20020672 Ver 1_Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis_20100727

Revised Draft
INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT
ANALYSIS
Union County, North Carolina
Monroe Bypass
TIP R-2559
Monroe Connector
TIP R-3329
Prepared for
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Offices of Human Environment
Prepared by:
HNTB North Carolina, PC
2108 South Boulevard
Suite 108
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
October 1, 2002
m

1

0
0

n

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................1
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................... 4
1.1 MONROE BYPASS (R-2559) ................................................................................... 4
1.2 MONROE CONNECTOR (R-3329) .......................................................................... 5
1.3 RELATED PROJECTS ............................................................................................. 7
1.4 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA AND TIME FRAME ............................................ 7
2. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 7
2.1 INVENTORY AND DATA COLLECTION .................................................................. 7
2.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE .......................................................................................... S
2.2.1 Regional Location .............................................................................................. 8
2.2.2 Relation To Major Urban Area Or Regional Centers ...................................... 11
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 .......................................................... 17
2.2.7 Land Potentially Available For Development .................................................. 21
3. INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................... 23
3.1 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL FOR LAND USE CHANGE .................................... 23
3. L I Factors To Be Used To Evaluate Potential For Land Use Change ................. 23
3.1.2 Consideration Of Cumulative Effects ............................................................... 26
3.1.3 Summary Of Potential For Land Use Change ................................................. 28
3.2 SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 31
3.2.1 Scenario Writing .............................................................................................. 31
3.3 GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS FOR POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA ......................... 32
3.3.1 Quantity of Assumed Growth ........................................................................... 32
3.3.2 Location of Assumed Growth ........................................................................... 33
4. HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 42
4.1 HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS MODEL .................................................................. 42
4.2 ESTIMATED HYDROLOGICAL EFFECT ................................................................ 43
5. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 45
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 4

0

I

.77

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Population Growth Trends, By Race ........................................................................................................ 10
Table 2 Population Growth Trends, By Age ......................................................................................................... 10
Population Growth & Share, 1990-2000
Table 3 Union County & Impact Area ............................................................................................................ 14
Table 4 Union County & Watershed Study Area ............................................................................................ 14
Household Growth & Share, 1990-2000
Table 5 Union County & Impact Area ............................................................................................................ 14
Table 6 Union County & Watershed Area ...................................................................................................... 15
Population in Households, Trend & Forecast
Table 7 Union County & Impact Area, 1980-2020 ......................................................................................... 15
Table 8 Union County & Watershed Study Area, 1980-2020 ......................................................................... 15
Household Forecast & Share
Table 9 2000-2010, Union County & Impact Area ......................................................................................... 16
Table 10 2010-2020, Union County & Impact Area ......................................................................................... 16
Table 11 2000-2010, Union County & Watershed Study Area ......................................................................... 16
Table 12 2010-2020, Union County & Watershed Study Area ......................................................................... 17
Table 13 Employment by Industry, 1990-2000, Union County .............................................................................. 17
Forecasted Employment by Industry
Table 14 2000-2010, Union County ........................................................................................................................ 18
Table 15 2010-2020, Union County ........................................................................................................................ 18
Forecasted Jobs by Major Industry
Table 16 2000-2010, Union County ................................................................................................................. 19
Table 17 2010-2020, Union County ................................................................................................................. 19
Employment Growth Forecast
Table 18 2000-2010, Union County ................................................................................................................. 19
Table 19 2010-2020, Union County ................................................................................................................. 20
Table 20 .2000-2010, Impact Area .................................................................................................................... 20
Table 21 2010-2020, Impact Area .................................................................................................................... 20
Table 22 2000-2010, Watershed Study Area .................................................................................................... 21
Table 23 2010-2020, Watershed Study Area .................................................................................................... 21
Potential For Land Use Changes As A Result of Transportation Investments
Table 24 Scenario 2 - Impact Area ................................................................................................................... 24
Table 25 Scenario 3 - Impact Area ................................................................................................................... 25
Potential For Land Use Changes Around Interchanges/Along Feeders
Table 26 Scenario 2 & 3 - Impact Area ............................................................................................................ 26
Table 27 Monroe Bypass/Connector: Potential For Land Use Change, 2000-2020 ................................................ 28
Scenario 1: 2000-2020 Additional Developed Land (Acreage)
Table 28 Residential ......................................................................................................................................... 34
Table 29 Commercial ....................................................................................................................................... 35
Scenario 2: 2000-2020 Additional Developed Land, Impact Area
Table 30 Residential ......................................................................................................................................... 37
Table 31 Commercial ....................................................................................................................................... 38
Scenario 3: 2000-2020 Additional Developed Land, Impact Area
Table 32 Residential ......................................................................................................................................... 40
Commercial (same as Scenario 2) ...................................................................................................... 38
Table 33 Forecasted Growth 2000-2020, Scenario 1, 2, & 3 .................................................................................. 42
Table 34 Monroe Bypass/Connector Hydrological Analysis, 2000-2020 ............................................................... 44
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Watershed Study Area and Impact Area
Figure 2 1990 Census Tracts
Figure 3 Scenario 1- Residential Subarea Boundaries
Figure 4 Scenario 2 & 3 - Residential Subarea Boundaries
Figure 5 Scenario 1- Developable Land
Figure 6 Scenario 1- Industrial/Commercial Subarea Boundaries
Figure 7 Scenario 2 - Developable Land
Figure 8 Scenario 2 & 3 - Project-Induced Industrial/Commercial Subarea Boundaries
Figure 9 Scenario 3 - Developable Land
Figure 10 Watershed Basins

R-2559/R-3329 - Indirect and
Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
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 four 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;
' 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 which would then

' be used by others in the analysis of the cumulative impact of these highway projects upon
water
ualit
in the
b
q
y
near
y area.
' 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
' The Key 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

' R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
' 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.
' F
"
"
or the
no-build
conditions, in the two creek basins where the Carolina Heel
Sp litter Mussel is present, impervious cover would increase as follows:
G
C
k i
i
oose
ree
mperv
ous 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.
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 Goose Creek
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 3.9% 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.

'
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Anal sis Revised Drat 10101102
' 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 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 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 Fish and Wildlife Service and N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission 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
1 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 development controls recommended by the Wildlife
agencies 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%
increase over existing conditions, but an 11.6% 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 Twitty WS-III basin will experience an impervious cover
increase to 12.1%, 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
i
fl
' n
uence of the R-2559 Monroe Bypass and R-3329 Monroe Connector projects.
However, if 50-ft buffers and stormwater detention devices are implemented within the
remainder of the development impact area, the Lake Twitty Basin impervious cover will
' increase to 11.4%, reducing the amount of impervious cover attributed to the proposed
improvements to 2.9%. Peak discharge would increase to 26,471 cubic feet per second
' for development controls in the Duck and Goose Creek basin, 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. If 50-ft buffers and stormwater detention devices are
implemented within Lanes
Richards
Lake Twitt
d C
a
k
d b
i
k di
h
,
,
y
n
roo
e
as
ns; pea
sc
arges
and runoff volumes would increase only by 43.8% and 30.9% respectively.

0
The HNTB Companies
Date: October 1. 2002
To: John Dorney / Cynthia VanDerWiele
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd. Raleigh, NC
Letter of
Transmittal
HNTB Job Number 34780
Re: Community Impact Assessment
WE ARE FORWARDING TO YOU ® Enclosed
? Drawings ? Shop Drawing
? Specifications ? Change Order
? Estimates ? Samples
? Under separate cover via
? Copy of Letter
? Proposal
? Report
? Originals
? Reproducible
? Prints
No. of
Copies
Drawing No.
Last Dated
Code
Description
2 10/01/02 R-2559 / R-3329 Monroe Bypass & Monroe Connector
Revised Draft Indirect and Cumulative Impact
Assessment Report
2 9/30/02 Draft Report Mark Ups

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED
? For approval ? Resubmit- Copies for review ? No exceptions taken (NE)
? For your use ? Submit _ Copies for distribution ? Make corrections noted (MCN)
® As requested ? Return _ Corrected prints ? Amend and resubmit (AR)
? For review and comment ? ? Rejected - See remarks (R )
PLEASE NOTE
Please note that report is in preliminary draft format. Additional scenario has been incorporated and comments provided
9/30/02 have been addressed. Please contact Donal Simpson or Kevin Hall at [phone] if you have any questions.
cc: Donal Simpson / Kevin Hall / Susan Fisher, Charlotte By
R. Deaton, NCDOT, File Anne Lenart-Redmo d
\\RALW00\projects\34780 CIA\Correspondence\LOT J Dorney 10-01-02.doc
10/01/02

?n
U

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
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
5. Hydrological Analysis
1. Project Descriptions
1.1 Monroe Bypass (R-2559)
Purpose and Need as described in the Environmental Assessment characterizes US 74
as an important roadway for several reasons. It's a transit 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 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.

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
4

1

1

R-2559IR-3329 -Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10/01/02
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.
Year 2020 traffic projections were taken 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 go 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. These traffic volumes are projected to be as follows for the year
2025: 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 of 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 and for the area east of SR 1754 the
volumes are projected to decline even further at 13,800.
Along US 74, with the Monroe Bypass being built, the traffic volume projections are
reduced in 2025 due to traffic using 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 Level of
' Service (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.
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
forecasted, whereas with the Monroe Bypass/Connector, only 1,623 accidents are
projected.
1.2 Monroe Connector (R-3329)
The Monroe Connector project is also planned to have controlled access since access
will only be allowed at major intersections and interchanges. No frontage or service
1 5

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102

roads are planned at this time. The freeway design speed will be similar to that of the
Monroe Bypass.

The Monroe Connector project would be located north of existing US 74, beginning at
Roanoke Church Road. It is planned to be a four-lane, median-divided freeway along a
new location, approximately 4 miles in length. As was the case with the Monroe
Bypass, 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.
There are five different alignments under review for the Monroe Connector project. A
description of each is listed below:
' • 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.
• 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 Roadwa : 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 Sherin 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 with 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.

' 6 =

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
'
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
increase east of SR 1367 to SR 1514 to 31,800. Volumes decrease again east of SR1514
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.
3 R
l
t
d P
t
1
e
a
e
rojec
.
s
' There are a variety of TIP projects under construction and proposed in Union County,
including everything from bridge replacements to urban roadway widenings. The three
projects that relate to the Monroe Bypass/Connector project the most are listed below:

• 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.
• 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
• Dickerson Boulevard Extension: 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 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). The watershed study area, or the area within
which water quality may be impacted by the Monroe Bypass/Connector project, 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 1).
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).
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/routes.

