly Drive (SR 1576) to the north, would be dead-
ended on either side of the new highway facility. In proximity to this area, there would be a
diamond interchange at Indian Trail-Fairview Road (SR 1520).
Approximately ten homes in the neighborhood (four homes on Beverly Drive (SR 1576),
four homes on Oakland Avenue, and two homes on Reid Road) would be taken under
Detailed Study Corridors D2, D3, E2, or E3. The proposed new alignment would separate
about fifteen homes (ten homes on Beverly Drive [SR 1576] and five homes on Oakland
Avenue) from the rest of the approximately 110-home neighborhood, although access would
be maintained via the underpass along Beverly Drive (SR 1576).
Detailed Study Corridor G would not pass near Beverly Drive (SR 1576) and would have no
direct effect on this neighborhood.
Myers Road Neighborhoods. The four neighborhoods in the Myers Road (SR 1512) area
are Cameron Woods, Brekonridge, Northwood, and The Oaks at Myers Meadows. Detailed
Study Corridors D3 and E3 would not pass near these neighborhoods and would have no
direct effect on them. Detailed Study Corridors D2 and E2 would pass over Myers Road
(SR 1512) to the northwest of these neighborhoods.
Detailed Study Corridor G passes through the southern end of Myers Road (SR 1512).
Under Detailed Study Corridor G, Cameron Woods would be the only neighborhood with
direct impacts. Two homes at the end of the Olde Elizabeth Lane cul-de-sac would be taken
I
US 74 Monroe Connector-TIP R-3329 S-6
DEIS - October 2003

1
r
A
r
1

1

1

r
with the proposed alignment in Detailed Study Corridor G. These homes are located at the
edge of the subdivision, so the remainder of the neighborhood would not be divided.
Suburban Estates. Detailed Study Corridors D3 and E3 have the same alignment in the area
of Suburban Estates Mobile Home Park. This alignment passes through the eastern edge of
the development and would take approximately 19 homes along Daybreak Drive. Detailed
Study Corridors D2, E2, and G would not pass near this neighborhood and would have no
direct effect on it.
S.6.1.5 Environmental Justice
The analysis contained in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is consistent
with that outlined in the Executive Order 12898 and the DOT Environmental Justice Order.
None of the five Detailed Study Corridors is anticipated to have a disproportionate impact on
minority or low-income communities.
S.6.2 Economic Effects
A major new highway facility such as the Monroe Connector can have both positive and
negative impacts on the economy of the area. Economic effects resulting from construction
of the project could include effects related to the trucking and tourism industry, employment,
business growth and relocations, and property/tax values.
S.6.3 Utilities
Major existing utilities within the study area include electrical transmission lines, natural gas
lines, water mains, and sanitary sewer lines. During final design, all utility providers would
be contacted and coordinated with to ensure that the proposed design and construction of the
project would not substantially disrupt service.
The study area contains one major high-voltage power transmission line easement operated
by Duke Energy Company. All Detailed Study Corridors cross the high-voltage power line
easement. The proposed preliminary engineering designs within all Detailed Study Corridors
would avoid the towers located in the power easement. However, there may be vertical
clearance issues associated with these power lines along Detailed Study Corridors D2, D3,
E2, and E3, since the elevations of the proposed roadways where they cross the easement are
higher than the existing ground. Any impacts and relocations of power lines or towers would
be coordinated with Duke Energy Company during final design of the Preferred Alternative.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 S-7
DEIS - October 2003
t
Natural gas service lines are located within portions of the study area. However, the Detailed
Study Corridors are not expected to impact consumer gas service. Construction along
Detailed Study Corridor G may require relocation of gas lines located along the existing
US 74. The NCDOT would coordinate any required relocation with the North Carolina
Natural Gas Corporation and the City of Monroe.
Most of the study area has water service from public utilities. The Detailed Study Corridors
would cross water lines in the area, but water service is not expected to be disrupted. The
NCDOT would coordinate any water line relocation or reconfiguration with the City of
Monroe, Union County and Mecklenburg County.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities provides sewage treatment for all homes and businesses in
the Mecklenburg County portion of the study area. Union County provides sewage treatment
to most of northwestern Union County. The remainder of the study is serviced by private
septic tanks. None of the Detailed Study Corridors would impact sewage treatment facilities
or sewer service within the study area. Any sewer line relocation or reconfiguration required
for construction of the Preferred Alternative would be coordinated with the affected
municipalities, Union County, or Mecklenburg County.
S.6.4 Cultural Resources
S.6.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources I
There are three properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) determined to be eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These three resources are the James
Orr Stores (Site No. 8), Secrest Farm (Site No. 35), and the Hiram Secrest House (Site
No. 40).
There would be No Effect on the James Orr Stores under any of the build alternatives.
Detailed Study Corridors D2 and E2 were determined to have No Effect on the Hiram
Secrest House and No Adverse Effect on the Secrest Farm.
Detailed Study Corridors D3, E3, and G were determined to have an Adverse Effect on the
Hiram Secrest House and the Secrest Farm due to the potential for increasing the likelihood
of cumulative development in the area of the historic resources.
I
US 74 Monroe Connector-TIP R-3329 S-8
DEIS - October 2003

t
1

r
1
t

1
I

1

11
S.6.4.2 Archaeological Resources
While it is possible that prehistoric sites could be recorded within any of the Detailed Study
Corridors, it seems unlikely that any site worthy of further investigation is present due to the
prevalence of eroded conditions. Therefore, further investigation of all the Detailed Study
Corridors is not warranted.
A copy of the Preferred Alternative engineering designs will be forwarded to the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The NCDOT, in coordination with the SHPO, will
determine a survey protocol for evaluating archaeological resources along the Preferred
Alternative.
S.6.5 Section 6(f) and 4(f) Resources
S.6.5.1 Section 6(0
None of the Detailed Study Corridors would impact Section 6(f) resources.
S.6.5.2 Section 4(t)
There are resources protected under Section 4(f) in, or affected by, Detailed Study Corridors
D3, E3, and G. These are the historic Hiram Secrest House and Secrest Farm, which were
determined to be Adversely Effected by Detailed Study Corridors D3, E3, and G. The
Secrest Farm is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A for agriculture as an
example of an early twentieth century farm in Union County. The Hiram Secrest House is
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C for architecture as an
example of early twentieth century farmhouses in Union County.
The Adverse Effect determinations for Hiram Secrest House and Secrest Farm from Detailed
Study Corridors D3, E3, and G do not involve direct taking of property from these sites.
Additionally, the proposed Detailed Study Corridors themselves were not cited on the Effects
Determination Form (See form dated January 7, 2003 in Appendix F) as substantially
impairing the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the resources for protection under
Section 4(f). The adverse effects determinations were based on potentially accelerated
development pressures occurring in the area that could indirectly result in redevelopment of
the sites.
Therefore, neither a direct taking nor a constructive use would occur and a Section 4(f)
Evaluation is not required.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
S-9

S.6.6 Visual Impacts

Construction of a roadway on new location would result in similar visual impacts along
Detailed Study Corridors D2, D3, E2, and E3. In general, the study area away from existing
US 74 is comprised of forested, undeveloped land or farmland with scattered low-density
residential neighborhoods. Therefore, visual impacts are anticipated to be minimal.

The visual character would change drastically along the portion of Detailed Study Corridor G
that would widen existing US 74. The new roadway would change existing US 74 from a
four-lane facility with a grass median to a six-lane facility with two or three-lane one-way
frontage roads on either side (a total of 10-12 lanes). The character of the corridor would
become urban in nature. Many of the existing businesses along US 74 would be relocated to
construct this alternative. Redevelopment could be planned with a more consistent visual
character, but this would be the responsibility of Union County and the municipalities with
jurisdiction along existing US 74.
S.6.7 Air Quality
S.6.7.1 Air Quality Analysis I
An air quality analysis was performed to estimate the maximum one-hour carbon monoxide
(CO) concentrations caused by projected vehicular traffic along the preliminary engineering
designs within the Detailed Study Corridors. Concentrations of CO were determined using
EPA-approved models and were compared to National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for construction and design year periods.

Comparison of the predicted carbon monoxide concentrations with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) indicates no exceedances of these standards in 2006 or 2025.
Therefore, none of the Build Alternatives are anticipated to create an adverse microscale
effect on air quality in the project area.

S.6.7.2 State Implementation Plan Consistency
Both the Clean Air Act and TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century) require
conformity between a proposed transportation system and the SIP. The transportation
conformity regulations are intended to ensure that a state does not undertake federally funded
or approved transportation projects, programs, or plans that are inconsistent with the state's
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 S-10
DEIS - October 2003

obligation to meet and maintain the NAAQS. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)
must show that expected emissions from their transportation system are within the mobile
source emission budgets in the applicable SIP. Transportation projects must come from
conforming transportation plans/programs, and conforming transportation plans/programs
J must come from conforming SIPs.
J
l

r

1
1

I
Part of the project is located in Union County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are
not applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
Part of the project is located in Mecklenburg County, which is within the Charlotte-Gastonia
nonattainment area for ozone (03) and the Charlotte nonattainment area for carbon monoxide
(CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated
these areas as a moderate nonattainment area for 03 and CO. However, due to improved
monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as maintenance for 03 on July 5, 1995, and
maintenance for CO on September 18, 1995. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality
implementation plan (SIP). All appropriate transportation control measures included in the
SIP for Mecklenburg County have been completed. The Mecklenburg-Union MPO 2025
Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2002-2008 Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Program (MTIP) have been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP.
The USDOT air quality conformity approval of the LRTP was April 15, 2002 and the
USDOT air quality conformity approval of the MTIP was April 15, 2002. The current
conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts
51 and 93. There have been no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope,
as used in the conformity analyses.
S.6.8 Noise
Detailed Study Corridor D3 would result in the highest number of total impacted receptors
(199) without mitigation. Detailed Study Corridors G and E2 would result in the lowest
numbers of total impacted receptors (92) and (99), respectively. Detailed Study Corridors
D3 and E3 have more impacted receptors due to lower existing ambient noise levels.
A preliminary review of potential noise wall locations was conducted for all receptors
predicted to approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria or to experience a substantial
noise increase. In many cases along the Detailed Study Corridors, receptors were isolated
and a noise barrier would not be cost effective.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 S-11
DEIS - October 2003

Fourteen mitigation study areas were modeled using the FHWA s Computer Program
TNM 1.1 to determine if barriers would be reasonable and feasible in these locations. Noise
walls in three locations (Barrier Numbers 2-3, 3-1 and 3-3) were determined to be the only
cost effective barriers of the fourteen evaluated, with the cost per receptor at $20,852,
$19,971 and $12,700, respectively. Barrier 2-3 is along Detailed Study Corridors D2 and E2
along the north side of the Village of Lake Park. Barrier 3-1 is along Detailed Study
Corridors D3 and E3 in the same location. Barrier 3-3 is along Detailed Study Corridors D3
and E3 adjacent to the Suburban Estates Mobile Home Park.
As shown in Table S-1, the total number of receptors impacted with mitigation measures in
place varies between 65 for DSC E2 to 117 for DSC D3.
S.6.9 Hazardous Material and Waste Sites
Based on the field reconnaissance survey described in Section 3.2.3 approximately nineteen
facilities with the possibility of underground storage tanks (USTs) were identified along the
Detailed Study Corridors. Sixteen of these were along existing US 74, with the remainder
along Indian Trail Fairview Road (1) and Unionville-Indian Trail Road (2).
Table S-1 lists the number of sites potentially affecting each Detailed Study Corridor. As
shown in the table, Detailed Study Corridor G would be potentially affected by the greatest
number of sites.
S.6.10 Mineral Resources I
Old abandoned gold mines are located throughout the study area. Further geotechnical
studies and surveys would be conducted during final design of the Preferred Alternative to
identify any old shafts in the area that could affect construction activities and the safety of
construction workers. It is expected that the presence of identified abandoned mine shafts
can be accommodated in the design and construction of the roadway and would not preclude
construction of any of the Detailed Study Corridors.