O

CJ1
W ic,

V/
16 rc y

r? a

f cQ
0
c?0• 31". ? a

.? 0)
j E
L-,cn
?G)
J ,.
Cl)

(D "9
cc
2
?
N y
00 ? <D y

1

?s a
cQ
Y i CD
ti
R o 11d
o

o (D
c
?

c R <?

i

E r
m
X •

rh
CD

MIL a

CL
o ?
n
CD

)No- z
r
to
CD
C
CL
c?
(D
Q
U)
c
Q
D
CD
??nnnnnn?n'n' 3 Ir
r
oo I I
(D
N Q v O. N O 3' N w cl) Q fD •C N p O (Q Q
CL > > m 2 n m 2 o m v
(a I
CD u CD 2) o C) Sr ?>
o a CD x °' 00 c n m cn
m cU3 cn
u
a
D
m
v

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102

In order to determine the potentially affected area, a five- to seven-mile boundary from
the interchanges of the Monroe Bypass/Connector project was created. 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 impact area would
be included in the watershed study area.
Several interviews were conducted with planners, transportation engineers, and
assistant county/town managers of the numerous communities within the watershed
' study area. A meeting with Union County was held on August 6d', 2002. On August
13'', 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
anlaysis.
2.2 Community Profile
2.2.1 Regional Location
'
Location Within North Carolina
The City of Monroe, with a 2000 population of 26,228, is the county seat for
Union County and is situated almost directly in the center of the County. The
county was founded in 1842 and lies on the southern border of the state. The
county's name is the result of a compromise between two ruling political parties
at the time. The Whigs and Democrats both wanted the name of men important to
their parties, Clay or Jackson. The name Union was suggested and adopted as a
compromise and because the new county was created from parts of other counties.
Presently Union County lies between Anson 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.
Incorporated areas within the watershed study 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. The Charlotte metropolitan statistical area (MSA) includes Mecklenburg,
Li
l
t
C
b
U
i
G
R
d Y
k C
S
h C
li
a
arrus,
nco
n,
n
on,
as
on,
owan, an
or
ounty,
out
aro
na.
The total population of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA was 1,499,293 in
2000. The MSA is predicted to add almost 500,000 people during the next ten
years at current growth standards. According to the Office of State Planning, its
total population will reach almost two million people by the year 2010. Most of

?F-l

I?I

F

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analvsis (Revised Draft) 10101102
the growth seems to be occurring within the smaller towns surrounding Charlotte.
An example is Huntersville, located in northern Mecklenburg County. It's
population grew by over 700% between 1990 and 2000. The City of Monroe
grew by 61% during the same time period. It is expected to grow almost 87%
over the next ten years.
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 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 is 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.
9

n

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
Regional Demographics
Union County is one of the seven counties included in the Charlotte Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA). The Charlotte MSA population grew by 29% between
1990 and 2000, with Union County leading the way with the highest growth rate
(46.9%) of all seven counties. In terms of race, the Hispanic population within
the MSA experienced the highest growth rate at 622.4%, going from 10,671 in
1990 to 77,092 in 2000. Asians also had a fairly high growth rate within the MSA
at 155% during the 1990s.
Table 1. Population Growth Trends, By Race
Charlotte MSA, 1990-2000
' . ` _ '" G " > .?` '
Area

1 <a,? k .`a<Pa u
`° 1990 y lation w??.
2004f C#anae

°..
WAW'Ft_"
Charlotte MSA 1,162,093 1,499,293 337,200 29.0%
-White 905,336 1,067,594 162,258 17.9%
-Black 230,739 305,223 74,484 32.3%
-Hispanic 10,671 77,092 66,421 622.4%
-Asian 11,022 28,106 17,084 155.0%
-American Indian/Native Alaskan 3,984 5,317 1,333 33.5%
-Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islande N/A N/A
-Two Or More Races N/A N/A
-Some Other Race N/A N/A
Source: US Census Bureau
An analysis of the population growth rate by age of resident within the Charlotte
MSA revealed that the elderly population (85 years or older) had the highest
growth rate of any age group at 55.5%, followed by the 45-64 year-old age group
at 45.4%. Of the total population in the Charlotte MSA in 2000, approximately
40%, or 603,450, were between the ages of 20 and 44.
Table 2. Population Growth Trends, By Age
Charlotte MSA, 1990-2000

? Po u lation ?fi Change,
Area` 4a .1990 2000;'
Charlotte MSA 1,162,093 1,499,293 337,200 29.0%
-Less Than 5 Years 84,730 106,537 21,807 25.7%
-Between 5 And 19 Years 240,345 312,723 72,378 30.1%
-Between 20 And 44 Years 487,438 603,450 116,012 23.8%
-Between 45 And 64 Years 222,718 323,935 101,217 45.4%
-Between 65 And 84 Years 116,007 135,767 19,760 17.0%
-85 Years Or More 10,855, 16,881, 6,026 55.5%
Source: US Census Bureau

10
0

L
1
i

n

R-2559IR-3329 -Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
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 Monroe has a historic
walking trail designed for the better health of the community. There are 17
historic sites to be viewed on the 25-minute walk. The town has an organization
dedicated to the development of downtown Monroe. They help fund and promote
events that are occurring and organize civic activities. The Monroe Downtown
organization's goal is to create a healthy community, both physically and
economically. The goal of this group is to keep Monroe the bright cultural spot of
Union County. This organization is intimately connected with the economic
development department.
Charlotte is 30 to 45 minutes away from Monroe along US 74. Concord and
Kannapolis are within easy reach from 33 and 39 miles away by way of US 601.
Other than those urban centers, the Triad and the Triangle are between 80 to 140
miles away. The project itself is no more than two miles from existing US 74. It
predominantly traverses through the 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
The watershed study area does not include very many growth generators. Most of
the residential and employment growth that occurs within this area is because of
its proximity to the Charlotte area. The construction of I-485 has had a large
impact on development in western Union County, particularly within the Towns
of Indian Trail and Stallings. Roadways that form interchanges with I-485 in
Mecklenburg County have developed the most intensely over the past decade.
Another potential growth generator, albeit much more minor, is Wingate
University, located on US 74 in Wingate. Its impact on growth and development
in that area has not been too noticeable since enrollment is stable.
Regional Office, Retail, And Industrial Market Vacancy Rates
There is no data available for office, retail, and industrial market vacancy rates
since the local government, Chamber of Commerce or any private consulting
firms do not track it. However, during the field survey, the only noticeable
commercial vacancies were along US 74, where some businesses have relocated
or gone out of business. These isolated cases have not had an impact on the
commercial viability of this corridor.
Commercial development not located along US 74 is located at major
intersections, and is basically population-serving, except for the industrial areas
near Monroe Airport and in northeast Monroe. These population-serving
11

I

7

R-2559IR-3329 -Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
commercial establishments seem to be doing quite well based on a windshield
survey at key intersections throughout the watershed study area. The construction
of the Monroe Bypass/Connector would only help stabilize and grow the
commercial market viability in this area.
Leadership Commitment To Development
Union County and its incorporated municipalities have adopted a pro-growth, but
managed growth philosophy. In terms of population, Union County was the
fastest growing county in North Carolina during the 1990s, at a growth rate of
46.9%. The type and location of growth is what has been shifting over the last
decade. 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 efficiently to the tax base.
State Or Federal Policies Or Programs Affecting Growth And Development
There is one federal policy within Union County that currently affects growth and
development: the Division of Water Quality development regulations for the
Water Supply III - Lake Twitty Water Supply Watershed and the Water Supply
IV - Richardson Creek Water Supply Watershed. The Water Supply III
regulations stipulate a maximum residential development 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.
The Water Supply 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 area (with storm water
controls) in the critical area.
2.2.4 Local Growth And Development Influences
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 the county has been widespread, but the most concentrated in
the Union and York, SC counties. The construction of the Monroe
Bypass/Connector would serve to continue and increase the potential for Union
County's capture of overall regional development.
Water And Sewer Systems
According to local planners and officials, all of the incorporated areas along US
74 within Union County are currently provided with water and sewer service, or
will be by 2005. The Union County Public Works Department has a 20-year plan
12 _

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102

P

for future water and sewer lines. All of the future main-trunk sewer lines follow
creeks. As currently planned, the Duck and Goose Creek basins are scheduled to
receive sewer service by 2005, the Crooked Creek basin by 2020, a portion of the
Richardson Creek basin just north of Wingate by 2005, the Rays Branch area
south of Wingate by 2020, and the entire Twelve Mile Creek basin in
southwestern Union County by 2020.
Growth And Development Controls
Other than the State water supply watershed regulations detailed in Section 2.2.3,
there are no other unusual adopted growth and development controls in Union
County (except for the standard zoning and subdivision ordinances). Growth
controls within the Goose and Duck Creek basins are currently under review by
Union County as well as State and Federal Resource agencies in order to protect
the Carolina Heelsplitter endangered species population that resides there. These
controls, as are proposed now, would limit residential development density 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 land development within the impact area, residential and
employment growth with and without the proposed roadway was forecasted
between 2000 and 2020. In addition to completing this forecast, a supplemental
growth forecast was done for the larger watershed study area, which encompasses
the impact area. No land development impacts as a result of the proposed
roadway were anticipated in the portion of the watershed study area outside of the
impact area.
The following is the step-by-step process utilized for completing the residential
growth forecast for both the watershed study area and the impact area:
1. Retrieved 1990 to 2000 population in households growth for Union County
and for the portions of the census tractsiblock groups that are within the
impact area and watershed study area (see Figure 2).
• Population in households was used instead of general population (which
includes group quarters) since average household size is determined by
dividing population in households by the number of households.

1 13
m
O
tJt
W
1 P9 0)
?N
(D
Cl)
cf)
0
c
m
CO
CO
0
C
cn
0
CD
c
Ap-
n?0 ?n
0 y 0
O O COO 00 O
W

O N

R O ?j p)
O
O r)
O C
N
Cn W w N

rh
noo to
CD
O. p N C? Q.
n N
O
C a CD
Cn w
C
CL
D
CD
w

R-2559IR-3329 -Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
Table 3. Population Growth & Share, 1990-2000
Union County & Imnact Area

r
r>{Poul ation*,' -r Growthlt 990-2000
Area.,'. X1990 _ 2000
Estimated Impact
Area 31,890 47,407 15,517 48.7%
Union
County 82,633 122,011 39,378 47.7%
Impact Area are
Of County 38.6% 38.9% N/A N/A
source: uz> uensus tsureau & HN I b
* Does not include group quarters (i.e. correctional facilities, military barracks)
Table 4. Population Growth & Share, 1990-2000
Union Countv & Watershed Studv Area
='. '?
Area s , ? - ? Fork Po ulation'
r 1990 ,? ,, 2000 T Growthi 990 2000
Watershed Study Area 56,909 84,094 27,185 47.8%
Union
Coup
82,633,
122,011
39,378
47.7%
Watershed Study Area
Share Of County
68.9%
68.9%
N/A
N/A
Source: US Census Bureau & HNTB
* Does not include group quarters (i.e. correctional facilities, military barracks)
2. Repeated Step 1 for Household Growth
Table 5. Household Growth & Share, 1990-2000
Union Countv & Imnact Area

- art
°.

;
Households
.gp Growth ,,'
0-2000,i;
Areau 1990 . ?. 2000
Estimated Impact
Area 11,258 18,207 6,949 61.7%
Union
County 37,838, 52,594 14,756 39.0%
Impact Area are
Of County 29.8% 34.6% N/A N/A
Source: U5 Gensus Bureau, NG vttice of State Planning, & HNTB
14 _

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
Table 6. Household Growth & Share, 1990-2000
Union County & Watershed Studv Area
House holds-'jx,4'?
Area 19901 X2000
°.:.
Watershed Study Area 24,093 34,709 10,616 44.1%
Union
County 37,838 52,594 14,756 39.0%
Watershed Study Area
Share Of County 63.7% 66.0% N/A N/A
Source: US Census Bureau, NC Office of State Planning, & HNTB
3. Retrieved 2010 population estimate for Union County from the Office of State
Planning.
• Subtracted group quarters population because it is not used as part of the
average household size calculation performed by the US Census.
4. Forecasted population in households in 2010 and 2020 for the impact area and
watershed study area by averaging their 1980-1990 and 1990-2000 shares of
Union County population in households growth.
Table 7. Population in Households, Trend & Forecast
Union Countv & Imnact Area. 1980-2020
1
'
Area = 't98t? 1990 , ..2000 -20 202
Union
Count 68,946 82,633 122,011 165,079 210,954
Impact
Area 26,427- 31,890 47,407 64,562 83,053
Impact Area
Share of County 38.33% 38.59% 38.85% 39.11% 39.37%
°basea on percent cnange or impact area snare or county
in 1990 and 2000.
Table 8. Population in Households, Trend & Forecast
Union Coun & Watershed Stud Area 1980-2020 yArea, .. :198Q l.==:1990.`1 2000?r, = 201, 2
Union
County 68,946 82,633 122,011 165,079 '
Watershed
47,449 *1 56,9091 84,0941 113,87'
Watershed Area
Share of County 68.82% 68.87% 68.92% 68.'
" Based on percent change of watershed study area s'
in 1990 and 2000.
15
V