1
a
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 S-12
DEIS - October 2003 ?.
I
I S.6.11 Soils
The six primary soils within the Detailed Study Corridors have similar properties (See
Table 3-11). The suitability of these soils as roadfill ranges from fair to poor. The expected
soil limitations can be overcome through proper engineering design, including the
incorporation of techniques such as soil modification, appropriate choice of fill material, use
of non-corrosive subgrade materials, and design of drainage structures capable of conveying
estimated peak flows. Decisions regarding soil limitations and methods to overcome them
would be determined during final design.
S.6.12 Prime and Important Farmland

t

1

r
1
1
r
1]
In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 CFR Part 658) and State
Executive Order Number 96, an assessment was undertaken of the potential impacts of land
acquisition and construction activities in prime, unique, and local or statewide important
farmland soils, as defined by the US Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS).
As required by the FPPA, coordination with the NRCS for this project was initiated by
submittal of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. Sites receiving a total
score of less than 160 on the form should be given a minimal level of protection, and sites
receiving a total score of 160 or more are given increasingly higher levels of consideration
for protection (7 CFR Section 658.4). None of the proposed Detailed Study Corridors
resulted in a total site assessment score greater than 160 points. Therefore, in accordance
with the Farmland Protection Policy Act, no further coordination or mitigation for farmland
loss is required for the project.
S.6.13 Water Resources
S.6.13.1 Surface Water
b1.?-? mss ,
As shown in Table S-1, the number of perennial stream crossings for the Detailed Study
Corridors range from 13 for DSC E2 to 19 for DSC G. Impacts to important streams range
from 3 87I near feet for DSC D2 to 8,148 linear feet for DSC G. At this phase in the
planning process, the need for stream relocations is not anticipated.
Streams crossed by the proposed alignment within any of the Detailed Study Corridors may
be temporarily and locally impacted by road construction. Potential short-tern water quality
impacts include temporarily increased sedimentation and turbidity levels. An increase in
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 S-13
DEIS - October 2003

impervious road surface area will result in increased runoff with the potential for carrying
higher pollutant loads. Adherence to the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters during design and construction of the proposed project are
expected to minimize impacts.
S. 6.13.2 Groundwater I
Areas near US 601 may be served by private wells. Wells within the Preferred Alternative's
right of way would be surveyed prior to project construction. NCDOT would purchase these
wells and cap and abandon them in accordance with State standards. Any subsurface
contamination would be reported to the regional office of the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources.
S. 6.13.3 FloodPlains and FloodwaYs
All of the Detailed Study Corridors cross the 100-year floodplains of Stewart's Creek and
South Fork Crooked Creek and the floodway of South Fork Crooked Creek. Detailed Study
Corridors D2 and D3 also cross the floodplain of North Fork Crooked Creek.
Major drainage structures proposed for the project would cross the 100-year floodplains at or
near perpendicular angles, resulting in transverse floodplain encroachments that minimize the
length of floodplain traversed. As a result, no substantial impacts are anticipated within the
k i
d
100
fl
d
l
i
Th
i
f S
h F
k C
k
d C
h
ree
s propose
-year
oo
p
ns.
e structure at t
e cross
ng o
out
or
roo
e
a
to be a bridge. All structures would be sized to ensure that no increases to the extent and
level of flood hazard risk would result from encroachments. Therefore, none of the build
alternatives are anticipated to result in uneconomic, hazardous, or incompatible uses of the
floodplains.
S.6.14 Biotic Communities

S.6.14.1 Terrestrial Plant Communities

For the Detailed Study Corridors D2 D3 E2 and E3 approximately 30 percent of the land
required for the proposed project is currently forested (Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest and
Mixed Hardwood Forest), approximately 30 percent is urban/disturbed, and approximately
40 percent is agriculture/pasture or clear cut/ successional.

I
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 S-14
DEIS - October 2003 1

Detailed Study Corridor G is comprised of more urban disturbed areas (54 percent), less
forested area (20 percent), and less agriculture/pasture and clear cut/successional (total of
27 percent).
Detailed Study Corridor E2 would impact the most Mixed Hardwood habitat (95 acres).
Detailed Study Corridor D3 would impact the most Pine/Mixed Hardwood habitat
(154 acres) and the most forested habitat overall (231 acres). Detailed Study Corridor G,
would impact the least amount of forested habitat (113 acres); about half the impact of
Detailed Study Corridor D3.
Detailed Study Corridors D3 and E3 would impact the largest area of contiguous forest
community (Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest) within and surrounding the South Fork Crooked
Creek floodplain. This floodplain also contains substantial areas of medium quality
wetlands.
S.6.14.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
' Impacts to wildlife would include habitat fragmentation, loss of potential nesting and
foraging areas, and displacement of wildlife population. Along new location sections of the
Detailed Study Corridors, movement between habitats on one side of the road to the other
would become more dangerous for many large and medium sized mammals such as deer,
raccoon, rabbit, and opossum. Smaller mammals such as mice and squirrels, as well as
reptiles and amphibians, are also expected to suffer increased mortality along the new
alignment due to land clearing and traffic operations.

Il

1
Forested areas generally are the most valuable in terms of wildlife habitat. Of the five
Detailed Study Corridors under consideration, Detailed Study Corridor G would have the
least impacts to wildlife because it is located primarily along an existing roadway corridor
and it has the least amount of forested habitat. Detailed Study Corridor D3 would have the
most impacts to forested habitat.
S.6.15 Aquatic Communities
Aquatic habitats within the project study area range from ephemeral waters present in
intermittent streams to permanent riverine habitat within the North Fork Crooked Creek,
South Fork Crooked Creek, and East Fork Stewarts Creek.
Resident aquatic species may be temporarily displaced during construction. However,
impacts are expected to be minor and temporary. Bridges are proposed over South Fork
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 S-15
DEIS - October 2003

Crooked Creek, and would be designed to avoid or minimize placement of structure
foundations within these waters. Measures to maximize sediment and erosion control during
construction would protect water quality for aquatic organisms.
S.6.16 Jurisdictional Issues
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of
the United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has
major responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the
Act.
Table S-1 provides information regarding the area wetlands, jurisdictional ponds, and
streams impacted by the proposed preliminary engineering designs within each Detailed
Study Corridor.
Total direct wetland impacts range from 0.18 acres for Detailed Study Corridor E2 to 2.28
acres for Detailed Study Corridor D3. See Table S-1 for estimates of stream, wetland, and
pond impacts. These quantities are based on the construction limits in the preliminary
roadway design plans. I
S.6.17 Protected Species I
There are five federally-protected species with habitat ranges that include the study area: the
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata),
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), and
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). Field investigations along the Detailed Study
Corridors were conducted from July through December, 2000.
The proposed project is expected to have No Effect on bald eagle or Michaux's sumac and is
Not Likely to Adversely Effect Schweinitz' sunflower or smooth coneflower.
Effects determinations for the Carolina heelsplitter are Unresolved. Both North Fork
Crooked Creek and South Fork Crooked Creek, which are crossed by all Detailed Study
Corridors, provide potentially suitable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter. Further surveys
of perennial streams in these two watersheds necessary to complete the Carolina heelsplitter
assessment will be conducted following the selection of the Preferred Alternative. Results of
this survey will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 5-16
DEIS - October 2003
r

r]

11
FI
LJ

S.6.18 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
S. 6.18. Land Use and Population Forecasts
The proposed Monroe Bypass/Monroe Connector are forecast to induce approximately
26 percent more households and 20 percent more jobs in the Impact Area between 2000 and
2020 than would have occurred had the proposed projects not been built. Under all
evaluation scenarios, only 12-14 percent of the land in the Indirect and Cumulative Impact
Area that is available for residential development would be developed by 2020 (HNTB,
2002).
The Monroe Bypass/Monroe Connector projects were estimated to induce an additional
3,666 households to locate in the Impact Area that would not have been there without the
projects. These households were assumed to develop at various densities over the next 20
years. The proposed projects also would redistribute and change the densities of some of the
future growth that would have occurred without the projects. The exact location of the
Monroe Connector along the Detailed Study Corridors was not anticipated to affect the
location of the forecasted residential development.
About 167 additional acres (67.6 hectares) of induced commercial development is forecast as
a result of the projects. As a whole, the 1,001 acres (405 hectares) of new commercial
development in the Indirect and Cumulative Impact Area forecast to be developed between
2000 and 2020 is projected to be 55 percent retail, 24 percent office, and 21 percent
industrial.
Under Detailed Study Corridor G, more commercial development is allocated along existing
US 74 between the Mecklenburg County line and the City of Monroe. Under Detailed Study
Corridors D2, D3, E2, and E3, more commercial development would occur around the
proposed interchange locations. Most of the interchanges closer to Mecklenburg County
would have a combination of office, retail, and industrial uses, while interchanges further
east would tend to be retail-oriented, with a certain amount of new industrial uses occurring
at locations of existing industrial concentration.
S.6.18.2 Indirect Impacts and Potential Mitigation
Adverse indirect effects from the Monroe Bypass and Monroe Connector potentially could
occur to historic resources (under Detailed Study Corridors D3, E3, or G), the water quality
of area streams, and the endangered Carolina heelsplitter in Duck Creek and Goose Creek.
US 74 Monroe Connector-TIP R-3329 5-17
DEIS - October 2003

Historic Resources. The potential for impacts to the Hiram Secrest House and Secrest Farm
sites may be higher under Monroe Connector DSCs D3, E3, and G compared to DSCs D2
and E2 since the Secrest Farm and Hiram Secrest House and the land around them likely
would be visible from DSCs D3, E3, and G. This visibility could make the land more
desirable for development, which could be an indirect impact attributable to the project.
The NCDOT will consider the potential for indirect effects to the Hiram Secrest House and
Secrest Farm, and any comments received regarding this issue during the DEIS review ,
period, as factors when selecting an alternative for the Monroe Connector.
Water Quality. On October 3, 2002, the NC Division of Water Quality issued a Section 401
Water Quality Certification for the Monroe Bypass (TIP Project No. R-2559) with fifteen
conditions. The Monroe Connector (TIP Project No. R-3329) also will need a Section 401
Water Quality Certification prior to construction. It is anticipated the conditions listed for
the Monroe Bypass certification also would apply to the Monroe Connector's certification. I
Changes in peak discharges and runoff volumes were calculated for a 25-year storm event for
the six watershed basins in the Indirect and Cumulative Impact Area (Duck Creek, Goose
Creek, Crooked Creek, Lake Twitty, Richardson Creek, and Lanes Creek) (HNTB, 2002).
There will be an increase in both the peak discharges and the runoff volume for all six basins
between 2000 and 2020, with or without the proposed projects. The percentage increases are
dependent primarily on the increase of impervious areas.
Nutrient modeling results suggest a 5-percent increase in total nitrogen (TN) and a 7-percent
reduction in total phosphorus (TP) directly attributable to development generated by the
construction of the Monroe Connector/Monroe Bypass (EcoScience, 2002). If more
progressive land-use policies are instituted in Union County, nutrient modeling results
lt
l l
d
d TP
ld
i
d
i
f
ura
occur as agr
cu
cou
an
suggest that a 20-22 percent re
uct
on o
TN an
converts into more developed land-use categories with lower nutrient loading rates. These
findings suggest that increased regulation of development and watershed protection measures
have the potential to reduce project-induced nutrient loading through application of best
management practices (BMP) and mitigation activities. Such applications may include
development of a regional land-use plan that may incorporate expanded use of wetland and
stream mitigation sites, regional storm water structures, expanded streamside buffers,
additional open space, and limitations on impervious coverage for future development
(EcoScience, 2002, page 1).
r
I
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 S-18
DENS - October 2003