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
5. Calculated average household size in 2000 for Union County using US
Census Data
6. Calculated household growth between 2000 and 2010 and between 2010 and
2020 for impact area and watershed study area by applying the average
household size figure in 2000 for Union County to the forecasted population
in households for the impact area and the watershed study area in 2010 and
2020
Table 9. Household Forecast & Share, 2000-2010
Union County P. Imnar_t Aran

ea ? Households O? iGrowth;MOQ-2010
s
Ar 2000 `u 2010 t F? # °
/d t
Estimated Impact
Area 18,207 24,795 6,589 36.2%
Union
Coup 52,594 71,159 18,565 35.3%
Impact Area are
Of County 34.6% 34.8% N/A N/A
ODUI GC. U0 %rVl15u5 Dureau, rv_# umce of date running, & hN I t{
Table 10. Household Forecast & Share, 2010-2020
Union County iL Imnar_t Oran
a
? ?A#4 =Households ? . ,,Growth 0,10_-2020.
rea ?,
.. X2010 X2020 r #?%M
Estimated Impact
Area 24,795 31,897 7,101 28.6%
Union
County 71,159 90,934 19,775 27.8%
impact Area are
Of County 34.8% 35.1%, N/A N/A
oumta. u0 %,vi15U5 Dureau, ivL, umce or Mate running, & hN I b
Table 11. Household Forecast & Share, 2000-2010
Union County !L Watarshael Rhirlu Arne
E r
?
? •? ? "? Households Growth; 2000 2010?,'.
,
Area ; -2000 n'??. 2010 °?+?:' ?'? , # K?r ?.;_ ?;. % .
Watershed Study Area 34,709 46,999 12,290 35.4%
Union
County 52,594 71,159 18,565 35.3%
Watershed toy rea
Share Of County 66.0% 662% N/A N/A
OuUIGC. uJ L,CII5U5 DUICaU, nit, umce or estate rianrnng, & <yN I t$
16

R-25591,R-3329 -Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
Table 12. Household Forecast & Share, 2010-2020
Union County & Watershed Study Area
x .. Ho Seholds =; G.?oyltt 410.=202
Area' TZ 2010 = 2020 # °t
Watershed Study Area 46,999 60,113 13,113 27.9%
Union
County 71,159 90,934 19,775 27.8%
Watershed Study Area
Share Of County 66.0% 66.1%, N/A N/A
Source: US Census Bureau, NC Office of State Planning, & HNTB

2.2.6 Local Area Commercial Growth Trends
J

F

The following is the step-by-step process utilized for completing the commercial
growth forecast for both the watershed study area and the impact area:
1. Retrieved employment by industry data for Union County in 1990 and 2000;
calculated growth
Table 13. Employment By Industry, 1990-2000
Union County
.?w ., y. Em Ip ment ° x;Gro v+/th
Indus 199Q M r,-Y200
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:.,. ,.:, > r 34,631 44,922 1.-- .. 10,291 ;':z?29.7°!a
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission
Note: Mining data not disclosed.
2. Applied the Union County jobs to households ratio (0.85) between 1990 and
2000 to the forecast household growth for Union County between 2000 and
2010 and 2010 and 2020 in order to calculate the total number of forecasted
jobs in Union County in 2010 and 2020. The ratio was kept the same to take
into account spillover employment growth from Mecklenburg County into
Union County over the next 18 years as a result of increased commuting
inefficiencies (per the "Population and Employment Forecasts for Metrolina
Counties" report performed by Kissel Consulting Group Report - 06/05/00).
17

R-2559/R-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
3. The share of Union County 1990 to 2000 employment growth each industry
sector represented was kept consistent for the 2000-2010 and 2010-2020
growth forecasts.
Table 14. Forecasted Employment By Industry, 2000-2010
lininn Cnunty
r
Industry" ,; _ Em la ment # < _
F. '200044 vn 2010,.: :Growrth'
#{%
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%
1TdtAI:4V t,, ,'" s y 44;322 -,j??a' s ` 60,702 15;7$,0 7735.4,7,o
Source: Norm uarouna tmpioyment Security commission, HNTB
Note: Mining data not disclosed.
Table 15. Forecasted Employment By Industry, 2010-2020
Uninn Cnnntv
?.
,.rs
Indus ry'' EmPI o ment

0::?ft ,.2020: ?'=:G

ti4#
h .
vstt
.._..:.....
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 *e-44&, 1' 27 7%
wurce: Norm toaronna tmpioyment ?ecuri y commission, HN I t3
Note: Mining data not disclosed.
4. Converted jobs into retail, office, and industrial categories by assuming
percentages for each industry sector (i.e. services includes 75% retail jobs,
25% office jobs, 0% industrial jobs)
18
t
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
Table 16. Forecasted Jobs By Major Industry, 2000-2010
1.
Table 17. Forecasted Jobs By Major Industry, 2010-2020
llninn Cnunty
_ 2
Industry Forecasted
v Growth" ?. ': Em to ees'Add
j*;, Retail U ,1 Of ice ed t:`,;_
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
otal: 6,416 M X6,943 °,,,aource: Nortn L;aroiina tmpioyment secunty commission, HNTB
Note: Mining data not disclosed.
5. Converted jobs by retail, office, and industrial categories into square footage
and acreage estimates using estimated jobs per sqft ratios (i.e. 1 retail job =
500 sq ft)
Table 18. Employment Growth Forecast
llninn Cnnnty
Indust ry . 2000-2010
Sector' s'JobsW ? Sgft ?,,? Acres
JA"
Retail 6,024 3,011,819 69
Office 6,519 1,629,635 37
Industrial 2,646 1,984,693 46
Total:°-her 15,1881 - ' 6,626,147 152
source: HN i b
Note: An estimated 500 sqft per retail job, 250 sqft
per office job, and 750 sqft per industrial job.
19
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission, HNTB
Note: Mining data not disclosed.
i
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
Table 19. Employment Growth Forecast
Ilninn (:minty
Industry
?? ?,>'-r?' 2010-2020 ;: >_
Secto
a,= Jr??.Jobs ?:<:; Sgft ?.Ac
Retail 6,416 3,208,104 74
Office 6,943 1,735,841 40
Industrial 2,819 2,114,039 49
Total a?x:, '.?;;16178 r 7,057,984 is- ?,3,44162
source: HN I b
Note: An estimated 500 sqft per retail job, 250 sqft
per office job, and 750 sqft per industrial job.
6. Applied an impact area and watershed study area capture rate (65% and 80%,
respectively) of Union County employment growth by industry category
Table 20. Employment Growth Forecast
Imnact Aran
Industryy
' r i .?*? 2000=2010,, t " ..
Sector Jobs , ., Sgft'>?, . 'Acre NMI
Retail 3,915 1,957,682 45
Office 4,237 1,059,263 24
Industrial 1,720 1,290,050 30
Total.,', : 9,872 : X4,306,996 , '
source: HN 1 b
Note: An estimated 500 sgft per retail job, 250 sqft
per office job, and 750 sqft per industrial job
Table 21. Employment Growth Forecast
Imnar_t Arpa
Industry 201 72020 -?
Sector rt7j, Jobs SgftM 44? -;;_:A c re
Retail
Office
Industrial 4,171
4,513
1,832 2,085,268
1,128,297
1,374,125 48
26
32
Total- ,?. 77, ; .: 10,516 4,587,690 z y 005
source: HN I b
Note: An estimated 500 sqft per retail job, 250 sqft
per office job, and 750 sqft per industrial job
20

I

r

E

0
R-2559/R-3329 Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
Table 22. Employment Growth Forecast
Retail 5,120 2,560,046 59
Office 5,541 1,385,190 32
Industrial 2,249 1,686,989 39
Total:. x . 12,910 ; 5,632,225: X129
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
Watershed Studv Area
Industry
' 5? 2010-2020 >£
Sectci
r _ '..Jobs .: Sgftg `. r,Acres'
Retail
Office
Industrial 5,454
5,902
2,396 2,726,888
1,475,465
1,796,933 63
34
41
Total:'i 3,752, '' `5,999,287 3
source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 500 sqft per retail job, 250 sgft
per office job, and 750 sgft per industrial job.
2.2.7 Land Potentially Available For Development
Methodology Used To Determine Developable Land
1. Land was divided into two categories
a. Can be developed without physical constraint
• Vacant parcels
• Parcels larger than 5 acres that could not be farther divided
b. Contain physical constraints that do not allow development
• 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)
• Steep slopes of 8 percent or greater
• Parks and land conservancy areas
• Parcels already developed upon (with structures covering a majority of
the land)
2. The land that had physical constraints was subtracted from the potentially
developed land in category a.
3. The remaining land was considered developable.
21
R 559IR 3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
' The Process Of How The Developable Land Was Derived Through GIS
1. GIS data was obtained from the County containing
' a. Parcel data
b. Structures
' 2. A query was done removing all parcels that were under 5 acres with a
structure on them
' 3. Those parcels remaining were examined in order to visually look closer at the
lots.

' a. A column in the attribute table of the parcel layer was created called
"Delete"
• Parcels eliminated
' If a large structure using most of the land or deemed to make the lot
undevelopable for future use was found, the parcel was highlighted
and marked in the attribute table with an x
' • When in question the owner of the lot was looked at to help determine
the use of the parcel
• Schools, churches, large commercial and industrial owners were
' usually eliminated
b. Once all of these parcels were marked in the attribute table column
"Delete" as an x, a query was done to delete all those with an x in them
' c. Parcels kept as developable
• If a small house or structure that did not take up a large portion of the
lot it was located upon and it was decided that the land was still
' developable it was to remain
' 4. Since the `Structures" layer from the County was from 1995 further
elimination was necessary
a. All mayor subdivisions that were visible were eliminated
b. A query was done to select and eliminate all lots that
• Contained structures built after 1995 (since we had already eliminated
those prior to 1995)
' • Were less than or equal to 5 acres in size
c. Another query was done to select all lots that
• Contained structures built after 1995
' • Were greater than 5 acres
• By looking at the attribute table and comparing the square feet of the
building and the acreage of the lot, as well as the owner, a
determination was made as to whether the lot could be further
subdivided or not

L

5. A merge was performed that removed any of the non-developable land from
category lb.
22

7
I
i

C

F
F

I I

R-2559IR-3329 -Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft)10/01/02
6. From this map the study area of the 7-mile radius around the new interchanges
of the Monroe Bypass and Corridor was "clipped" or extracted, so those areas
outside of the radius were no longer included
7. A final study map showing only those developable lands within our study area
was the result
3.1 Evaluation Of Potential For Land Use Change
3. Indirect And Cumulative Impact Analysis
3.1.1 Factors To Be Used To Evaluate Potential For Land Use Change
The potential for land use changes as a result of transportation investments was
evaluated for two different scenarios based on four factors (listed in Table 24
below) derived from the "Oregon Department of Transportation Guidebook for
Evaluating Indirect Land Use and Growth Impacts of Highway Improvements".
Scenario 1, which is the baseline growth forecast for the entire watershed study
area, is not evaluated because the roadway is not built in this case. A total of 19
subareas are included in this scenario (see Figure 3). For Scenario 2, which
involves an analysis of future growth (2000-2020) within both the impact area and
the watershed study area with the proposed roadway being built, the impact area
was divided into 13 subareas, one of which (Area 14) does not include any
residential land is therefore excluded from the Table 24 below (see Figure 4).
Each of the Scenario 2 subareas was evaluated with respect to the four factors.
23 LW I km M=

i
0

w
rn

a ,

P N
W
? ?
rt
D,
o l W -

cn 00
r

?
rn
D MI.
? D > I
?

a
<D

p y
w
,

MO.

0

?: v o
CD 4),

1 w CD
0 ?
O
0o ,
F'n
.
,
3' D
w

as ?

r.
o?
?D
D
< O

as ?

'1I

II
)PON
?7 2 ? ? ? ? Cn A ? W W W W N N N ? ? ? ? ? ?D ?
o 07 03 D D D D D a, D w w D D !Z
Q S 1 1 1 1 O O I 1 1 1 ' N
cn v, v m a v v a N v y m y 0)
CD m m m T. m
¦
O
Cn
W
O
(D
(D
N
D
1.
CD
W
)000- z
r
CD
?a
- 3 3 a
-a
n o
\ D<
\ cn

j
N
ol I
D D D D D D D D D D D D D D ?T ; 2
0 (b.
M" "- --
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w y v a
--? --O W v O Cn A W N - 0 y ?
A W N -? O
D
CD m
a fD
Cl)
c
a
D
(D
N
¦
n
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102

Table 24. Potential For Land Use Changes As A Result Of Transportation Investments

1
2 High
High High
High 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 of 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 Watersupply Watershed, which limits the
development density of land to 1 unit per acre for those areas not serviced with
sewer within the protected area and 2 units per acre for those areas that are
serviced by sewer. Densities within the critical area are limited to 1 unit per acre.
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 25). 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 both intermittent and perennial bodies of water that feed into
Duck and Goose creeks, including the creeks themselves. Both of these
environmental stipulations are recommended in order to protect the Carolina
' Heelsplitter endangered species which reside in both creeks.
0
24 1 10 EM

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
'
Table 25. Potential
For Land Use Changes As A Result Of Transportation Investment.
k Ftvz
..
m up
LaMn
»?
e

p Area*= Po ,_ r »<... peen .. an Clemate
i Low
High Low
High Medium
High High
High
3 High High Low High
' 4
5 High
Low High
Medium High
Medium High
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
' *Onl y portions of impact area are included
**A "High" rating indicates a high potential for l and use changes as a result of existing pro-growth policies
' 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 I-485 in Mecklenburg County.
' An analysis was also performed for both 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 26 indicates how each of these subareas rated in Scenario 2:

C
1 25
L: 10

F
1
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
Table 26. Potential For Land Use
Around
1
5
6
8
9
10
11
12 (Low
13 Low
High**
Medium***
High
High
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
High
High
Medium
Low

Medium
Medium
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Medium
High
Low
Low
*Only portions of 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
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.
'
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
1 26

II
u

R-2559/R-3329 -Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
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).
The consideration of cumulative effects for this analysis focused on the effects
that 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
• 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 were looked at for R-3329 and R-2559 as a whole.
Considerations for development as a result of the entire corridor 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
' the south of Union County that are known to have large areas of unsuitable soil
for septic systems.
' The Mayors of both Fairview and Unionville were asked about how the 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.

i

u

r

FJ
F
1
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
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 Summary Of Potential For Land Use Change
ECONorthwest and Portland State University in their 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 of best consideration practices. The guidebook outlines
the potential for indirect land use impacts of new or improved highways by
mostly quantitatively evaluating a set of 7 factors related to growth inducement.
Because the Monroe Bypass/Connector project is not likely to influence growth
patterns outside of what has been designated as the impact area, all of the above
factors have been evaluated for the impact area portion of the watershed study
area only. These factors are included in Table 27 below. The placement of the
"X" in the Table reflects the judgement by the NCDOT team/consultant on how
this project relates to these factors, from strong to weak.
Before the evaluation can be analyzed, 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 impact area between 2000 and 2020. Based on the forecast traffic
28
t
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis Revised Draft) 10101102
'
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.
' Change in Property Values:
• Strong = More than 50% increase
• Weak = No chan
e
g
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 residential attractiveness and market strength.
' t
th
F
d G
orecas
row
:
e
• 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 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 Monroe Bypass/Connector project very strong in terms of its
potential to change land use within the impact area.

Land Supply vs. Land Demand:
' • 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 impact area has a total of nearly
83,000 acres, after land already developed, floodplains, slopes greater than 8%,
and wetlands are all removed as being developable. 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 impact
area obviously has much more than a 20-year supply of land available for
' development, which is an indication that the Monroe Bypass/Connector project
rates very weak in terms of its ability to consume a substantial amount of
' available land.

1 29

0
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
Water/Sewer Availability:
• Strong = Available Now
• Weak = Not Available and Difficult to Provide
The majority of the impact area is scheduled to receive water and sewer service
by 2020, with the exception of a few pockets in the interior of the impact area and
some outlying areas to the southeast and northeast. All of the incorporated areas
within the 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:

n

L

• 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 Monroe Bypass/Connector project can have a
rating of no less than extremely strong when it comes to the market strength of the
area.
Public Policy:
• Strong = No growth management policy; weak enforcement
• Weak = Growth management policy in place; strong enforcement
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. The Lake Twitty Watersupply 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
impact area.
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. Per acre, commercial development contributes much
more to the tax base than does residential development. Conversations with local
30 r. 17, 11 -9
7

11 ?
R 2559IR 3329 -Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
staff and officials confirm that commercial development is being encouraged as it
relates to the proposed roadway project.
3.2 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.
' 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 12-1/2% 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, one could reasonably assume that
as much as 25% of new capacity could be absorbed by induced growth. Since this
Cervero, R. Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis, JAPA (forthcoming).
1 31
r

n
7

F
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
report has demonstrated that the impact area represented a very strong growth
market without significant constraints (see Section 3.1.1), key assumptions made
in the methodology were therefore as follows:
• Of the forecasted change in Average Daily Trips (ADT) between 2000 and
2020, 50% is attributable to existing and anticipated growth in traffic.
• 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 because of the new roadway.
3.3 Growth Assumptions for Potentially Affected Area
3.3.1 Quantity of Assumed Growth

P
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. This forecast does not
account for induced growth. In order to constitute 25% of the "real" ADT figure
which would include induced growth, we added an additional 33.3%, or 10,000
vehicles per day, 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 = 11,000 trips from new
households.
Step 3: Average of 3 trips per household per day assumed to be made on
Monroe Bypass/Connector = 3,666 new households (11,000 divided
by 3). These trips reflect all trip purposes. (Again, this is a
conservative assumption; if, say, each household made 5 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 the
jobs per household ratio (1.105) from the 2000 to 2020 forecasted increase in
households and jobs in the impact area (see Section 2.2.5 & 2.2.6) to this new
induced household total:
32 I= 101 k i

r

L

I

I

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10/01/02
3,666 induced households x 1.105 jobs/household = 4,051 induced jobs
These additional households and jobs were added to the Scenario 1 estimates (see
sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6) to come up with the total amount of forecasted
households and jobs to be added to the watershed study area between 2000 and
2020.
3.3.2 Location of Assumed Growth
Upon completing the forecast of future growth for each of the three scenarios, as
noted in Table 28, households and jobs were then distributed throughout the
watershed study 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 impact area, since land
development outside of the 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 (Residential):
Using the factors above, a total of 13 subareas were created within the watershed
study 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 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.
Densities in Table 28 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 developable land within the watershed study area (see Section
2.2.7), a total of 23,614 acres of proposed residential development results 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
33
m
e
e
G

C N O

a N N O C

N

r
7
0 (5, G.
v
?

N c
3 o
7 CD
m
C 'n <
m
(D
Q
Q

O 2 ?,
?
N m Cl C
p c = a

ni Z
C N
? C C
N D D
0
+ m
p
C
D
m
>0- z

n

C

0
1
L

H

0
7
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
density urban and medium-high density urban only representing 14.7% and
13.6%, respectively.
Table 28 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.
Table 28 . Scenario 1: 2000-2020 Additional Devel o ed Land (Acreage)
Res Urb Urban' atal
'
" lemai?
{Q 1?U >=ZS
? 4
D Clop' t
ail a?labl
ea , . ?ACj 1714 UTAC?
K ` and r?r an
1 265 796 308 1,369 6,487 5,118
la outside impact area 468 468 1,522 1,054
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 3,524
2 356 356 2,311 1,955
2a 685 685 4,949 4,264
2b outside impact area 303 704 1,007 6,626 5,619
3 outside impact area 2,342 2,342 6,292 3,950
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 8,597
4a 274 274 1,856 1,582
5 outside impact area 2,836 10 200 3,046 16,830 13,784
6a outside impact area 2,578 2,578 27,006 24,428
6a 1,330 40 1,370 17,534 16,164
6b outside impact area 1,874 1,874 21,090 19,216
6b 1,096 1,096 20,561 19,465
T?rta 1" r ':= ? r & 16,943 `=_'<3,470' ;3 201 M-23,61VI-i ? , 3173 39I f '.149,777
*Proposed for residential
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 I-485 and US-74, as well as the
fact that its entire area, which is the largest subarea within the 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.
34
i
i
i
i
R-2559IR-3329 -Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
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 (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.
Table 29. Scenario 1: 2000-2020 Additional
Stud Acea? = "Coin rand':.. N 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
I 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

' Total:tir? Y"93IN`' 932.7;65$
N
t
I
ddi
i
h
934
l
o
e:
n a
t
on to t
e
acres tota
, 169 acres to be distributed randomly throughout
area outside impact area
*Proposed for commercial
In this scenario, a total of 1,103 acres of commercial land is forecast to be built
upon within the watershed study area between 2000 and 2020 (see Table 29
above). 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.
' 35

O
U?
W
CY)

?N
(D
Cl)
)No- z
r
CD
fm
CD
0 3 c
v
y o
D
? ry a 3
CL D
?y
E D
e
rn
v
D
o
do

L

n?nnnnnnnF-1?lF?? 0
D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 9 0?f _
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 1 "1 1
fD CD N fD (D fD fD (D fD (D fD (D (D @ (D fD (D (D 07 ? 'p ? ? Q.
N v N N N N N N N N v N N ? N N N N (D ? Q
cn 0 _0 O z 9 m m o c? oo D
s D
CD 1 N
'Q
V/
Q
D
m
n?
¦

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
'
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
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 a fair amount of existing industries are already
' located.
Subareas p and I 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 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 1 (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 impact area)
' within the watershed study 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 11,713 households outside of the 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 study area.
' A total of 1,103 acres of commercial, development (834 acres of which are within
the impact area) are forecast for the watershed study 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 esidential :
' As mentioned before, the proposed roadway project will only affect development
inside the identified impact area. Table 30 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). 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
1 36 1.10
m

O

Cn
W

(D
- t

? 'Sr a ? D "7

Al A
CD

46

D
L jr ? s D

co -t

19

-: ¦

-
.
'
_
r
711

II ' z

0 I (
= CD
a Q 0 ? m o c r 3 ? o Q

(n r
3 C7 CD
°
'
m < 0)
n CL
m -
<D m
a Q,
C r«
D
cn
0
°
= CD
cn
fD

3
O
C

a n
i
m ? w

d ? O

N C D
v, D n
+ 0 m

C
D
n
m

1
H

11

r
n

F

r
r

C

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
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 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).
TnhlP 30 Crennrin 2' 2000-2020 Addifinnal T1PvPlnned i.nnd
, ,

*= ' Ga ??? LDU? 5au?t/HD??ban

U/A U/A 3? U/A

1 ?.w
y 3
otatri `?' va?
Develo ed Ira dFf? Area

\ 4
ema
a'ilableiLaud`
1 359 410 359 1,128 9,659 8,531
2 275 328 492 1,095 11,313 10,21
3 858 858 1,275 417
4 1,051 1,051 5,181 4,13
5 137 137 1,153 1,01
6 342 342 3,078 2,73
7 2,256 22 40 2,318 18,498 16,18
8 174 174 1,401 1,22
9 347 347 1,426 1,07
10 1,153 1,153 7,568 6,41
11 574 574 1,743 1,16
12 483 483 4,751 4,26
13 14115 1.115 15,949 14,83

*These numbers would be added to the area outside the impact area in Scenario 1 to determine total
for entire watershed study 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
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.
37
1
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102

Scenario 2 (Commercial):
' 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).
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 31 below
' shows the forecasted distribution of commercial acreage by designated subarea.
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 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 31 below.
I I

"Proposed for commercial
' 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
' 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.
' 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
1 38
'In addition to the 1,103 acres in Scenario 1

D D D D D D D D D
CD ni oCDi v ni v v w
CD 00 V ? U7 ? W N ?

F

J
J
L
0

I I
R-2559IR-3329 -Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
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 (Summary):
An additional 3,666 households are forecast for the 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 impact area) within
the watershed study 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 (1 unit per every 2 acres),
Subarea 7 is expected to receive the most forecast acreage of all subareas within
the impact area between 2000 and 2020, with 2,318 acres of the total 10,775
acres. The majority of the forecast households within the impact area, however,
were allocated to Subareas 1 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 impact area between 2000 and 2020, increasing the watershed
study area total to 1,270 acres of commercial development (1,001 acres of which
are within the 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 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 (Residential):
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 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
39

I
O

Cn
W
O
O

(D su a
CD
-_
° - w 4)
CD

:k r y?
?NN
(A

Y

ti IL CD

x r?T a d -
a;
CD _ p.
co
.T
I
W
'
(D
'? _.?`?
.I ?? '' • ?. fit,,. O ? ?w ?. 4+ ' r
CMD -4

. F

-
46 ?
. .