Protected Species. Union County is coordinating with the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
US Army Corps of Engineers, and the NC DWQ regarding development controls and other
measures (in addition to the conditions listed in the Monroe Bypass Section 401 Water
Quality Certification) that would be designed to protect the endangered Carolina heelsplitter
mussel in Duck Creek, Goose Creek, and Waxhaw Creek (outside the Monroe Bypass/
Monroe Connector Impact Area).
' It is expected that the development controls and/or other measures agreed to as conditions of
the Monroe Bypass Section 404 Permit also will be sufficient mitigation for the Monroe
Connector.
S.7 Unresolved Issues Or Areas Of Controversy
There are no areas of controversy regarding this project.
Major unresolved issues to be addressed prior to the publication of the Final Environmental
?i Impact Statement include:
• Federal and State regulatory and resource agency concurrence with the selection of
the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)/Preferred
Alternative and with the avoidance and minimization efforts within the corridors of
the selected alternative.
• Preparation of a conceptual mitigation plan for unavoidable wetland and stream
impacts.
• Further surveys for Carolina heelsplitter in perennial streams in the North Fork Creek
Creek and South Fork Crooked Creek will be conducted. An assessment of the direct
N and indirect impacts to Carolina heelsplitter will be prepared.

1

1
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
S-19

S.8 Other Federal or State Actions Required I
The proposed Monroe Connector (TIP Project R-3329) would require environmental
regulatory permits and actions.
S.8.1 Permits
United States Army Corps of Engineers I
Section 404 Permit. A permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is
required for any activity in water or wetlands that would discharge dredged or fill
materials into Waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands. To obtain permit
approval, impacts to wetlands must be mitigated through avoidance, minimization,
and compensation measures in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement
Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army
Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines (February 1990). Additional policy and guidance has been
established through An Interagency Agreement Integrating Section 404INEPA (May
1997) which is usually referred to as the NEPA/404 Merger Agreement.
Authority. Federal Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and Section
404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Regulations promulgated in 33 CFR
Part 323.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Section 404 Permit Review. The US Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
responsibilities include review of Section 404 permits. The USFWS provides
recommendations to the USACE on how impacts to fish and wildlife resources and
habitats can be minimized.
Authority. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 7. 1

1
I
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3319 S-20
DEIS - October 2003

[1
t

C1

H

1

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources -
Division of Water Quality
Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Any activity which may result in discharge
to Waters of the United States requires a certification that the discharge will be in
compliance with applicable state water quality standards. An application for a US
Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit is considered an application for a water
quality certification.
Authority. North Carolina General Statute 143, Article 21, Part 1.
Regulations promulgated in 15A NCAC 2H and 2B.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. A permit is
required for projects involving sewer systems, treatment works, disposal systems, and
certain stormwater runoff that could result in a discharge to surface waters. The State
has the authority to administer the national NPDES program for projects in North
Carolina.
Authority. North Carolina General Statute 143, Article 21, Part 1.
Regulations promulgated in 15A NCAC 2H.0100.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources -
Division of Land Quality
Soil and Erosion Control Plan. Persons conducting land-disturbing activity shall take
all reasonable measures to protect all public and private property from damage caused
by such activities. Pursuant to GS 112A-57(4) and 113A-54(d)(4), an erosion and
sedimentation control plan must be both filed and approved by the agency having
jurisdiction.
Authority. North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Chapter 4. 15A NCAC 04B .0101
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
5-21

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources -
Division of Air Quality
Burn Permit. Any burning done during the construction of the proposed project will
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of
the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality in accordance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520.
Authority. Regulations promulgated in 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
S.8.2 Subsequent Actions
The approval of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not complete the
project implementation process. The following is a summary of actions, events, and studies
to be completed prior to project construction. Coordination with resource agencies will be
maintained throughout the entire process. The DEIS will be circulated to environmental
agencies and the public for review. Then, the following studies and actions will be
completed to advance the project through the merged NEPA/Section 404 process.
A combined Corridor/Design Public Hearing will be held to present the alternative corridors
and solicit public comments. A newsletter announcement of the public hearing and all other
subsequent newsletters associated with the project will be published.
The comments received through the DEIS review and public hearing processes will be
thoroughly considered in the selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration and the
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team.
• Hazardous materials investigations will be conducted, if necessary, to further review
sites which could be potentially impacted by the selected alternative.
• The preliminary designs will be refined for the selected alternative and will include
efforts to further minimize environmental impacts, specifically to streams and
wetlands.
t
I
US 74 Monroe Connector-TIP R-3329 S_22
DEIS - October 2003

1

11

C]
1
t

1

• A copy of the Preferred Alternative engineering designs will be forwarded to the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The NCDOT, in coordination with the
SHPO, will determine a survey protocol for evaluating archaeological resources along
the Preferred Alternative.
• A mitigation plan for impacts to streams and wetlands will be developed in
consultation with the USACE.
• Surveys for the Carolina heelsplitter mussel will be conducted for the selected
alternative.
• Service road studies will be conducted to determine if access can be provided to
residences and businesses whose access will be precluded due to the construction of
the selected alternative.
• Preliminary geotechnical investigations will be conducted to identify abandoned mine
shafts, geology and soil types and limitations.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will be prepared based on the results of
the items listed above. The FEIS will be circulated for public and agency review. In
addition, agency concurrence with the FEIS will be pursued according to the
Section 404/NEPA merger process. After approval of the FEIS and Record of Decision
(ROD), a Design Public Hearing will be held to receive public comments on the refined
preliminary design for the selected alternative.
The final roadway design plans will be prepared, taking into consideration all public and
agency comments received on the preliminary designs and FEIS. The following studies will
be conducted as a part of the final design process.
• Drainage and hydrological studies to identify and design major drainage structures.
• Traffic control plans will be developed to facilitate access during the construction
phase.
• Surveys for wells within and adjacent to the proposed right of way limits will be
conducted.
• Noise analyses based on updated traffic and detailed design plans will be conducted
to evaluate whether or not potential noise barriers are still feasible and reasonable.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
S-23
I
Geotechmcal investigations will be conducted to recommend techniques and
materials to overcome any soil limitations along the selected alternative.
• Project right of way limits will be finalized.
Other actions which must be completed prior to the start of project construction include but
are not limited to the following:
• Preparation of an erosion control plan incorporating the NCDOT Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
• Coordination with municipalities and utilities for relocation and reconfiguration of
utility systems.
• Implementation of the Relocation Assistance Program.
. Approval of all required permits and certifications. I
1
n

i
r
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 S_24
DEIS - October 2003
I
I TABLE S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts

f
t

1
I?J

s
I
*
I Detailed Study Corridor
ssue D2 D3 E2 E3 G
Length [miles (kilometers)] 12.0
(19.3) 12.4
(20.0) 10.9
(17.5) 11.4
(18.3) 10.8
(17.4)
Construction Costs (millions $) $171.8 $171.4 $170.6 $170.2 $187.0
Right-of-Way Costs (millions $) $19.4 $21.8 $20.8 $23.2 $37.2
Total Costs (millions $) $191.2 $193.2 $191.4 $193.4 $224.2
Residential Relocations 71 85 67 81 32
Business Relocations 8 7 49 49 133
Parks Impacted 0 0 0 0 0
Schools Impacted 1 1 0 0 0
Churches and Cemeteries Impacted 0 0 0 0 3
Major Electric Power Lines Crossed 1 1 1 1 1
Historic Sites with Adverse Effect 0 2 0 2 2
Impacted Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources 0 0 0 0 0
Perennial Stream Crossings 14 16 13 15 19
Impacts to Important Streams
[linear feet (linear meters)] 3,879
(1,182) 4,596
(1,401) 4,436
(1,352) 5,153
(1,571) 8,168
(2,490)
Hazardous Materials Sites Within
Corridor 5 5 6 6 18
Noise Impacts (# receptors) -
With Mitigation in Place 72 117 65 110 92
Ambient Air Quality Carbon Monoxide
Standards Exceedances (#) 0 0 0 0 0
Upland Forested Communities
[acres (hectares)] 217(88) 231(93) 187(76) 202(82) 113(46)
Urban/Disturbed Communities
[acres (hectares)] 250 (101) 261 (106) 177(72) 188(76) 309 (125)
Agricultural/Pasture [acres (hectares)] 282 (114) 274 (111) 223(90) 215(87) 129(52)
Successional/Clear Cut
[acres (hectares)] 19(8) 5(2) 29(12) 15(6) 25(10)
Wetlands [acres (hectares)] 0.69
(0.28) 2.28
(0.92) 0.18
(0.07) 1.77
(0.72) 0.87
(0.35)
Jurisdictional Ponds [acres (hectares)] 0.20 (.08) 0.00 0.20 (.08) 0.72 (.29) 1.48 (.60)
Floodplains (# of crossings) 3 3 2 2 2
Floodplains [linear feet (meters) of
crossing] 4,279
(1,304) 4,506
(1,373) 2,358
(719) 2,586
(788) 4,436
(1,352)
Floodway [linear feet (meters) of
crossing] 589 (180) 460 (140) 589 (180) 460 (140) 121(37)
* Impacts reported for each issues are estimated based on the right of way limits of the preliminary engineering
designs, except for wetlands and ponds, which are estimated based on construction limits.

j
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
S-25
I

1

t

A
1

rl

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Page
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... S-1
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... .. i
List of Figures
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ viii
................................................................................................................................ x
Roadway References for Study Area ............................................................................................ xii
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. .1-1
1.2
1.3 PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................
SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ........................................ . 1-1
. 1-1
1.4
1.5 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................
PROJECT BACKGROUND .............................................................................. . 1-3
. 1-4
1.5.1 Project Setting .........................................................................................
1.5.2 History of Project .................................................................................... . 1-4
. 1-5
1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE .......................................................................................... . 1-6
1.6.1 Existing Road Network ........................................................................... . 1-6
1.6.2 Commuting Patterns ................................................................................ . 1-7
1.6.3 Modal Interrelationships .........................................................................
1.6.3.1 Public Transportation .1-7
1-7
1.6.3.2 Rail Service 1-8
1.6.3.3 Motor Freight Service 1-8
1.6.3.4 Air Service 1-8
1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .....................................................
1.7.1 Demographics ......................................................................................... .1-9
. 1-9

1.8 1.7.2 Economic and Infrastructure Data .........................................................
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANS ............................................ 1-10
1-12
1.8.1 NC Transportation Improvement Program ............................................
1.8.2 Local Thoroughfare Plans ...................................................................... 1-12
1-14
1.8.3 Land Use Plans ...................................................................................... 1-15
1.9 ROADWAY CAPACITY .................................................................................. 1-15
1.9.1 Existing Facility Characteristics ............................................................ 1-15

' 1.9.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................
1.9.2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes 1-16
1-16
1.9.2.2 Existing Levels of Service 1-16