II ' z
r
CD
fC
CD
- `
s 3 Q.
7
C.) n

z D
\ CD

i v

x 0 11

C
0. CD 0 `D
a
@
-a
° -
? z r ?, N
CD CD
D

o i
a
m
a
C
CD
n?
3 Q j
m o v r.
n 0.
? C N
N O
:3 C
N C D
in D 0
+ m
C
D

0

' R-2559IR-3329 -Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis Revised Draft) 10101102
' 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 32 below).
7

1
0
0

I I
u
0
0
0

for entire watershed study 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. 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 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
40
- i nese numoers would be added to the area outside the impact area in Scenario 1 to determine total
L

I I
I I

u
J

r
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
of the households allocated to these basins in Scenario 1 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 (Commercial):.
Same as Scenario 2.
Scenario 3 (Summary):
Because of the aforementioned development controls being implemented within
the Goose and Duck Creek basins, a total of only 548 households (4% of the
impact area total) are forecast for development between 2000 and 2020, much less
than the approximately 3,700 households (27% of the impact area total) in
Scenario 1 and 2,820 households (21% of the 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 impact area households in Subareas 3-6 slightly
increase in this sceanario compared to Scenario 2, while Subareas 7-14 remain the
same.
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.
' Overall Forecast Growth Summary By Scenario:
As can be seen in Table 33 below, 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. Although an additional
3,666 households are forecasted within the impact area in Scenario 2, only 321
' additional acres of induced growth will occur as a result of the roadway being
b
il
b
u
t
ecause 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
1

41 -

0

I

H
I

J
J

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
within the impact area between 2000 and 2020 than would have occurred had the
proposed road not been built.
Table 33. Forecasted Growth 2000-2020

ate;. <Resr al.
;Households Developed Acre : _ ' , }o
'Jobs m cra
., pe c
Scenario 1
-Impact Area 13,690 10,454 20,388 834
-Watershed Area 25,403 23,614 26,662 1,103
Impact Area % o
Watershed 54% 44% 76% 76%
Scenario 2
-Impact Area 17,356 10,775 24,439 1,001
-Watershed Area 29,069 23,935 30,713 1,270

Impact Are
% of Watershed 60% 45% 80% 79%
Induced Growth
Increment 3,666 321 4,051 167
Scenario 3
-Impact Area 17,356 11,573 24,439 1,001
-Watershed Area 29,069 24,733 30,713 1,270

Impact Are
% of Watershed 60% 47% 80% 79%
Induced Growth
Increment 3,666, 1,119, 4, 051 167
4. Hydrological Analysis
4.1 Hydrological Analysis Model
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's 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. 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
42

CD
tQ
CD
_
O ?
0
r-L
CD Q.
N Cl)
D

(D 3
CD
a
v W
a)
cn
'
5

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
' 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 ofMonroe, 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
' four proposed conditions:
Scenario No. 1: Development without the Monroe Bypass/Connector
Scenario No. 2: Development with the Monroe Bypass/Connector
' Scenario No. 3: Development with the Monroe Bypass/Connector and additional
development controls in the Goose and Duck Creek basins.
' Scenario No. 4: Development with the Monroe Bypass/Connector with development
controls in the Goose and Duck Creek basins; 50-ft buffers on
tributaries and streams within the Lanes, Richardson, Lake Twitty
' and Crooked basins; and incorporation of stormwater detention
devices.
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 34 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
' increase of impervious areas. The increase of the impervious areas tend to do two
things:
' 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.

43
n
n
R-2559IR-3329 -Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
Table 34. Monroe Bypass/Connector Hydrologic Analysis, 2000-2020

F

n
0

1

0
0

Scenario::
•4 .. ? ,

, ,.
-

. .

a ?* - • _3?If MOM t
t+4 Lanese
Richardson`
``Lake TY w ;
:,:..C6o6k4d`
Goese
ExlSting rnnditinne
Total Drainage Area (sq. miles 52 100 32 42 23 11
Percent Impervious Area 1.0 8.8 3.0 4.6 1.6 0.4
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 ronditions . Arnnarin No 1

Percent Impervious Area 3.0 20.4 8.5 15.4 6.0 3.3
Peak Dischar a cu. ft./sec 26.834 61,787 23.534 31,192 19,374 9,189
Percentage Chan a 4.8 17.6
L 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 renditions - Scenario No 9

Percent Im ervious Area 3.4 22.5 12.1 18.4 6.7 3.0
Peak Discharge cu. ft./sec 27 005 62 651 26,471 32,604 19 908 9,022
Percentage Chan a 5.5 19.3 53.2 42.8 46.1 55.6
Runoff Volume ac-ft 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

Percent Impervious Area 3.4 22.5 12.1 19.7 5.3 2.3
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
Proposed conditions . SCenarin No A
Percent Impervious Area 3.0 21.5 11.4 18.7 5.3 2.3
Peak Discharge cu. ft./sec 26,713 61,301 24.852 31,461 18,957 8,516
Percentage Change 4.3 16.7 43.8 37.8 39.1 46.9
Runoff Volume ac-ft 9,464 22,419 7,699 10,584 4,985 2,319
Percentage Change 4.1 11.9 30.9 30.8 18.0 25.1
*Peak Discharge and RunoffVolume are for the 25-Year Storm Event.
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.
44

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
5. Summary/Conclusions
' 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:
o
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.

1 45
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
¦ 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 Goose Creek
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 3.9% 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 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 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 Fish and Wildlife Service and N.C. Wildlife Resources
¦ Commission 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 development controls recommended by the Wildlife
agencies 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
¦
¦ 46
' R-2559IR-3329 -Indirect Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
' controls. Peak discharge would increase to 8,516 cubic feet per second, a 46.9% increase
over existing conditions, but an 11.6% 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 Twitty WS-III basin will experience an impervious cover
' increase to 12.1%, 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.
However, if 50-ft buffers and stormwater detention devices are implemented within the
remainder of the development impact area, the Lake Twitty Basin impervious cover will
increase to 11.4%, reducing the amount of impervious cover attributed to the proposed
' improvements to 2.9%. Peak discharge would increase to 26,471 cubic feet per second
for development controls in the Duck and Goose Creek basin, 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. If 50-ft buffers and stormwater detention devices are
implemented in Lanes, Richardson, Lake Twitty and Crooked basins; peak discharges
' and runoff volumes would increase only by 43.8% and 30.9% respectively.

1

1 47
¦
R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft) 10101102
¦
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 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.
• 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
Journal of the American Planning Association
Travel: A Path Analysis
.
.
• 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.
• Hartgen, D. and J. Kim. 1998. Commercial Development at Rural and Small-Town
' Interstate Exits. Transportation Research Record 1649, 95-104.
4

R-2559IR-3329 - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis (Revised Draft)1 "1102
• 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.
5
R-2559/R-3329 Indirect and Cumulative
Impact Analysis
Revised Draft
October 1, 2002

Hydrologic Analysis

C

R
C
O
V V
?s
a c
N Z
m o
O
O V
L =
C 2
O c
d
s
w
O

U
V'
CA
M O
CO LO O d'
O N
N CO O
co t`
M CO
r O CA
r
M co
- CA 0)
r

0
O
to
M r CO
to to
N to
M
M O
CA to
to ";r
N CV
CEO
N to
co CO
A M
N to
N
N to
co CO M
N Co
CV

C M to N O M N
CD
N

LQ

tl
co

'3

•.
C)
to

M

M
r-

0
Ul)
co

O

M
r.-
L
to
00

0
O N r: C6 N CD cm CV
-,r ?--
' ?-
N (D 1
rn t0
v N
to V'
N L6 1
co m
M m
'- co
? Ui ao pi
C m
O co
0
m O co
04
0)

CO

O

CO

't

O

co

M

N

r
(0

N

Cl

h

t-

CD

00

00

OO
O R O to cd q vi 06 Cq CV O C Oi -- to P ,-t Oo V: ti Lq
7 c;
O N
CO
M M O N - N
M '-T O M CM
M V' O
.- M
M M C
.- M
N -

?' N O ? ? Co M

L N co
-

,
N
t?
•-
f`
d:
N
M
d'
V
CN
O
W
H
O
M Crj N CO 00 q CO
CM M f`
? C
N
? : c+i
tn M
M N
?
to m
CM co co a
M
? v N ? N ^ CO n
J
C
y

p M
M O

?
co ~
CO
N
to
Co
O
M
O
Co
n
I
q
g g
O
to
O
1-
C1
'
&.
m 06 to
N O
N t` ? M ':
s- N
N N oi 04 m
?- CV
N 0 oi . co ?
N M CO ?
N r
r-.
U C N N N (D cq co

N

m

N

O N

C)

CA

O It

n

co co

co

M

V M

to to

to

d. to

Co to

Lo

O Cl)

M
et
CO
;
.-
to ? U-) O M CO vi ui to. M ^ L6 tq 6 C-i CO
J N O N lA - N O N t7) N O
r N M et

Z Z Z Z
y O O O O
E
m to
c
m
c m ? (D
Q
Cc

.Q
m
m
m
m
m
m
(D
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
? Q y Q c C Q c c N Q c c N Q c c

y
7
t
t
w
7 Co
L Ca
L
'
y
7 co
L ca
L
'
m ca
L
' m
L
'
rn m
L
' Ca
c
N 7

° U
v U N 7

° - U ca U N 7

° U (? (? (A 7 U U

" U N 7

° U (?

" ()
C Q -
Z m
m c
Z m
m m p m m "
m m c
Z a?
rn m
m m c -
Z m
rn m
tm
m m
to
O m
m m
m E
v N rn
ca rn E cm '=
n m
n m
m of E cm ='
v
a `m rn E rn =
a m
a) m E c3
m
C a
E U C a
E L C C C L C C
d C E L
o C
d C
m C E L
U C
m p or-)
C6 p 0 U N
U p m
U U
M m
U p U U p U N U U
Q C M > C y m > m C O N > W V C y
O m ' m V C m > m
N Y O 'O N Y O. p a O CL p d V N Y d o CL C m Y 0 p 0.
c
'O E
N co
m c
7 m
H E
N m
CU c
7 m
PA 2
E
a) m
N c
7 m
W E
N m
N c
7 m E
m ca
m c
7
CL a- O a 0. a' 0
O L
d CL O CL a. 0
O
d
a
?'
2 2
w a 1 a` a a`
rn
z
y
m
N
X
mm
E
E
(D o
o 3,
ax
y N
ca m
a a
>. T
m m
O O C
O O
? ? r

c

'
c v

H N
ca

o
? U
?
.? L C
7

?
C
•
M C
y .
N
O
C L
L .O

L

U
cc O .
co

`

C
.
c?
1 N
L
`° M

O
_
p
O
c N
D

?
O

W 04
\ L
V ?
V
CD ca

N
C_
N
L C

cn

U
W

i
i
i
i
N
_A
Q
V
Em
O
L
r
V
.O
L
IL
N
N
a
m
d
O
C
0

01
U
C
.N
c?
m
R

O
O
N
r
r
N
L
G.
O
CL
E
d
N
Q Z co 0 0 0 M 00 c0 r`
U
E r-- r?- r-. r'. f?- r-- r-- r--
O
U
•a

? o o o ? o o u? o
M v v N N M M ?

U
L

O
O O O In O In 0
N M M CO co I- N d' v

d a
0)

C
0) L
o o o o o o cD o
W
t
L c
-
m

o C

.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L
C
c0
J ?
r
C
0 O 0 0 O ul l" o 0
. 0 o
y
d

N
L O to LO LO O cf) Lo Lo
p eM N N M to N ?-
LL
R
L
Q
d 00 M T- r- 00 LO c0 N
R ti 00 0 0 (6 M o

L
0
c
Q ? Q Q Q Q Q co
?