US 74 Monroe Connector - TIP R-3329 i
I DEIS - October 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page I
1.9.3 Projected Conditions (No-Build Alternatives)...
1.9.3.1 Design Year Traffic Volumes
1.9.3.2 Design Year Levels of Service
1.10 SAFETY ........................................................................
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
................................ 1-18 1
1-18
1-18
................................. 1-19
2.1 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................ 2-1
2. 1.1 Do Nothing Alternative ............................................................................ 2-1
2.1.2 Completion of the Monroe Bypass .......................................................... 2-2
2.2 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ............................ 2-4
2.2.1 Transportation System Management (TSM) ........................................... 2-4
2.2.2 Travel Demand Management (TDM) ...................................................... 2-5
2.3 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................2-7
2.4 BUILD ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................. 2-8
2.4.1 Design Criteria ................................... 2-9
2.4.2 Logical Termini ..................................................................................... 2-10
2.4.3 Preliminary Study Corridors .................................................................. 2-12
2.5 DETAILED STUDY CORRIDORS .................................................................. 2-17
2.5.1 Description of Detailed Study Corridors ............................................... 2-18
2.5.1.1 Preliminary Engineering Designs 2-18
2.5.1.2 General Descriptions 2-18
2.6 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ................................................................................. 2-23
2.6.1 Design Year 2025 Traffic Projections ................................................... 2-23
2.6.2 Diversion of Traffic ............................................................................... 2-24
2.6.3 Capacity Analyses .................................................................................. 2-25
2.6.3.1 Analysis Methodology 2-25
1
r

I

r

2.6.3.2 Capacity Analyses for Existing US 74 With
Build Alternatives 2-25
2.6.3.3 Capacity Analyses Along the Build Alternatives 2-26
2.7 COST ESTIMATES .......................................................................................... 2-31

US 74 Monroe Connector - TIP R-3329 ii
DEIS - October 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 EXISTING HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ............................................. ................ 3-1
3.1.1 Existing Land Use Characteristics ........................................... ................ 3-1
3.1.1.1 Existing Land Use 3-2
3.1.1.2 Neighborhoods 3-3
3.1.1.3 Housing Units 3-7
3.1.1.4 Community Facilities and Services 3-8
3.1.2 Future Land Use Planning ....................................................... .............. 3-11
3.1.3 Demographic and Economic Characteristics ........................... .............. 3-15
3.1.3.1 Overall Population 3-15
3.1.3.2 Racial and Ethnic Distribution and Trends
3.1.3.3 Poverty 3-16
3-19
3.1.3.4 Age Characteristics 3-20
3.1.4 Infrastructure and Utilities ....................................................... .............. 3-22
3.1.4.1 Electrical Power Transmission 3-22
3.1.4.2 Water and Sewer Facilities
3.1.4.3 Natural Gas 3-22
3-23
3.1.4.4 CSX Railroad 3-23
3.1.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 3-23
3.1.5.1 Historic Architectural Resources 3-24
3.1.5.2 Archaeological Resources 3-25
3.1.6 Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources .................................................................... 3-26
3.1.7 Visual Environment ............................................................................... 3-27
3.2 EXISTING PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...................................................... 3-27
3.2.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................. 3-27
3.2.2 Existing Noise Levels ............................................................................ 3-29
3.2.2.1 Characteristics of Noise 3-30
3.2.2.2 Existing Noise Measurements 3-30
3.2.3 Hazardous Materials and Waste Sites ..................................... ............... 3-32
3.2.4 Climate and Topography ......................................................... ............... 3-33
3.2.5 Geology and Mineral Resources ............................................. ............... 3-33

US 74 Monroe Connector - TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
3.2.5.1 Geology 3-33 i
3.2.5.2 Mineral Resources 3-34
3.2.6 Soils .................................................................................................. ......3-36
3.2.7 Prime and Important Farmland ........................................................ ...... 3-42
3.2.8 Water Resources .............................................................................. ...... 3-43
3.2.8.1 Water Supply Resources 3-43
3.2.8.2 Drainage Basins, Streams, and Ponds 3-44
3.2.8.3 Water Quality 3-46
3.2.8.4 Floodways and Floodplains 3-47

3.3 EXISTING NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................. ...... 3-48
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities .................................................................. ...... 3-48
3.3.1.1 Survey Methodology 3-48
3.3.1.2 Terrestrial Plant Communities 3-50
3.3.1.3 Terrestrial Wildlife 3-53
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities ...................................................................... ...... 3-55
3.3.2.1 Aquatic Habitats 3-55
3.3.2.2 Aquatic Wildlife 3-58
3.3.3 Important Natural Areas .................................................................. ...... 3-59
3.3.4 Jurisdictional Issues ......................................................................... ...... 3-60
3.3.5 Protected Species ............................................................................. ...... 3-61
3.3.5.1 Federal Protected Species 3-61
3.3.5.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species 3-63
3.3.6 Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................... ...... 3-65
r
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 IMPACTS TO THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ............................................... 4-1
4. 1.1 Land Use and Transportation Planning .................................................... 4-1
4.1.1.1 Consistency with Transportation Plans 4-1
4.1.1.2 Consistency with Land Use Plans and Policies 4-2
US 74 Monroe Connector - TIP R-3329 iv
DEIS - October 2003
¦ TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Page
4.1.2 Social Effects ........................................................................................... 4-5
4.1.2.1 Community Services and Facilities 4-5
4.1.2.2 Relocations 4-6
4.1.2.3 Community Cohesion 4-9
4.1.2.4 Environmental Justice 4-13
4.1.3 Economic Effects ...........................
........................................................ 4-16
4.1.4
4.1.5 Utilities and Infrastructure .....................................................................
Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 4-19
4-20
4.1.5.1 Historic Architectural Resources
4.1.5.2 Archaeological Resources 4-20
4-22
4.1.6 Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources ....................................................................
4.1.6.1 Section 6(f) Resources 4-22
4-22
4.1.6.2 Section 4(f) Resources 4-22
4.1.7 Visual Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-23
4.2 IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................ 4-25
4.2.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................
4.2.1.1 Air Quality Analysis Methodology 4-25
4-25
4.2.1.2 Analysis Results 4-26
4.2.1.3 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Consistency 4-27
4.2.2 Noise ......................................................................................................
4.2.2.1 Noise Impact Criteria 4-28
4-28
4.2.2.2 Analysis Methodology 4-30
4.2.2.3 Analysis Results
4.2.2.4 Noise Abatement Measures 4-31
4-33
4.2.2.5 Information on Noise for Local Officials 4-38
' 4.2.3 Hazardous Materials and Waste Sites .................................................... 4-40
4.2.4 Mineral Resources ................................................................................. 4-41
4.2.5 Soils ........................................................................................................ 4-42
4.2.6 Prime and Important Farmland .............................................................. 4-44
4.2.6.1 Farmland Protection Policy Act 4-44
4.2.6.2 Local Farmland Policies 4-44

US 74 Monroe Connector - TIP R-3329 v
I DEIS - October 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
4.2.7 Water Resources .................................................................................... 4-45
4.2.7.1 Water Quality 4-45
4.2.7.2 Major Drainage Structures 4-47
4.2.7.3 Stream Impacts 4-49
4.2.7.4 Floodplains and Floodways 4-51
4.3 IMPACTS TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ......................................... 4-52
4.3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................................................................ 4-52
4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Plant Communities 4-52
4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Wildlife 4-53
4.3.2 Aquatic Communities ............................................................................ 4-54
4.3.3 Jurisdictional Issues ............................................................................... 4-54
4.3.3.1 Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters 4-54
4.3.3.2 Mitigation Evaluation 4-57
4.3.3.3 Section 404/401 Permits 4-60
4.3.4 Protected Species ................................................................................... 4-61
4.4 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................. 4-63
4.4.1 Combined Direct Impacts of the Monroe Connector
Monroe Bypass, and other TIP Projects in the Vicinity ........................ 4-64
4.4.2 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Analysis ............................................ 4-66
4.4.2.1 History and Background ...................................................... 4-66
4.4.2.2 Boundaries for Analysis Scenarios ...................................... 4-67
4.4.2.3 Summary of Population and Land Use Forecasts ................ 4-68
4.4.2.4 Impact Evaluation ................................................................ 4-71
4.4.2.5 Mitigation .............................................................................4-77
4.5 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .......................................................................... 4-78
4.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT
OF RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 4-84
4.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES
AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ............................................................ 4-84
US 74 Monroe Connector - TIP R-3329 vi
DEIS - October 2003
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
4.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................. 4-86
4.9 REQUIRED PERMITS AND ACTIONS ......................................................... 4-93
4.9.1 Permits ................................................................................................... 4-93
4.9.2 Subsequent Actions ................................................................................ 4-95
5.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM
COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT ................................................... 5-1
6.0 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...........................................6-1
6.1 AGENCY COORDINATION ........................................................................... 6-1
6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................... 6-2
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ....................................................................................7-1
8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 8-1
9.0 INDEX .............................................................................................................. 9-1
APPENDICES
A. Hydraulics
B. Noise Impacts
C. Biological Resources
D. Relocation Reports
E. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Forms
F. Notice of Intent and Comments
G. Public Involvement
Part 1 - Newsletters
Part 2 - Meeting Minutes
Part 3 - Citizens Informational Workshops Sign-In Sheets
US 74 Monroe Connector - TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
V11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES
(Figures for each section follow the text for each section)
SUMMARY
SECTION 1
1-1 Project Vicinity Map
1-2 Project Study Area
1-3
1-4 Charlotte Area Transit Systems Southeast Corridor Mass Transit Alternatives
TIP Projects in Study Area
1-5 Monroe Thoroughfare Plan
1-6 Union County Thoroughfare Plan
1-7 Photographs of Existing US 74
1-8 Base Year (2002) Traffic Volumes
1-9 2025 Traffic Volumes (No-Build Case)
SECTION 2 1
2-1 Typical Roadway Cross-Sections
2-2 Index of Preliminary Corridors Aerial Photography
2-2 a-e Preliminary Study Corridors on Aerial Photographs
2-3 Preliminary Study Corridor Segments
2-4 Preliminary Study Corridors
2-5
2-6 a-s Detailed Study Corridors
Preliminary Engineering Designs Within the Detailed Study Corridors
2-7 Estimated 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Detailed Study Corridor D2
2-8 Estimated 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Detailed Study Corridor E3
2-9 a-b Estimated 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Detailed Study Corridor G
II
L J