N
Z
U O
r. O
ti ?t
rn
a? tt
r? N
ao
d

L C c w
O y [ ; > >

LL
W
S Co
CL
U
I ,
X
0)
.c -
D
X
L11
co N
Q r?.
co co
0 00
O O N
2 2 rn

J
{
G

t70
v:
O
O O
O
of O
O p
p
t
o 04 N
O
V O
r-
M
N
Of
Q O C6 N O q r C to
N O O O N O ? Cl)
r
N

h
V:
Lo
O
O p
-It
O O O
p
to N
0 N
0
V. O
0
m
N
0
Q O co N O I r O N O D O N ?' r cM r
N

w
?t
q
0 O
0
?t to
O p
O
LO N
O N
O
H O
CV
N
'
m
Q C M M O r o q N O O D N c0 e M r
N
to O p 0 et O p N D O M LOO ?- r N
Q O C7 N O O N O D O CM M O N

et Q O 0 O
0 d? O
O O
p to N
O N
O M to
N N e- Im
Q O M N O C N O O O M V-
M
f
1
1

M
-V
0
0 O
0 O
O O
p
O N
O N
O
°
m O
O
Of
t7f
1?
Q 6 C 'i r o N O
o
o
CM tr
,
O
N

r
N

O
O

O O

O

?! O

O O

p

to
N
O
N
O

co
O
O

T-

O

co
O vi n O r o N O O CD C'i
to

r

M

r
N

r
4
0
0 LO
0
?t to
O
p
to 04
O
CO O
rN

N
r
ab
Q C M N O e? Op N O 0 O CV 00 r m r
N
t = L

0
r 3
v O !d tC
y w' {p v D ?V..
Jn
CL Z
E a? L a?
a 3 ( r

a 0
o U. 0

to ^
o
U w o
C

0
E
F. 0 p- (D
L V E J .
L Z
L C M :
n r
y' .. w U a
O w
tv
> - ?.
t=l
CD o (n 41
w U5 . ? C
3 O CD
c

~ s
0 m
o H
p?? rnn.
2 U am LL rnCO cc
C N C O
. 3 0
N d 0) - O
C C C 7= „
O J
J
d N O J E
? 0
co
cnONILJ L
fn _O
M
-i L O L
a)
v2U=J
F- m
co
V
75 S y
L 'p d. 00 M
fl R N N M
C
j O r-
1 v ui
m G +_+
p {M M 0 0 e- N
L
CJf
C V
•
O Ulm
N
O a
0 to
Q V O O
?--
C 0
O
N
N
ca
.0

CO

O
N
7
n
N
'
v
ca

U
.
3
.O

2
m

O
Z
N
x
c
x
W
O
CL =
(n (n
m N
a a
m m
C C Cl)
O O N
2 2 rn
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Monroe Run Name : Run 6
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model : Lanes
' End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Lanes
Execution Time 23Sep02 0943 Control Specs : Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
I
Subbasin-2
' Reach-2
Subbasin-1
Reach-1
' Subbasin-3
Junction-1
Reach-3
Subbasin-4
Subbasin-5
Junction-2
Reach-4
Subbasin-6
Junction-3
' Reach-5
Subbasin-7
Junction-4
I Reach-6
Subbasin-8
Junction-5

4693.0 24 Sep 02 0145 1583.2 8.800
4655.0 24 Sep 02 0215 1545.0 8.800
3812.8 24 Sep 02 0200 1337.7 7.400
3789.3 24 Sep 02 0215 1303.8 7.400
4618.9 24 Sep 02 0145 1497.1 8.300
8097.8 24 Sep 02 0200 2800.9 15.700
8053.0 24 Sep 02 0215 2753.9 15.700
3076.1 24 Sep 02 0200 1081.1 6.100
4027.4 24 Sep 02 0115 1048.7 6.100
18171 24 Sep 02 0200 6428.8 36.700
18122 24 Sep 02 0200 6419.2 36.700
2129.2 24 Sep 02 0200 757.12 3.800
20251 24 Sep 02 0200 7176.3 40.500
20056 24 Sep 02 0215 7124.1 40.500
3331.2 24 Sep 02 0200 1166.4 6.500
23353 24 Sep 02 0200 8290.5 47.000
23286 24 Sep 02 0215 8251.6 47.000
2409.2 24 Sep 02 0200 842.11 4.600
25602 24 Sep 02 0215 9093.7 51.600

Y
N
t0
C
Q
R
V
.O
O
i
.0
v
d
.O
L
a
N
N
co
D.
A
m
m
0
C
O
r?
ca
,a
u OO N r r N r CoM N CO)
0.
d
CL.
E
a?
N
a z CD CD tD Ln M N 0 1?
EU F- titiF-- tiaD001--
O
U
V
d
`° ooo?noolno
M mot' rh N N N N ?t
3
U
M ono %-I°IMIICT
rI I'
O

O
U
C
m
I?-.
u N O O O N O
O O
y ? 0
L
C
O
> C
O
O O
1 O
I O O
lun U-) 0

D ?-
?
C
0
t
J ?
C
0
O
In
0
O LO N M LO

m

r
d
O
to
m
LO O LO to Ln
L- CM N N
r'
CM co
LL
m
Q
•
?t EO M .- r 00 Ln CD N
ti 00 06 CD CD M CD N
C

O
O
C
E
a
?
Q
a¢aQa ca

Z
v O O ?t
rn
rn
ti N
CO
m
a
H V
O
"
? j
V o
U- c
o
a. 5
U
f,
y
X
O
c
a?
U
CL 2
co m
T >>
m m
0 0 i
c c ?
o O
22,

D
C ?
O
o:
O
O
L
n.
O ?t t o p
O 0 ? t O p t o D O t
? c)
? M N
M C1
r
Q O M C i) O r C N O O O N c o r

ti N

LO

O
p LO

O

co to

O

p

t

o

NO

O

d
O

M

t

o

c0
.
Q O M C
i) O O O N O O O N N r N e
l 1

t0 N
Lq
O
O
c o
O
p
?
NO
O
et O
N
N
to
to
Q O M C) O C O N O O N N r N r

to ?t
Q O to
M O
pr O
O d: O
O p
LO
O
O O M
M O r
O r
N N
r
C
) O p N O M
d to 0 C) O p to D O m Cl N r 4f
r
A Q O M M 0 r O N O O O ri M r m

n
a

M d
to
8)
o0
?
O
p
to
O
0
C'M
j O
Q
tJf
O
to
t-
Q O m Cl o
O T- Q
p In
N p 0
O Cr O N r
N

O U)
p
te
' LC)
O 0
?
Le) N
o
C O
? r O
M q0
O CM

M r
,

O

N
O o

p
N r r
O N
to to O N LO
q
M
?
Q O C7 O O
O O LO
O N O N
00
O e e
N L
L
w
d
d
L

w
L
y
C •
m - d
E a? s
U O.
?o
CL
y
E
o
U ? ?=
w N w
41 L C Cl)
i j? 30 Cn

~ 0 3:
rn a
I C

C6 J
m
> O N LL J

41
O C
- C

L ? L
O

Z
CU
N

c C:

?. O N Q!
U
e
'
:- 'co t
a
3 0
co
O U L
N y ?V
?
CL - enm
- - O
b
)
m
C 3
Cn J C C
C L
C C -
d
c o c L a
-iu. U?U=?
L
L
c
w
L
C
41
U
C
O
U
w
O
CU
F=
L
L
CV
E
F-
R
J
C
.N
ca
m
V to
R 3 'RT CO M
N CV C7
L
++ fl. to r
W at 'ot LO
C w
ca c
c =3
C V
C
O d
CA
'0 C Cc Cc
d
N L
to
Q
C ?
O
'O
d
N
CO
co
O
N
3
y
tN
'v
ca
I? r N
U.) r N
IC) O
V O
r
U
3
M
T
a?
L
F-
CD
6
Z
N
O
co
r_
a?
U
U
Co
CL i
U) cf)
co m
Q a
T T
m co
O O O
0 O N
' HMS * Summary of Results
Project Monroe BP-Scenariol Run Name : Run 1
1
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model Lanes - Pl
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Lanes
' Execution Time 23Sep02 1721 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
Subbasin-5
Junction-2
' Reach-4
Subbasin-6
Junction-3
Reach-5
Subbasin-7
Junction-4
' Reach-6
Subbasin-8
Junction-5
1

4693.0 24 Sep 02 0145 1583.2 8.800
4655.0 24 Sep 02 0215 1545.0 8.800
3812.8 24 Sep 02 0200 1337.7 7.400
3789.3 24 Sep 02 0215 1303.8 7.400
4618.9 24 Sep 02 0145 1497.1 8.300
8097.8 24 Sep 02 0200 2800.9 15.700
8053.0 24 Sep 02 0215 2753.9 15.700
3076.1 24 Sep 02 0200 1081.1 6.100
4027.4 24 Sep 02 0115 1048.7 6.100
18171 24 Sep 02 0200 6428.8 36.700
18122 24 Sep 02 0200 6419.2 36.700
2895.7 24 Sep 02 0130 896.03 3.800
20620 24 Sep 02 0200 7315.2 40.500
20497 24 Sep 02 0200 7264.0 40.500
4440.0 24 Sep 02 0130 1417.3 6.500
24566 24 Sep 02 0200 8681.3 47.000
24425 24 Sep 02 0200 8643.4 47.000
2409.2 24 Sep 02 0200 842.11 4.600
26834 24 Sep 02 0200 9485.5 51.600
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N Z
?U O
cv m
Q
U
N
V ?
•O O
O'
"a
S C
V
U ?
p
0
L
a o
N o.
m '
Q. a
co m
co
O N
C ?
2 3
ca
L
b+
C N
d 7
` O
N
'-
.-
N
T-
C

N
M
Z

L
a
Q.
E
0
N
Q. Z
U CD
ti co
ti CD
r` to
ti M
ti co
co r
co t`
r`
E
O
U
V
°
i° CD O O LO CD LO CD CD

y M d d' N N N vt
7
U
L
.? O O O O CO 0 0 0
N M M M M r- •- M d'
d a

r
c '?

1 0 0 0 0 0 O N 0
CU 0 C

CL ,v

`m c
-
o
0 0 0 0 0 ° LO O
c M
cv
J C

0 O CO l0 OO O N 0 0
0

d

N
` O 0 to LO O LO to to
O M N N M O .- r-
LL
R
L
Q
? ? d: O M .- r ? to CD N
m t` CD 00 6 cD M CD 4 w
c ?

0

c
Q a Q Q Q Q Q Q

3

Z O O 19T "It N
U ti r? rn a> r? ao
d
Q.
L
r

'O
N N
? > >
U `-
LL a
i
0?

?
=
S

o
d
U
I,
N
X
N
O
co
C
CU
U
a i
(A cn
ccaa co
CL o
m co
0 0 0
O O N

00
t
o '
O o
O
'
t
O
p
L
n
D cq
O
M
N
M
r
Q O M M O r O N p O N O r M
N
n N to O O o m to p to NO O It M to to
Q O M M C. O O to O O O N t,: r N r
N

to
N
to

O
O
oo
O
p
to

O

a O

N
N

tt?
Q O M M O O O N O O O N O r N r
N
to O O ?t O p 'n D O co tOO r r N
Q O M co O r O N O O O M M O N r

to O O O p to 0 0 co N N r
Q O tM M o r O N O O O M r r M r
M
n
0

r, C) d to O O O p N O M Cif
N (,
Q O M M O r O N O D O M q O r
N
N st to O O eh O O to NO
C 00 00 •- O 00
Q O M tOj O r O
O to
N p O ?
O N r M r
O N

r-
to
O
O
d?
O
C)
X49
D N
O
C
co LO
N
r
Cn
Q O M M C' r O
O to
N p '
O N
00 r M r
O N
6
D
C I
0?
L '
J
O ?
O
O
L
0..
L
d

t

N ? w
y C
d
E N L
tC 'tj d
a ?o
O . ,.
j. d cn
ro
C>
.-,
r p
/
C IL V
> N L L ?'
o c?
~ M a
0 T
C
LL O
C N
d 0) 3 ?
L
N 0)
> >. O
O N LL J
t =
O
C
C
R tC

N

Z
O
N

c
C C v 4

w
C
.O
O C
0U
aim

p C O? O
J C C C w
C O O L >

ALL .
L
U?U2J
s
c
0
R
L
C
d
c
0
U
O
H
t
CD
P
tm
R
J
C
N
to
m
t)
N
L t 00 Cl)
.a tp N N M
W ?t M
« c
? t
C U
c
o m
w w m
N L
? L Q
C ?
O
N
to
c9
f9
O)
N
N
c?
I? r N
I O O
? r N
V ? O
0
m
N
a?
L
H
Q)
O
Z
fn
X
N
O
.r_
c
N
U
U
O)
a. S
tN0 fN6
CL Q.
>1 >1
CIO m
0 0 0
c c cn
O O N
2 2 6:
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Monro BP-Scenario2 Run Name : Run 1
' Start of Run : 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model : Lanes - P2
End of Run : 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Lanes
Execution Time : 23Sep02 1750 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
Subbasin-5
Junction-2
' Reach-4
Subbasin-6
Junction-3
' Reach-5
Subbasin-7
Junction-4
' Reach-6
Subbasin-8
Junction-5