I
US 74 Monroe Connector - TIP R-3329 viii
DEIS - October 2003 1
t
t
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 3
3-1 US Census Areas (2000)
3-2 Photographs of Study Area
3-3 Neighborhoods in Study Area
3-4 Community Facilities
3-5 a-d Future Land Uses
3-6 Union County Water System Master Plan
3-7 Union County Sewer System Master Plan
3-8 Historic Resources and Old Gold Mines
3-9 Noise Measurement Locations
3-10 Hazardous Materials Site Locations
3-11 a-b Soils Mapping
3-12 Water Resources
3-13 Biotic Communities
SECTION 4
4-1 Noise Barriers Evaluated
4-2 a-b Reasonable and Feasible Noise Barriers
4-3 Watershed Study Area and Impact Area
US 74 Monroe Connector - TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES
SUMMARY
SECTION 1
1-1 2002 Levels of Service for Intersections Along US 74 ................................................. 1-17
1-2 2025 Levels of Service for Intersections Along US 74 ................................................. 1-19
1-3 1999-2001 Accident Data for Existing US 74 from NC 51 to US 601 .......................... 1-20
1-4 Existing US 74 and Average Statewide Accident Rates ................................................ 1-21
SECTION 2
2-1 Estimated Impacts of Completing the Monroe Bypass (TIP Project No. R-2559).......... 2-3
2-2 Design Criteria ................................................................................................................. 2-9
2-3 Preliminary Study Corridor Impact Matrix .................................................................... 2-14
2-4 Major Features of Detailed Study Corridor Preliminary Engineering Designs ............. 2-19
2-5 Diversion of Traffic From Existing US 74 Under the New Location
Build Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 2-24
2-6 2025 Levels of Service for Intersections Along Existing US 74 Under No-Build
and Build Alternatives ................................................................................................... 2-26
2-7 2025 Diamond Interchange Levels of Service ............................................................... 2-27
2-8 2025 Levels of Service for Major Intersections Along Frontage Roads for
Detailed Study Corridors E2 and E3 .............................................................................. 2-29
2-9 2025 Levels of Service for Major Intersections Along Frontage Roads for (DSC G)
Detailed Study Corridor G ............................................................................................. 2-30
2-10 2025 Levels of Service for Major Intersections Along Frontage Roads for
Detailed Study Corridor G As Modified ....................................................................... 2-31
2-11 Cost Estimates For Build Alternatives ........................................................................... 2-31
SECTION 3
3-1 Definition of Census Areas .......................................................................
3-2 Housing Units Within the Study Area ......................................................
3-3 Community Facilities ................................................................................
3-4 Population Growth by Census Area 1990-2000 .......................................
3-5 Project Area Racial Population Characteristics 1990-2000 ......................
US 74 Monroe Connector - TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
.................... 3-2
.................... 3-8
.................... 3-9
.................. 3-15
.................. 3-17
x
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
3-6 Project Area Racial Population Characteristics by Census Area 1990-2000 ................ 3-18
3-7 Persons Living Below Poverty Level by Census Area 1990 and 2000 ......................... 3-20
3-8 Age Distribution of Study Area Population 1990 and 2000 .......................................... 3-21
3-9 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................................ 3-28
3-10
3-11 Existing Noise Level Measurements .............................................................................
Hazardous Materials Sites .............................................................................................. 3-30
3-32
3-12 Physical Properties of Soils in Study Area .................................................................... 3-37
3-13 Important Farmland Soils .............................................................................................. 3-43
3-14 Water Quality Ratings of Study Area Streams .............................................................. 3-47
3-15
3-16 Plant Community Distribution .......................................................................................
Federal Protected Species in Union and Mecklenburg Counties ................................... 3-50
3-61
3-17 Federal Candidate and State-Listed Species .................................................................. 3-64
r
SECTION 4
4-1 Relocations by Detailed Study Corridors ........................................................................ 4-7

?i 4-2
4-3 Determinations of Effects to Historic Resources ...........................................................
Predicted Maximum One-Hour Average Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ................ 4-22
4-28
4-4 Noise Abatement Criteria .............................................................................................. 4-30
4-5 Impacted Receptors by Activity Category ..................................................................... 4-31
4-6 Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary ......................................................................... 4-32
4-7
4-8 Summary of Noise Impacts ............................................................................................
Noise Barrier Evaluation ................................................................................................ 4-33
4-36
4-9
4-10 Distance to US 74 Monroe Connector 2025 Noise Contours ........................................
Summary of Impacts to Hazardous Material/Waste Sites ............................................. 4-40
4-41
4-11 Acreages of Soil Types in Detailed Study Corridors ..................................................... 4-43
4-12 Major Drainage Structures ............................................................................................. 4-47
4-13 Detailed Study Corridor Stream Impacts ....................................................................... 4-50
4-14
4-15 Floodplain Impacts .........................................................................................................
Terrestrial Plant Community Impacts ............................................................................ 4-51
4-52
4-16 Wetland and Jurisdictional Pond Impacts ...................................................................... 4-56
4-17 Combined Direct Impacts of the Monroe Bypass and the Monroe Connector Detailed
Study Corridors .............................................................................................................. 4-64
4-18
4-19 Summary of Forecasted Growth 2000-2020 ..................................................................
Monroe Bypass/Monroe Connector Hydrologic Analysis, 2000-2020 ......................... 4-69
4-75
4-20 Summary of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................. 4-87

US 74 Monroe Connector - TIP R-3329 Xi
' DEIS - October 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ROADWAY REFERENCES FOR STUDY AREA
Route Number Route Common Name
US 74 Independence Boulevard-Roosevelt
Boulevard
US 601 Concord Highway
US 485 Governor James Martin Freeway
SR 1007/SR 1514 Rocky River Road
SR 1008 Indian Trail Road
SR 1223 Dickerson Boulevard
SR 1365 Stallings Road
SR 1366 Smith Farm Road
SR 1367 Matthews-Indian Trail Road/
Unionville-Indian Trail Road
SR 1377 Wesley Chapel - Stouts Road
SR 1379 Hayes Road
SR 1501 Idlewild Road-Secrest Short Cut Road
SR 1502 Maple Hill Road
SR 1503 Fowler Road
SR 1504 Ridge Road
SR 1506 Prices Dairy Road
SR 1507 Roanoke Church Road
SR 1508 Poplin Road
SR 1509 Willis Long Road
SR 1510 Fowler Secrest Road
SR 1511 James Hamilton Road
SR 1512 Myers Road
SR 1513 Haywood Road
SR 1514/SR 1007 Rocky River Road
SR 1515 Sardis Church Road
SR 1518 Faith Church Road
SR 1520 Indian Trail-Fairview Road
SR 1522 Stinson-Hartis Road
SR 1524 Stevens Mill Road
SR 1523 Oak Spring Road
SR 1525 Mill Grove Road
SR 1555 Wallace Road
SR 1561 Helmsville Road
SR 1565 Concord Avenue
SR 1571 Courtney Store Road
SR 1572 Rolling Hills Drive
SR 1576 Beverly Drive
SR 2337 Hollybrook Lane
SR 2340 Back Road
SR 2342 Dusty Hollow Road
SR 3453 CPCC Lane
SR 3457 Campus Ridge Road
US 74 Monroe Connector - TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
x1i

1i

[J
PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This document has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA). This is an informational document intended for use
by both decision-makers and the public. As such, it represents a disclosure of relevant
environmental information concerning the proposed action.
id
li
CE
l
li
nes
Q) gu
e
Qua
ty (
This document conforms with the Council on Environmenta
that provide direction regarding implementation of the procedural provisions of NEPA,
and the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Guidance for Preparing and
Processing Environmental and Section 469 Documents (Technical Advisory T6640.8A,
1987).
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION
This project addresses proposed improvements to the US 74 corridor between US 601,
north of Monroe in Union County, and I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop), in Mecklenburg
1 County. Figure 1-1 is a map showing the location of the project in relation to the state
and Figure 1-2 is a map of the project area.

1
1.3 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
The need to improve the US 74 corridor between US 601 in Union County and I-485 (the
Charlotte Outer Loop) in Mecklenburg County is demonstrated by the following
summary of existing and projected conditions. Detailed discussions of the existing and
projected conditions and the needs for the proposed action are presented in Sections 1.5
through 1.10.
1 US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3319
DEIS - October 2003
1-1

Capacity Deficiencies
In 2002, five of the seven major signalized
intersections on US 74 west of Rocky River
Road (SR 1007/SR 1514) operated at the
limit of capacity or over capacity (LOS E or
F). Two of the major intersections with
US 74 (Fowler-Secrest Road (SR 1510) and
Secrest Shortcut Road (SR 1501)) operated
at Level of Service D. From 2002 to 2025,
traffic volumes in the US 74 corridor are
Level of Service
The LOS is defined with letter designations
from A to F. LOS A is the best operating
conditions along a roadway or at an
intersection, and LOS F is the worst. In
urban areas, LOS D is generally
considered acceptable, while in rural
areas, LOS C is considered acceptable.
LOS E and F conditions cause significant
travel delay, increase the potential for
accidents, and contribute substantially to
the inefficient operation of motor vehicles.
expected to increase 35 to 50 percent. Levels of service in 2025 are projected to be
LOS F at all analyzed intersections. There is no access control along existing US 74
in the project area, and the roadway is densely developed with commercial uses and
numerous driveways, which reduces the carrying capacity of the roadway.

Above-Average Accident Rates
The predominant accident types occurring on US 74 are indicative of uncontrolled
access highways operating at capacity. Furthermore, the accident rate on US 74 from
NC 51 to US 601 for the three-year period December 1998 to November 2001 (302.7
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles traveled [MVM], is approximately 18 percent
higher than the statewide average for similar highways (255.6 accidents/ MVM).

Inability to Adequately Function as Part of the NC Intrastate System and
Diminished Ability to Function as
Part of the Strategic Highway
Corridor Network
US 74 from Charlotte (in Mecklenburg
County) east to US 17 (just west of
Wilmington) is designated as part of the
North Carolina Intrastate System (NC
General Statute [GS] 136-179). The
proposed project is a segment of this
intrastate corridor. The Intrastate
System was created to provide high-
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
The Intrastate Highway System
The purpose of the Intrastate Highway Systems is to
provide high-speed safe travel service throughout
the State. It connects major population centers both
inside and outside the State and provides a safe,
convenient, through-travel for motorists. It is
designed to support statewide growth and
development objectives and to connect to major
highways of adjoining states. All segments of the
routes in the Intrastate System shall have at least four
travel lanes and, when warranted, shall have vertical
separation or interchanges at crossings, more than
four travel lanes, or bypasses " (GS 136-178).
1-2 1
1

[J

speed, safe regional travel service. The existing and projected traffic and land use
conditions along existing US 74 in western Union County diminish this segment's
ability to function as a part of the
intrastate corridor.
The US 74 corridor also is
designated as part of the Strategic
Highway Corridor Network
(STRAHNET). Existing and
projected poor levels of service and
lack of access control along the
existing US 74 corridor diminish the
roadway's ability to function as part
of the STRAHNET.
STRAHNET
Title 23, Part 470, Section 107 (23CFR470.107)
defines the federal-aid highway systems, which
include the interstate svstem and the national
highway system. A subset of the national highway
system is the Strategic Highway Corridor Network
(STRAHNET). As defined in 23CFR470.107
(b)(3), the "STRAHNET includes highways which
are important to the United States strategic
defense policy and which provide defense access,
continuity, and emergency capabilities for the
movement of personnel, materials, and equipment
in both peace time and war time. "
1.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The primary purposes of the proposed action are:

I

1
Improve traffic flow along the US 74 corridor in the study area.
Needs Addressed: Existing and projected deficiencies in levels of service along
existing US 74 cause significant travel delay, increase the potential for accidents, and
contribute substantially to the inefficient operation of motor vehicles.
• Improve safety and reduce conflicts between through traffic and local traffic in
the US 74 corridor.
Needs Addressed: Accident rates along existing segments of US 74 in the study area
are currently above the statewide average accident rates for similar facilities.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1-3
r
• Improve regional connectivity between Union County and Mecklenburg County
and improve high speed regional travel along the US 74 intrastate and
STRAHNET corridor.
Needs Addressed: The existing and projected traffic and land use conditions along
existing US 74 between Monroe and Mecklenburg County diminish this segment's
ability to function as a regional connector route, an intrastate corridor, and a
STRAHNET corridor.
1.5 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.5.1 Project Setting
US 74 is a major east-west route that begins near the State port at Wilmington and
traverses southern North Carolina to I-75 in Tennessee.
As shown in Figure 1-2, the proposed project primarily is located in the western portion
of Union County. It is between Monroe in Union County and Matthews, just over the
county line in Mecklenburg County.
This portion of US 74 serves commuting traffic between employment centers in the City
of Charlotte (Mecklenburg County) and communities in Union County and local traffic
accessing businesses along the road. The facility also accommodates regional travel
through the southern piedmont.
The study area is approximately 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) wide and extends from
US 601 north of Monroe, parallel to US 74, to I-485 (the Charlotte Outer Loop) in
Mecklenburg County.
The project is located in the southern part of the piedmont region of North Carolina. The
study area's terrain is gently rolling. Elevations gradually climb from a low of
approximately 550 feet (170 meters) above sea level in the eastern end of the study area
to a high of approximately 780 feet (240 meters) above sea level in the western end of the
study area. The study area is drained by Stewarts Creek, the North and South Forks of
Crooked Creek, and Goose Creek.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1-4 1
1