4693.0 24 Sep 02 0145 1583.2 8.800
4655.0 24 Sep 02 0215 1545.0 8.800
3812.8 24 Sep 02 0200 1337.7 7.400
3789.3 24 Sep 02 0215 1303.8 7.400
4618.9 24 Sep 02 0145 1497.1 8.300
8097.8 24 Sep 02 0200 2800.9 15.700
8053.0 24 Sep 02 0215 2753.9 15.700
3076.1 24 Sep 02 0200 1081.1 6.100
4027.4 24 Sep 02 0115 1048.7 6.100
18171 24 Sep 02 0200 6428.8 36.700
18122 24 Sep 02 0200 6419.2 36.700
2969.2 24 Sep 02 0130 922.80 3.800
20678 24 Sep 02 0200 7342.0 40.500
20559 24 Sep 02 0200 7290.9 40.500
4561.6 24 Sep 02 0130 1459.8 6.500
24730 24 Sep 02 0200 8750.7 47.000
24595 24 Sep 02 0200 8712.6 47.000
2409.2 24 Sep 02 0200 842.11 4.600
27005 24 Sep 02 0200 9554.7 51.600
N Z
N O
L
a
cn
V ?
? C
O O
0 '-'
A =
v
lv N
'0 O
CL o
cn n.
cNa '
a =_
m cya
? 00
O y
C d
O c
2 J
cu
L
V
C 0
0
` 0
N
`-
r
N
r
M
N
r
M

a
CL
E
m
a
0 Z CD CD (D 0 M M r f`
m U r.- r- r-- r-- r.. w w r--
0
U

r
0 0 0 ro 0 to 0 0
i7
CO
tt
1?t
N
N
r
N
d
75
U

0 0 o o (n o o o
Cn M M M M i- r M ?t
0
(D a

?o
c
2
0 t.
41
V O O O O O C ) N 0
C
V)
CL 'd

L
d c
0
U m 0 0 0 0 0 ° L0 0
'a
c I-

J ?

O to to to O U')
. r N
N
d

N
L O LC) Co Co O 0 O ro
O (y) N N Cr) CD r i- r
LL
ITS

a
t 00 M r t- 00 U7 CD N
rq r h 00 co CD CD M 0 'i LO

L
0
0
c
Q ? Q Q a Q Q Q

0

Z
U O
r-- O
n
0 r
0 d
r.. N
00
Q.
co
C
(C
?
C
a
)

CA C
0 y 7 >
22
U "
r° ? .
=) C a v
I,
i

cp et 0 0 1 -t O p

l

ull O ? m N
M m
r
Q O M M O e• O t
O o
N p O
O N t o
r
O N
N to O O CO O p NO O
-gr
'o
M
w
N
to
Q O co O O O N O O O N N r r

t0
N
to
0
0
co
O
p
LQ
NO
O
'. O
N
N
to
V
49
?
Q O M m O O N O O O N O r C e
o N

LO
Q

O to

M
0
M
0
O ?} O

O p

N tCl

O D

p
O
cM
M

C
u

O
r
N
N
e
1 0 F l
to O O d? O p O co N N r
M 07
r
Q O M CO O e O N O O O cli M r

0
2
M d t1) O O O in NO O co OO Q? 07 f?
Q O M M O e? O N O O O CM O N r
N
N -.t to p 0 10 O p
W!

Q

O

co
0

r

O

co
Q O cM M 0 r. O
p to
N O O g
O N O r M r
N

V
0
0 t!)
O
te' to
0 a
O N
0
r
Q O M M r 0
O t
N p O N 0
0 ?- M
O N
Ii
II

to 3 ^
d
r
3

c

N
v
'
!d
w
d
d
E
L ??
3 O
U CL
?
?
? L
.c
a o
°- u
,. m
c c?
= p
E m V
to 'w

F:. ++ N C O

d to p .-. +'
L

^ c C

O N E
U +-
L L

L
y C C d' v j C
CL
.. U
O N C C Ci
to L L
- d .. _
c
N U5 O E
-
7
U) p 0

H 0
O=? ai c
O
tv= D N L
U ??U
? c
O F-
odd ma U am - tnCO
O U
LL C N? O
U5 3 0 N d C' N '3
0 J
?. t9 J G J

O C 'C C N

co y c
N
t> >% O C
?ONtLJ L
N C
J U. L O
02U=J
I- R
m
V
r H
tom
r co M
.
.O N N M

i
c. to
W )
O. w
.
? c r N
t
O
C V
O
O
N
-02 d
C to
L
? Q 1
v ? O
w
O
.O
O
m
.n
CD
m
N
to
7
m
M
v
c?

U
.
_
N

F-

0
Z
N
X
M
O
c
a?
U
.. t/1
a. _
(9 (Oc
d O.
? T
co co
O O O
O O N
g2 rn
' HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Monroe BP-Scenario3 Run Name Run 1
Start of Run : 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model : Lanes - P3
' End of Run : 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Lanes
Execution Time : 23Sep02 1814 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
Subbasin-5
Junction-2
' Reach-4
Subbasin-6
Junction-3
' Reach-5
Subbasin-7
Junction-4
' Reach-6
Subbasin-8
Junction-5

4693.0 24 Sep 02 0145 1583.2 8.800
4655.0 24 Sep 02 0215 1545.0 8.800
3812.8 24 Sep 02 0200 1337.7 7.400
3789.3 24 Sep 02 0215 1303.8 7.400
4618.9 24 Sep 02 0145 1497.1 8.300
8097.8 24 Sep 02 0200 2800.9 15.700
8053.0 24 Sep 02 0215 2753.9 15.700
3076.1 24 Sep 02 0200 1081.1 6.100
4027.4 24 Sep 02 0115 1048.7 6.100
18171 24 Sep 02 0200 6428.8 36.700
18122 24 Sep 02 0200 6419.2 36.700
2969.2 24 Sep 02 0130 922.80 3.800
20678 24 Sep 02 0200 7342.0 40.500
20559 24 Sep 02 0200 7290.9 40.500
4561.6 24 Sep 02 0130 1459.8 6.500
24730 24 Sep 02 0200 8750.7 47.000
24595 24 Sep 02 0200 8712.6 47.000
2409.2 24 Sep 02 0200 842.11 4.600
27005 24 Sep 02 0200 9554.7 51.600
i

W
b
Oy
O
.C
u
a
.O
P?
d
O
i.
C
v
d
.Q
9t
U
W
x
ti
0
U
C
7
h U
C (p
19
c
fn
a
C0
U
C O
M
U
C
O
U
.N
co
U)

w
„a
C 0
1 4)
O N N N r tl) r
d
a 4)
a
E
m
N
C Z - I? CO CO <O fD
EV co tititir`titi
0
U
° ILO NININIMIMIM
U
d
.?.. O to 0 0 lA O O
N ?t co M co
a
13I?I"'Iolololtr'I°I I I
L
d

y
'y 0
O C
?

Lo

to

0

0

0

0

0

R C
?
J ?
Q r

O C
0
Lo
N
O
-
O
O
to
LO
LO
V ?
:.. a
C
M V ` to ° to O to O O
O N M N CM N CM CO
LL
? N R
4)
W Q

d N
N
M
C\l
O
r*-:
co
C
a c0

0
a
' N .?-

te r

? N

'y C
y
N ?
tC C13 R
0

m O 2
y C
o
Q
Q
Q
Q to
Q CO
Q r-
Q
Q

2 CC U)
Z
U O
r? 0)
ti It
a? ?-
rn d
?? N
ao
d
a
•
L C (9 y rte.
U LT H N y
LLL C ? 5 d U

N
X
O
C
fn
x
+-+ LL1
4)
CL =
N N
CL T
CO m
O 20
0 0 co
2 2 rn

A 4
K
u?
?j
.. 1
a
ti v to O C) ao 0 00 a o a co LO tD 00 1•
Q O M M o O N O O O CV N r

OD to a 0 C* O p to D O M 0 Qf r tlY
Q O cM cn O e' O N O C O M et N

to
to
O
O
00
O
0
1A
NO
O
CO O
ti
00
O
00
Q O M M O ?' O N O 0 6 N co O M r
r
st to O M0 co O p to 0 co f? O co
Q O M ? O e? O N O O O fV ti O M r
1
1 ?
1
=

1 M

O

O

O

O

d

O

p

?

D

N
O

M
O

E

r

O

0
:
Q O M t.
j 0 r O N O O O C7
C6
r
vi
r
N

cv

to

O

O

`?t

O

p
49

0

O

M O

O
-

O

o0
a O M M O O N O O 0 M ti a M r
N
N to O O o0 O p t NO co 00 1*-
O
0o
Q O co M O O O N O O O M to r M r

t L t
3 d
r ; O C
is ca
? 0 L '? L
N C r R ? ? ?
. d
N L w N
lC V a 3 N
L
d O IL d L
tU O - C
C
U =°-„' ? C
E am,.. O (n c) w tC-
~ d O M w « vim' V N N ?- L
> N L v _ v d ~ O O C d d
m 0) L .? 3 =) -? 0 U) 3 O U 'a cu E
F- o=ff C oV a coL o F-
m 11'?m? v R
0 NCo 32 0
co - J O Cn J C C C N O
-a co = C
-0 C C C L
000 , 2 0 t o 0 = mcmc (fl r- >. E R
c5 0NLL J N JLL U?U=J F- m
u
N
? R
t
W ty
D
:d C «L+
tp C ?
? t
rn V
C
.O d
O M
am L
L i Q
C ?
O
tV
to
(C
L
f9
O
N
N
7
y
fA
7
f0
.j
fL0
O
O
Z
co 0
N cli
Uf r
a to
? ? N
O O
LO i- N
V O
r
N
?C
C
N
X
w, W
N
CL 2
ui ui
to co
CL a
>1 >1
co co
o 0 0
o O N
2 2 rn
' HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Monroe Run Name : Run 2
Start of Run : 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model : Richardson - Exist.
End of Run : 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Richardson
Execution Time : 23Sep02 0805 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
Junction-6 4340.7
41093 24
24 Sep
Sep 02
02 0145
0200 1406.9
15030 7.800
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
1

L
d 7 N N r CO M r
V p V CM N r ?` r
d
N
Q.V ?NOa?OtiaocO
? 00aotititi
0
U
.o
m
r
O LO 0LO oa
r r N N M
U
LO LO 00
U) 0 LO Ul) N CO N CO
N CO
0 0.
of
O Z a
C [-Ozor-
O L ?
N R O C
N r
Q O ? c LO LO (=fl
b
a
O d ?ot!N404
d CO C0 O = O ICS I U-)
LL
t
d
O L
a
C1 ¢
'? L y? N N M N 0 1? CO
O O ?- N ~ ~
?. C ca Q N r r r N
.y
C (n
N ? O
a. m
o
m N c
? ? •N r M d l1) CO f?
o ? ?, a?a¢aaa
V-
1 ,
N
X
O
C
CU
U
cf)
d =
cNNO m
mm
O 0
22

I
1
I
1
J

LI

ti v ln o 0 co o °O I n

O 0 0
co
1°Ln
w
co
ti
Q O cM 'n q r O N O O N co A N r
r
?p
Q et
O 11)
c7 O
M O co
r O
o p
N IA
O D
0 O
° M
cn O O)
r r
'd• IA
N
O . D LO

IA
LO
O
O
O
W
O
CD
I[1
D
O
OR O
ti
co
O
W
Q O M c
r) O

0 O

O N O O O CV co
O
M
e-
r

N
Lq
O
O
O
O
p
It7
0
O
co O
0 1
h
N
M
Q O M M O e O N O O O CV V,: O N r

f
f

)M N 117 O O CO O p In D04 O M ti r ,t v
Q O cM M O O O N O 0 O M co
r
N
r
N

N
?
to
0
0
O
p
111
D
O
Ch O
1LO
O
O
N
Q O M m O O O N O O O M ti r N r
N

r
r
117
O
O
U)
O
p
In
D
O
M O
0
1?
h
<D
Q O cM M O O O N O O O M O r N r
d
t
d
d
t

Ifl C `
y c :,
y ' a.
E a

C U a
FE (D
a) 0
.
O
E O -_ ^
U
?-
E
' to C O
y L C C,)
-
N C
> ?.
v
=
?