1

11

u

Portions of the study area are within the jurisdictions of six different municipalities:
Monroe, Indian Trail, Lake Park, Stallings, Matthews, and Mint Hill (see Figure 1-2), as
well as unincorporated areas of Union County. The once rural study area is rapidly
becoming suburban and some of these municipalities are actively annexing eligible areas.
In spite of increasing development, much of the study area outside of the immediate
vicinity of the existing US 74 corridor, and much of Union County, is still rural and
undeveloped. The undeveloped areas include agricultural fields, pastures, and forest.
Residential and some commercial development are scattered throughout the study area,
with heavier concentrations of non-residential development along the major roads,
particularly US 74.
The land uses surrounding existing US 74 near the Union-Mecklenburg County line are
suburban and include the US 74/1-485 interchange and numerous hotels, commercial
establishments, and light industrial businesses. The Towns of Stallings and Matthews are
in this portion of the study area, as well as Central Piedmont Community College.
Traveling southeast on US 74 toward Monroe, land uses remain predominantly
commercial, but become less dense and include some residential areas. The commercial
and light industrial uses begin to increase in density again as US 74 nears the City of
Monroe.
1.5.2 History of Project
With the enactment of the North Carolina Highway Trust Fund in July 1989, US 74 was
designated an Intrastate Highway. In 1994, North Carolina recognized the role of US 74
in the economic development of the region and designated US 74 a Key Economic
Development Highway. Consequently, funding was accelerated for US 74 improvement
projects from US 17 in Brunswick County to I-26 in Polk County, and the proposed
project was included in the NCDOT's 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) for a feasibility study.
The feasibility study, completed in 1995, recommended extending the proposed four-lane
divided, access-controlled Monroe Bypass (TIP Project No. R-2559) from US 601 to
I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop). The 1996-2002 TIP included the proposed project as
Project Number R-3329 and scheduled funding for planning, design, and right-of-way
acquisition. Construction funding for TIP Project Number R-3329 was added in the
1997-2003 TIP.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1-5

The 2002-2008 TIP had right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal
Year (FFY) 2005 and construction to begin in FFY 2007. The 2004-2010 TIP has right-
of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in FFY 2006 and construction to begin in 2010.
1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE
1.6.1 Existing Road Network
The transportation system within the study area is roughly a grid system (see Figure 1-2)
US 74 is the primary route between Charlotte and Monroe and it accommodates a large
portion of the southeast-northwest traffic demand in the area. Two nearly parallel major
arterials, Monroe Road/Old Charlotte Highway (SR 1009) and Idlewild Road/Secrest
Short Cut Road (SR 1501) supplement US 74.
Southeast-northwest travel demand is accommodated by US 601 on the eastern end of the
study area and by several major and minor arterials between Monroe and I-485,
including:
• Stallings Road (SR 1365),
• Indian Trail-Fairview Road (SR 1520),
• Unionville-Indian Trail Road (SR 1367),
• Wesley Chapel-Stouts Road (SR 1377) / Sardis Church Road (SR 1515),
• Rocky River Road (SR 1007/SR 1514), and
• Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1510).
I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) is open to traffic from NC 49 in southwest Charlotte to
Idlewild Road, just north of US 74 on the eastern side of Mecklenburg County. When
completed, I-485 will provide a circumferential freeway around Charlotte with
connections to I-77 and I-85. For through traffic, it will provide a bypass of the City of
Charlotte. For some local and commuting traffic, it will offer alternatives to US 74
(Independence Boulevard) by providing access to other thoroughfares, and thus other
routes, to many destinations in the Charlotte region.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1-6 !

C?
1

1.6.2 Commuting Patterns
Commuting patterns in Union County are a result of the county's dependence on
employment in other counties, especially Mecklenburg County. In 2000, 26,495
residents commuted from Union County to adjacent counties, while only 10,568 workers
commuted to Union County from adjacent counties. Of the 26,495 residents commuting
to jobs outside the county, 24,892 were commuting to Mecklenburg County (County-To-
County Worker Flow Files website: www.census.gov/populationlwwwlcen20001
commuting.html, accessed 5/9/03).
1.6.3 Modal Interrelationships
Other modes of travel: mass transit, rail, motor freight, and air service are integral parts
of the region's comprehensive transportation system.
1.6.3.1 Public Transportation
While taxicabs originating in Monroe and Charlotte provide some passenger service in
the study area, and human services organizations provide paratransit services to some of
their clients, there is no regularly scheduled public transportation in the study area.
Charlotte Transit serves two routes in Matthews, including a park and ride lot, but both
routes terminate west of the study area. Neither Monroe nor Union County has plans to
provide public transportation in the immediate future.
The City of Charlotte's Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) is in the planning phase
for providing substantially expanded public transportation in Mecklenburg County.
Currently, five corridors are under study for possible construction of commuter rail, light
' rail, or bus rapid transit: North, West, South, Southeast, and Northeast. One of these
corridors, the Southeast Corridor, begins in downtown Charlotte and parallels
' Independence Boulevard (US 74). It extends slightly into Union County to terminate at
the Central Piedmont Community College Campus just southeast of the existing
' I-485/US 74 interchange.

US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1-7

A Major Investment Study (MIS) for the Southeast Corridor was completed on
September 25, 2002 by Gannett-Fleming, Inc. for the Charlotte Area Transit System
(CATS). Several alternative alignments for light rail and bus rapid transit were studied
for the Southeast Corridor. The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) approved by the
Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) on November 20, 2002 is shown in Figure 1-3.
The LPA alignment is along Independence Drive to Krefeld Drive, then Independence
Pointe Parkway to the campus of Central Piedmont Community College. Bus rapid
transit will be the predominant transit mode, but the MTC also has asked that the light
rail option continue to be studied during the preliminary engineering phase (Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Planning Commission website: www.charmeck.org, accessed 4/28/03).
1.6.3.2 Rail Service
Rail freight service is provided in the US 74 corridor by CSX Transportation. However,
there is no passenger rail service. The rail line, operated by CSX Transportation, is south
of and parallel to US 74 and carries approximately 25 trains per day.
1.6.3.3 Motor Freight Service
With two interstate highways, the Charlotte area has become a major transfer point for
freight service. Numerous trucking companies are located in the Charlotte Metropolitan
area. US 74 is the primary route connecting Charlotte and Wilmington, the State's largest
port. Consequently, tractor trailer semi-trucks constitute a high percentage of the traffic
on US 74. In 1997, tractor trailer semi-trucks accounted for nine percent of the daily
traffic on US 74 and fifteen percent in 2002. The presence of these trucks in the traffic
stream greatly increases the congestion on existing US 74.
1.6.3.4 Air Service
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport is located approximately twenty miles (32
kilometers) northwest of the study area. With approximately 500 flights a day, it
provides passenger and parcel service to destinations worldwide. Primary access to
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport is provided from Billy Graham Parkway
(US 521), which connects I-77 to I-85 in the southwest quadrant of Charlotte. I-485
provides a direct connection between US 74 and I-77.
Monroe Municipal Airport is located south of US 74 and west of Rocky River Road. It is
a general aviation facility with charter service.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1-8 1
LJ
1
1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
1.7.1 Demographics
Union and Mecklenburg County are part of the 16-county Charlotte region. Union
County has a total area of 639.6 square miles (165.7 square kilometers), with 637.0
square miles (165 square kilometers) of land area (NC Department of Commerce website:
cmedis.commerce.state.nc.us/countyprofiles, accessed 01/06/02). There are thirteen
municipalities in the county, with the largest being Monroe, the county seat.
Mecklenburg County has a total area of 549.4 square miles (142.3 square kilometers),
with 530.8 square miles (137.5 square kilometers) of land area (NC Department of
' Commerce website: cmedis.commerce. state.nc.us/countyprofiles, accessed 01/06/02).
There are seven municipalities in Mecklenburg County, with the largest being Charlotte,
the county seat.
The Charlotte region, including Mecklenburg and Union Counties, has been growing
' rapidly. From 1990 to 2000, Union County's population increased 47 percent, from
84,211 to 123,677. During the same decade, Mecklenburg County's population increased
36 percent, from 511,433 to 695,454 (US Census Bureau website: quickfacts.census.
gov1qfd1state/37, accessed 01/06/02).
' Both counties also became more urbanized. In 1990, the percentage of people living in
incorporated areas in Union and Mecklenburg Counties was about 35 percent and
' 88 percent, respectively (US Census Bureau, 1990 US Census-Summary Tape File 1).
The percentages increased to about 55 percent and 90 percent, respectively, in 2000 (NC
' Office of State Planning website: demog. state. nc. us, accessed 01/06/02).
The populations of both Union and Mecklenburg Counties are expected to increase
through 2020. The population of Union County is projected to grow 22.6 percent (to
165,981 people) from 2000 to 2010, and another 27.0 percent (to 210,738 people) from
2010 to 2020. The population of Mecklenburg County is projected to grow 27.7 percent
(to 888,137 people) from 2000 to 2010, and another 22.6 percent (to 1,089,258 people)
from 2010 to 2020 (NC Office of State Planning website: demog. state. nc. us, accessed
01/06/02).
1
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1-9

1.7.2 Economic and Infrastructure Data
"Union County was founded in 1842 when it was carved out of
Mecklenburg and Anson counties. Monroe - named for James Monroe,
the country's fifth president - was established as the county seat in 1844
and became a busy legal center. The county also became a center for
religion, with Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists establishing many
churches and exercising considerable influence ...The Carolinas Central
(later Seaboard, now CSX) laid tracks from Charlotte to Monroe in
1874....By the 1960s, Union County - especially its western edge - began
to grow as Mecklenburg residents discovered the county's comfortable
lifestyle and sought refuge from city congestion. That growth continues
unabated today." (Union County Chamber of Commerce website:
www.unioncountycoc.com/N`EWCOMR.HTM, accessed 01/07/02).
Agribusiness, particularly poultry, is a major industry in Union County. Other
agricultural products produced in the county are hogs, dairy cattle, beef, eggs, soybeans
grains, and cotton. Other industries, such as industrial pumps, furniture, automotive
accessories, and textile machinery, are present in the county. Areas of industrial
concentration include the Monroe Airport and the areas around the existing US 74/I-485
interchange (Union County Chamber of Commerce website: http://www.
unioncountycoc.com accessed 02/22/02).
In 2001, Union County's workforce was primarily employed in manufacturing (28%),
followed by retail and construction (both 16%), and service and government (both 13%).
The largest manufacturers in the county are Tyson Foods poultry processing (1,300
employees), Allvac, a secondary smelter and refiner of metals (1,100 employees), and
Wampler Foods poultry processing (725 employees). Unemployment in the County was
3.7 percent in 2001 (NC Department of Commerce website: http://cmedis.commerce.
state.nc.us/countyprofiles accessed 02/22/02).
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1-10 1
17
u

' Union County attracted notable investments and employment in manufacturing in 1999.
According to the North Carolina Department of Commerce, the county had investments
of $15 million in new plants and $66 million in plant expansions in 1999, resulting in
county scores of 81 for new plants and 85 for expansions. The NC Department of
Commerce assigns county scores to compare investment and employment among
counties, with a score of 1 being the lowest score and 100 being the highest score. The
County's score for employment was 92 for new plants and 80 for expansions (NC
Department of Commerce, 2000 County and Regional Scan).
In 2001, Mecklenburg County's workforce was primarily employed in service (28%),
followed by retail (16%), finance/insurance/real estate (11%), and manufacturing (10%].
The largest manufacturers in the county are IBM Corporation electronic computers
' (3,000 employees), Solectron Technology printed circuit boards (2,500 employees),
Continental General Tire tires and inner tubes (1,700 employees) and Lance snack food
(1,600 employees). Unemployment in the County was 3.7 percent in 2001 (NC
Department of Commerce website: http://cmedis.commerce. state.nc.us/countyprofiles

1

accessed 02/22/02).
Mecklenburg County attracted substantial investments and employment in manufacturing
in 1999. According to the North Carolina Department of Commerce, the county had
investments of $571 million in new plants and $415 million in plant expansions in 1999,
resulting in county scores of 100 for both new plants and expansions. The County's
score for employment also was 100 for both new plants and expansions (NC Department
of Commerce, 2000 County and Regional Scan).
The rapid growth in Union and Mecklenburg Counties has resulted in construction of
improvements to area infrastructure to support the needs of such a population.
Union County voters approved a $55 million school bond referendum in 2000. In 2001,
the County opened three new elementary schools (Union County Public School System
2001-2002 Annual Report - http://www.ucps.k]2.nc.uslpub_infolsuperintendent.pdf.
accessed 02/22/02).
Mecklenburg County opened a new high school north of the US 74/I-485 interchange for
the 1997-1998 school year.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1-11
rJ-1
At the end of 1997, Union County almost doubled their wastewater treatment capacity
with the opening of the Twelve Mile Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plant is
permitted to treat 2.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and can be expanded up to
17 MGD. Union County's six other wastewater treatment facilities are permitted to treat
2.65 MGD (Union County website: http://www.co.union.nc.us accessed 02/22/02).
1.8 TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANS
1.8.1 NC Transportation Improvement Program
This project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT)
2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as project number R-3329.
Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2006 with
construction beginning in FFY 2010.
In addition, US 74 is designated as an Intrastate Corridor and a Key Economic
Development Highway from US 17 in Brunswick County to I-26 in Polk County. The
NCDOT TIP includes several projects for improving US 74 to a multilane, high capacity
facility. Current US 74 improvement projects in addition to the proposed action, include,
from east to west:
• US 74 Maxton Bypass (R-513), Robeson County
This new-location project is about 20 miles long (32 kilometers). Some right of
way was acquired in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2000. Remaining right of way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in FFY 2002. Some construction is scheduled
for FFY 2004 and remaining construction is scheduled to begin in FFY 2005.
• US 74 from NC 41 to US 76 (R-2558DA), Columbus County
Construct an interchange with NC 130-410. Currently under construction by
Division 6.
• US 74 Monroe Bypass (R-2559), Union County
A four-lane divided new location roadway beginning near Marshville. It will end
at US 601 and tie into R-3329 (Monroe Connector). If the Monroe Connector is
not constructed, the Monroe Bypass will be extended to end at US 74, where the
original project terminus was proposed (see Section 1.5.2). Right-of-way
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 1-12
DEIS - October 2003

acquisition has begun on this project and a portion is scheduled for construction in
FFY 2004.
• US 74 Shelby Bypass (R-2707), Cleveland County
This new-location project is about 19 miles (31 kilometers) long. Right of way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in FFY 2003 and construction is scheduled to
begin in FFY 2005.
• I-26/US 74 (I-4400), Henderson and Buncombe Counties
Widen I-26 to six lanes from NC 225 (US 25 Connector) to NC 280. This project
is currently on hold.
• US 19-74-29 (A-9), Cherokee, Graham, and Swain Counties
Construct Corridor "K" from Andrews to NC 28 east of Almond, primarily a four-
lane divided facility on new location. This project is about 27 miles (43
kilometers) long. Portions of the project are complete, portions are under
construction, and portions are scheduled for right-of-way acquisition and
construction after FFY 2008.
Other TIP projects located in the study area are shown in Figure 14 and listed below:
• R-2559. Monroe Bypass. See above.
• R-2123. Extension of I-485 from US 74 north to I-85 North. Construction has
begun on this project and the portion north of US 74 to Lawyers Road is open to
traffic.
• R-4050. Widen Airport Road (SR 1349) to multi-lanes from Goldmine Road (SR
1162) to Old Charlotte Highway (SR 1009), a distance of 1.6 miles (2.6
kilometers). The project currently is under construction.
• U-4024. Widen US 601 to multi-lanes from US 74 to the Monroe Bypass (R-
2559). Right of way is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year FFY 2004 and
' construction is scheduled to begin in FFY 2006.

' US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DENS - October 2003
1-13

• U-3809. Widen Indian Trail Road (SR 1008) to multi-lanes from Old Charlotte
Highway (SR 1009) to US 74, a distance of 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers). Right-of-
way acquisition is scheduled to begin in FFY 2010, with construction beginning '
after FFY 2010.
• U-3825. Widen Stallings Road (SR 1365) to multi-lanes from Old Charlotte
Highway (SR 1009) to US 74, a distance of 1.4 miles (2.2 kilometers). Right-of-
way acquisition is scheduled to begin in FFY 2006 and construction is scheduled
to begin in FFY 2008. The 2004-2010 TIP indicates the need to coordinate this
project with R-3329. Its northern termini could be affected by the designs for ,
Project R-3329.
• B-3544. Replace Bridge Number 446 on Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1510) over '
Stewarts Creek. This project is under construction.
1.8.2 Local Thoroughfare Plans ,
The US 74 corridor is located within both the Monroe and Charlotte urban areas. These '
urban areas have metropolitan planning organizations and adopted thoroughfare plans.
Figure 1-5 shows the Monroe Thoroughfare Plan and Figure 1-6 shows the portion of ,
the Union County Thoroughfare Plan in the project vicinity.
The Monroe thoroughfare planning area includes the eastern portion of the US 74 study
area to just west of Rocky River Road (SR 1514). The Union County thoroughfare
planning area covers the remaining parts of the study area. '
The Monroe and Union County thoroughfare plans recognize the need to accommodate
long-term increases in traffic volumes. Anticipated, new major thoroughfares include:
• US 74 Monroe Bypass between Marshville and US 601 (R-2559), 1
(SR )
Both plans also include improvements to several minor thoroughfares. The proposed
improvements to US 74 between US 601 and I-485 are an integral part of the plans for
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 1-14
DEIS - October 2003
• US 74 Monroe Connector between US 601 and I-485 (R-3329),
• An extension of Dickerson Boulevard (SR 1223), in the eastern portion of the
study area, as a loop roadway around Monroe.
• An extension of Fowler-Secrest Road (SR 1510) north to connect to Poplin Rd ,
1508

' accommodating future traffic demands. As traffic volumes grow, especially on the major
thoroughfares crossing US 74, the level of service on the existing roadway network will
decline and the delays will increase.
Concern that western Union County is becoming a bedroom community for the City of
Charlotte has created an emphasis in Union County on attracting development that
encourages localized employment. A controlled access high-speed highway is
considered by Union County to be a contributing factor in the competition for new
industrial facilities.
1.8.3 Land Use Plans
' Each of the municipalities within the study area and Union County has plans or maps for
the orderly development of land within their jurisdictions. The land use plan for
Matthews was adopted in 1997. The Town of Stallings and Union County adopted land
use plans in 1998. Indian Trail has a future land use map, but no adopted plan. In May,
2000, the City of Monroe adopted their Land Development Plan, 2000-2010.
Development along existing US 74 is planned to continue as office, commercial,
industrial, and institutional uses, while the remainder of the study area, except for Lake
Park, is expected to develop as low to medium density single-family residential uses.
Lake Park, located in the project study area, is a planned development with higher density
residential uses and neighborhood commercial uses.
The Union County land use plan indicates the county's desire to establish commercial
activity centers along a future Monroe Connector alignment to serve existing and
' anticipated residential development.
' 1.9 ROADWAY CAPACITY
1.9.1 Existing Facility Characteristics
US 74, also known as Independence Boulevard and Roosevelt Boulevard, is a four-lane
' divided highway. Figure 1-7 shows photographs of existing US 74. Within the study
area, access to US 74 is provided at numerous locations, through signalized and
' unsignalized intersections and residential and commercial driveways. Traffic signal
spacing ranges from a quarter mile (.4 kilometers) in the eastern portion of the study area
t US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 1-15
DEIS - October 2003
11
to a maximum of two and a half miles (4 kilometers) between Wesley Chapel-Stouts
Road (SR 1377)/Sardis Church Road (SR 1515) and Rocky River Road (SR 1007/SR
1514). Traffic congestion is most notable at these signalized intersections.
1.9.2 Existing Conditions
1.9.2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes
Estimated average daily traffic volumes in 2002 for US 74 and major intersecting roads
are shown on Figure 1-8. Existing traffic volumes on US 74 range from 40,200 ADT
just south of Rocky River Road (SR 1007/SR 1514) to 49,200 ADT just south of I-485
and 50,100 ADT just south of Secrest Shortcut Road (SR 1501). During the evening
peak hour, about 55 percent of the traffic travels south on US 74, away from
Mecklenburg County. About 15 percent of the average daily traffic is trucks.
1.9.2.2 Existing Levels of Service
The effectiveness of a roadway segment in serving traffic demand is measured in terms of
level of service. Level of service is a qualitative measure of traffic conditions and driver
perception. It is based on such factors as speed, travel time, maneuverability,
interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Level of service (LOS) is rated from
A (best) to F (worst). In urban areas, a level of service of D or better is considered
acceptable. A level of service of C or better is desirable in rural and suburban areas
where trip lengths are longer. The levels of service along existing US 74 (2002 and
2025) were estimated using Highway Capacity Software 2000 (HCS 2000), which is
based on the methodologies of the Highway Capacity Manual (2000).
A transportation facility is considered to be operating at capacity when it is just able to
accommodate the traffic demand. Once the traffic demand exceeds the facility's capacity
(LOS F), excessive delays occur. This condition may be described by comparing the
volume of traffic using the facility to the capacity of the facility. Such comparisons are
known as volume to capacity ratios (v/c).
Although US 74 is classified as a rural or suburban highway, signalized intersections
control the capacity and govern the level of service provided to the motoring public due
to their close spacing. Essentially, the capacity of US 74 is limited to the capacity of its
busiest intersection.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1-16 1

1
' Table 1-1 summarizes the levels of service at major intersections along US 74 based on
traffic volumes estimated for 2002 (see Figure 1-8). Three measures of congestion are
' given: volume/capacity ratio (v/c), average delay and level of service. Delays and levels
of service are directly related for signalized intersections. However, once the volume of
traffic attempting to enter a signalized intersection exceeds the capacity of the
' intersection, the calculation of delay becomes infeasible. Thus, v/c ratios are reported to
demonstrate the overall level of congestion along US 74.
' Five of the seven intersections are over capacity and operate at LOS E or F. Two other
' intersections are operating at LOS D, with little capacity available to absorb additional
traffic. These measures of effectiveness indicate the need for additional traffic capacity
in the US 74 corridor. Furthermore, the conditions reported in Table 1-1 are for the
' typical weekday and do not reflect the seasonal effect of vacation and holiday travelers.

F1

Table 1-1: 2002 Levels of Service For Intersections Along US 74
AM Peak Hour P M Peak Hour
Intersection Average Level of Average Level of
V/C Delay' Service V/C Delay' Service
US 74 and Stallings Road
1.35
152.4
F
1.25
147.6
F
(SR 1365)
Indian Trail - Fairview Road 1.16 93.4 F 1.14 99.0 F
(SR 1520)
Unionville - Indian Trail Road 1.37 128.6 F 1.19 118.9 F
(SR 1367)
Wesley Chapel-Stouts Road
(SR 1377)/Sardis Church Road 1.19 121.6 F 1.25 134.1 F
(SR 1515)
Rocky River Road 1.35 177.1 F 1.34 177.9 F
(SR 1007/SR 1514)
Fowler - Secrest Road (SR 1510) 1.07 49.0 D 2.16 51.0 D
Secrest Shortcut Road (SR 1501) 1.05 47.6 D 1.00 42.2 D
Average Uetay is in seconas per venicie.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329 1-17
DEIS - October 2003
11
1.9.3 Projected Conditions (No-Build Alternatives)
1.9.3.1 Design Year Traffic Volumes
Anticipated increases in population and employment opportunities, both within the area
served by US 74 and within the Charlotte metropolitan region, will result in higher traffic
volumes along US 74 and other major roads in the area.
Projected average daily traffic volumes in 2025 for US 74 and major intersecting roads
are shown on Figure 1-9. Two scenarios are shown on Figure 1-9. One is with the
Monroe Bypass (TIP Project R-2559) ending at US 601 as currently proposed, and the
second is with the Monroe Bypass (TIP Project R-2559) extended west from US 601 to
existing US 74.
Average daily traffic volumes on US 74 west of Rocky River Road (SR 1007/SR 1514)
are anticipated to increase 35 to 50 percent between 2002 and 2025, with or without TIP
Project R-2559.
If the Monroe Bypass (TIP Project R-2559) is extended west past US 601 to tie into
US 74, approximately 32,400 vehicles per day (vpd), 45 percent of the average daily
traffic (ADT) in the US 74 corridor, would be diverted to the US 74 Monroe Bypass by
2025. Traffic on existing US 74 east of Rocky River Road (SR 1514) then would be
39,700 vpd in 2025, similar to existing conditions.
1.9.3.2 Design Year Levels of Service
Table 1-2 summarizes future levels of service and volume to capacity ratios for major
intersections along US 74 in the study area. In 2025, all six signalized intersections
analyzed along US 74 will be well over capacity and long queues will form during peak
hours. Moreover, if the Monroe Bypass is constructed, heavy traffic flows on US 74 may
not contain enough gaps to absorb the westbound traffic from the US 74 Monroe Bypass.
That condition could result in higher than usual accident rates in the merge area and
eventually in stop and go conditions on the Bypass.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1-18 1

1
Table 1-2: 2025 Levels of Service For Intersections Along US 74
AM Peak Hour PM Peak H our
Intersection
V/C Average Level of
V/C Average
' Level of
Delay' Service Delay Service
Intersection of US 74 and Stallings 2.07 463.0 F 2.06 422.6 F
Road (SR 1365)
Indian Trail - Fairview Road
1.94
324.2
F
1.95
307.4
F
(SR 1520)
Unionville - Indian Trail Road 2.16 128.6 F 1.78 118.9 F
(SR 1367)
Wesley Chapel-Stouts Road
(SR 1377)/Sardis Church Road 1.88 381.9 F 2.16 413.6 F
(SR 1515)
Rocky River Road 1
97 450
6 F 2.06 464.7 F
(SR 1007/SR 1514)' . .
Fowler - Secrest Road (SR 1510) 2.16 244.0 F 1.78 245.6 F
Average Delay is in seconas per venic[e.
' Level of Service if the Monroe Bypass (R-2559) is not extended past US 601. If the Monroe Bypass is extended past
US 601 to tie into US 74, then levels of service at Rocky River Road and Fowler-Secrest Road would be similar to
2002 estimations.
1.10 SAFETY
1

Traffic accidents are often the visible result of deficiencies in the capacity and safety
characteristics of a transportation facility. Moreover, they contribute to delays,
congestion, and driver frustration, inducing more accidents. Thus, an examination of
accident data can reveal the need to provide a more efficient and safer facility.
Table 1-3 lists the traffic accidents by type reported along an approximately 15-mile
stretch of US 74 from NC 51 to US 601. The accident data is for the period from
December 1, 1998 to November 30, 2001.
Rear-end accidents related to traffic stopping or slowing were the predominant accident
type reported during the three-year period, with over half of the accidents rear end
collisions. Such accidents are typical of congested conditions and result from drivers
following too closely. Rear-end accidents are common in stop-and-go conditions and on
roadways with little or no control of access and extremely high traffic volumes.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1-19
1
Approximately 13 percent of the reported accidents were angle type and over six percent
involved left-turning vehicles. These types of accidents typically occur when a driver
fails to respond to changes in
traffic signal phases (running red Table 1-3: 1999-2001 Accident Data
Existing US 74 - NC 51 to US 601
lights) or attempts to use
insufficient gaps in the opposing
traffic stream. These accident
types are an indicator of congested
conditions and represent the effect
such conditions can have on driver
behavior.
Sideswipes, the third most
common accident type (10 percent
of accidents), can also reflect
driver frustration and congested
conditions. The combined ran-off-
the-road left and right accident
type was approximately 4.5
percent. These accidents are
frequently the result of a driver
attempting to avoid a collision
with another vehicle and
demonstrate the impact traffic
congestion can have on driving
conditions.
As number and type of accidents
demonstrate, there is a direct
correlation between the prevalent
accident types and the traffic congestion on US 74. Causes for the remaining accident
types are more difficult to determine, and no other trends were identified.
During the three-year period examined, 2,252 accidents were reported. Based on average
daily traffic volumes during that time, accidents occurred at a rate of 302.7 per 100
million vehicle miles (MVM) of travel. This rate is more than 18% higher than the
statewide average of 255.6 accident per MVM for four-lane divided US Routes with no
control of access.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
Accident Type Number % of Total
Rear End - slowing/stopping 1,155 51.29
Angle 294 13.06
Sideswipe - same direction 221 9.81
Left Turn - same roadway 99 4.40
Ran off Road - right 61 2.71
Left Turn - different roads 52 2.31
Right Turn - different roads 51 2.26
Collision - animal 40 1.78
Collision - fixed object 40 1.78
Ran Off Road - left 37 1.64
Right Turn - same roadway 34 1.51
Read End - turning 32 1.42
Other Collision with Vehicle 19 0.84
Backing Up 18 0.80
Unknown 17 0.75
Collision - movable object 14 0.62
Collision - pedestrian 12 0.53
Head On Collision 11 0.49
Overturned/Rolled Over 9 0.40
Collision-parked motor veh. 9 0.40
Collision, Bicycle 8 0.36
Sideswipe - opposite dir. 8 0.36
Jackknife 5 0.22
Ran Off Road - straight 5 0.22
Pedal bicyclist 1 0.04
TOTAL 2,252 100.00%
1-20 1

Fatal accidents occurred at a rate of
1.21 per 100 MVM, slightly lower
than the statewide average of 1.28.
However, non-fatal accidents
occurred at a rate of 108.35 per
100 MVM, more than 10 percent
higher than the statewide average of
96.5 per MVM. These rates, as well
as those for accidents occurring at
night and on wet pavement are shown
in the adjacent chart and in
Table 1-4.
Accident Rates
j Existing US 74 vs Statewide Average
350
300
2 250
200
j, 150
°- 100
a 50
0
Total Fatal Non-fatal Night Wet
Injury
? Existing US 74 Accident Rates by Condition
0 Statewide
Table 1-4: Existing US 74 and Average Statewide Accident
Rates

Accident Type Existing US 74
Accident Rate per
100 MVM' Statewide Average
Accident Rate per
100 MVM'
Total Accident Rate 302.7 255.6
Fatal Accident Rate 1.21 1.28
Non-Fatal Injury Accident Rate 108.3 96.5
Night Accident Rate 52.5 58.8
Wet Accident Rate 43.7 44.2
. Accident rates are expresses to aceiaenrs per i vv micron venicte mites tfrj r rn'l ui
travel. The Statewide Average is for all US Routes having 4 or more lanes divided with
no control of access for the period 1999-2001.
US 74 Monroe Connector -TIP R-3329
DEIS - October 2003
1-21
f
MECKLENBURG
COUNTY Not To Scale
29
49
A LO
`N,
' 74
?. 180 A '
' I
. I
I
STUDY AREA ,s RO MARSHVILLE
BOUNDARY
I U ION
CO NTY
,
' I
,
00
US 74 MONROE CONNECTOR
TIP PROJECT No. R-3329
Union and Mecklenburg Counties,
North Carolina
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1-1

11

P-,

-74-revsludyaroa2.dgn
? ! A ? s ? ? ? ? ? # ? m m = m m m 0
II
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1'
1
t
VU")

48 ?
`"
MECKLE
COUI
US 74 MONROE CONNECTOR
TIP PROJECT No. R-3329
Union and Mecklenburg Counties,
North Carolina
Not To Scale
TIP Projects in Study Area
1-4
w m = = = r m r = = = = ' m = = =
74-tfaremonroe2.dgn

I
ti
o -- / _
- ?-
? r
CAMP iRi&?
m / lOO'
S3 ?Pti` l'
/ C6?'
C

7
C
=1y
4)
.L
0 3 ?.
0
0
Z
`M ;u
w

1 -4m
0
Z
w
0 wn

0 ?o

M ;a
O
0
--1
c
s
C ?
?D
'Vol
4%
\ s
f ?##
ago*
'be l Poop ti \
1, 'SPy ,
MACEDONIA CHURCH RD.
SR 19 • I I I ?
? 1 .ate ,f ? ? -?•.? ? ?
= = = = r = = m = = = m = = v m = =
74-revtfore2.dgn
,f
c
c
0 CO)
?
y
za X3
3
0 OZ
2!:
D 0o
m
( -j
n
?. c
MCC p 0
X

C Z
4)
(40
?
o

j i
_ g

? ? Nl
A

HMO RD ) i - CH L TT O.T. lon't
I ?
-' - ?? __I _,L ____?__?,MFCN•i.FId8URC3CCUIVIY
. i

r_1
v

' ?`01! NI'1dOd
1 ? ? ?`Ro
?d
C ? _ -_069114
:= 1.
}
1
C I
r
h?
_ r
I
f
o
0
0
AIRYRp? '? ??
' "'per ,?' ? 'p!,• n?

R

oD o
m
:3 O E
J S K
"TI 0 0
fD

? t0
moo
(D
CD
? ? ?? ? m m w m m m m=== r== m
OG)KHUo-rlai vw of O '!D CD CD
?
CD = CL ID (D cn w
????<n)cn cv'ocNO fJ?• 00
(D CD
(D CL
CD co` O N m
a?C3 a-? D` G)
CD &
CD 3 w a @ m
W CD L?? o
0
C o a.
N
c
CD
(D a F -1 -0 n
m ? W
3 C-
PQ m
TI p "0 C'n S (D cj)
N O Q O n
' ?.
C N m n= (D N ? CD fi
C) 03 (J) 0 a a
oa 11.5 acno w ??'a E ?3
0) K 90
o a) ? 0 y
Np m
? ? ? m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m0

i
II ,I ? I
i

-
I i
I ! y' ?, I III
it I