~ cn
•-
o
3 rn a
N
C
_O
C/)
J
N CL)) 3 '0
a
i
L > >. O CO
U), 0 N LL J

3 Iv
O C
C

t r^. L

O "
Z
N
a)

al
C C .

a
N co
3 O
O
O U O
W L)
CL CM U- Inca
O C
) -y cm •- O
f/1 C C C t
O O L ?
y
JlL L
>,
U2U=?
t
C
0
aci m
U
c ?
O
U ?
G J
d C
f= m
U
N
co M
N N M
i
L
+-p ul r
C «
N
?
L U-) N
C
O
O
w C L ul N
i Q V O
l

O
a)
cn
c9

d
W
Q)
N
7
N
7
fa

U
7
f?9
v
2
a)
FL-
a)
O
Z
N
X
O
c
a?
U
O
CL I
y y
ca ca
a a
m co
(1) O N
O O O
C C Cl)
O O N
2 2 rn
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Monroe BP-Scenariol Run Name : Run 2
L Start of Run : 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model : Richardson - PI
End of Run : 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Richardson
' Execution Time : 23Sep02 1932 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
Junction-1 9979.5
25055 24
24 Sep
Sep 02
02 0100
0115 2681.6
7795.6 11.200
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

1

1

n

r

cv
O
z
O

cn
Q
O
v

O
•0

p
_
O U
L
'

? N
O
Q
r
V
?
O O
L
a
?
CL =
N

Q N
CO

.
A
Co r
=

Q
N
' 41
o
L.
c
O

R
L
r Q
C N

i 0
N t
?
O

~
M

`-
Le!
"t M M N r N
d Z
a
a
E
d
N
0 z v M .- rn ti ao 0
EU o a0 ao
0
U
v
d
> o o o o Un 0 Ln
N N M
7
U
L
O O O LO LO N M
N cM
N 0
a
i 0
.

R
c
? L
L y O O O tn ?n O O

a c
L
d
0
O C
N 0 0 0 0 0

C ?

J ?
0
a
i to 0 0 0 0 o
`n
v cc r? v •- r?
N
d

N
O O Un O O O
? T- v- N N M
LL
tC

a
CD N N CM N 0 f? CO O
N ~ et N ~ O
C ?- •
-

0

C
? < < < < a
0
.n

Z
U O
1? O
1? d
0 r
0 It
1` N
co
d
Q
O
c N
0 N

cn c
co N 7

Y) >

U
LcL

Q
x O

C

ca
L

:3
C))
i,
N
X
N
O
(0
c
O
U
O
CLL. _
N to
m co
Q. d.
co Co
0 0 0
c c r)
O O N
2 2 rn
1

0
t
4
t
1
1
O

ti
11
to
O
MO
ao
O to
0 CD
N
N O
NO
co 0
ti
is
O
ti
Q O M M O r O N O D O N M
r O N r

t0
to
O M
O
o0 ?
O p
p
to
NO N
O
M O
OO
Qf
r
to
Q O M N O r O N O O C7 C
' r tt N
U
)

In
?
tf)
O
O
00
O
p
to
NO
O
o0 O
r%

co

O

a*
Q O vi M O r: O N O D O N p
r O M r

N
to
O
O
O
0
0 p
U-)
O
00 O

L
ti
N
t'7
Q
I O M M O e' O N O O O N O N e'
I
j M
N
to
O
O
Go
O
O
p
q
O
D
O
M
7
E
r
tt
?
Q O m M O O N I O O t 00 N e
N

N
to
O
p
to
p
o
0
0
O
M O
?
O
O
N
a O cn ? O O O N O O O c'1 N
N

?-
r
to
O
O
to
O
p
tl f
O
M O
N
ti
ti
tD
Q O M M O O o to O O O M 6 r N r
Itr
Z t _
3 m
? o c
'c 3 i c

v s t
a
v
w C r 0 ++
CL
O L w a)
a)

a O o LL C
m ^
U w c c5 .: o
?" w y C C
)
r+
w w
L N
a)
to
>.

y Cl)
L C `. w
C
v
_
a+ U O y C
?
C
d
? N L ? ...
Of 7 a) }, 3 C
N U O
E
to
t. w
w O O (n V v.
C/1 ca
O V

i-
O= w C
o
w O t0 L
U a) C
o ?--
O N C O U o
V
u- of m L)
U
t°)v
UL c Fn
J 3: r-
U) J CM
C C C O L J
.+
ca
ai `m a?°i 3
O
r 3
m e tc0 v C:
H

>.
r> o L o
CU L O L >. o
rn O N LL J (n J LL U U 2 J F- m
u
N
co M
R lV N M

L
C e-
W ?i to

'a m to N
t
to
c U
Q
o N

O o
t
?
?
w
Q
0 V
C
O

O
y
ti3

c?

Q)
In
N
pI

to

U
7
t`6

T

a)
L

Q)
0
Z
N
O
t0
c
U
N
d =
m m
a a
co co
0 0 0
O O N
n 2 rn
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Monro BP-Scenario2 Run Name : Run 2
' Start of Run : 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model : Richardson - P2
End of Run : 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Richardson
' Execution Time : 23Sep02 2003 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

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MI
O
N •?
C
•? V
Q C
O
O
U 'a
O
O U
L
? N
= O
L
a.
a ?
N .N
cC
L Co A 0
QC
co O
O 'a
L
o .2
2 w
R
Q
V O N f - O - ti M r
d c o M N N
a d
a
E
d
N
0 Z M .- O O O
E U co co co ti r ti ti
O
U
V

> O O O O tn a LO
N N M

U

0 0 0 0 O N M
0
/! - CO
w a
am
m
c
L
L N 0 o 0 Lo In O O
d O r- l
CL
L
d C
O r-
0
c ?
c?
J ?
C
d LO LO O LO 0 0)
d' CO I? d' ?- M
N
d

d 0 O to 0 0 0
r r .- N N CO
LL
R
m
Q
y ? N N M N 0 1? M O

,
c
O

c
m Q ¢ Q Q Q Q Q 0

3

Z
U O
ti O
ti V
rn
rn q
? N
o
m
Q

CD
C a ca
>
O to 0 C N
? >
U ?i 5 n. U
I,
M
O
E.
C
0
U
d 2
co cn
as
>1 T
co m
0 00
O O N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

D
C ?
O
o ?
d J
O
O
1
ti v: ul a o o $
' L o c o coL O c o O ti
Q O M M O r
O U
)
N C O
O N M O N r
O r

Cp

0

0

0

o

O

p

c)

D

O

O

M O

11
'

r

N
Q O M M O
0 r O
0 ?
N O p
O M p r N
LO
V) sr 0
C
) 0 00 O p Lf) O O Ln co
O O
M a0
Q O M C') 0 q N O O O N co r

N O O
p O O O p to D O CX] ti N M
Q O M C
l O N O O N I- O N r

n
a

F) V) N O O O 00 O p H-O D O
0 M LO

O
M
M

O Lo

CV
p

O
C'j
O
r
N
r
p N

Lo
0
Ul)

O
u)

O
a
to
C14
0 N

0
0 O

U')

O

r
O M M O O Lo
N O O O M r N
O N

e.
r
Lo
O
O
Cn
a
O
p
t1)
O N
O
M
M O
Op
f?
f?
CC
Q O c'1 M O
0
N O O
O to
. r N r
p d L
t L L
?

O ;
O CU
C

0 _
O
A
s L
_
w G
N
L w ? ?+
O c d Z
E
L N L
U CL .r
3 N

c fA L
L
a
m ? o
U u
.
M ?
c
c c ?
c
0 to ..
?-- d N C 0 .. i w V 0 O~- Z
y t C Q' V? G ? .+ O N C: G CU
>
` N L ?.
7? = d
c u CA c
C O
L (D

~ w
O Cn
_ L O 'O a
CD 0
C O CL
r U Q 01
O U N co .
'
0 U
- 0 LL C N a) O N d C
(D 7 C J
J G w
c c ? o m
t>: 0
N064U- r
cn 0
JLL M N t
.
U2U=J F- m
V
N
R O
v CO M
N CV M

S

U) Q Lq r
v
i
.L u m
O .Cr cr

O R ? 0 r N

c
O
O
N
w cc d O r

L L
? Q
V to ?
_
G ?
O

C)
N
f0

ca
'O
N
N
O
N
y
7

m

.d

CU
O
Z
N
X
M
O
co
c
a)
U
? U
O
Q. _
cu co
C2 a
?. >1
co co
0 o c
c c r
o o C,
2 2 o
HMS * Summary of Results

Project : Monroe BP-Scenario3 Run Name : Run 2
' hardson - P3
Ri
l
Start of Run : 23Sep02 c
:
1200 Basin Mode
End of Run : 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Richardson
Execution Time : 23Sep02 2012 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 5111%.u av.AUV
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

W
w
3
F
x
i.i
61
O
.ri
V
CJ
.O
Lr
a
x
U
W
x

C
,N
7
Cl)
C
?y
N:
.Q
LO
c
.y
f9
.0
? M
C

N
.N
C
? C
V O
O
0
-p U
V N
.? W
d C
N .R
a co
CO
r
o
L ?
C Y
O
* J
to
L
? Q

V O N to to to to C
d Z M
a ?
n.
E
m
N
0z o ti o r-. w o
E o r~ w ? ti ?
O
U

> O O LO O O O
N v N M to N

U

w (n o to o o to
N r' d' N d' M N

d a
a?
to
c
ro
? ° o ° 0 0 0

L c
-
m

o
J3 O 0 0 0

C D

J ?
w
C
41
'p to
r to to
r O
r O
r to
r
N
d

N

L Lo o to to 0 0
O N r d
LL.
to
d

d ? M 0
' to O O) M (y
R O - 4 (D O .- M
' N
ta
L
0

C
Q Q Q Q Q Q
? ?
.C
3
U
v o rn ?r •- v N
ti ti lA O ti M
d
CL
H
C t0

O
> y o c

N
?
?-

U
t?
0
? v
S
CL
75
,
X
O
c
w.
N
X
W
a`. 2
N N
f4 m
CL 0-
>1 >1
mm
O O O
C C M
O O N
2 2

u
? C
u ?
R
c
.C
s? V
to u1 O O co Cl p Ul N
O O 'ct M T- M
Q O fM M O
O . O
N O
O N N O N V.
O O

Ln
O
O
o0
O

O
Op
N

'
O

co O

N

1?

Qf

00
Q O M M
O r
O
N O
0
0 N
co O N

v
?
O
O
O
a
:
O
Op
to
N
O
O
co O
O
L
O
N
m
Q G M M
O e
O LO
N O
O O
O N
N e? M r

M t 0

O 0 00 O p t1 f N

O O d O
N
LO

Q
O
M
M O
O O
O to
N
O O
O N O
O
N

Cy to O O o0 O p to N O It
O
?
a0
e-
00
Q
O
CM M ?
O

O

N O

O

O N

r,
O
M
e?

r-
to
O
O
W
O
O
p
LO
NO
O
O O
to
O
O
Go
Q O co M
O r
O
N O
O
O N
00 O cM r
L
w
CU
d
L
vt
v
ul v ?+
y C'
m ' CL
? N L

CL
?o
O
E O
U w
C)
d L c?v
N L ? _
t- o = w
N C
c
O
Cn
w Rf L J
L
Us > >. O
O N d: J
L L
d

O O C
= ^
?
? N
?
?. CU
N O
r Z
m
? v
LL =
? C C ? w
m

w
w _
c=i aci
aci c
c
=
c cn o m
3 0
'
0 v CU c
O U
V
3 0.
2 0 W
C', m o
o U) J C C C 3 C
t9
M
L ? 3
O R c M-0 C
t O L >
O
J M , y
V 2 U Z J
L
L
C
0
c
C41
C
0
U
4-
0
CV
H
L
ai
a?
J
lA
RS
m
V
H
!'0 ? '?! C70 M
R CV of (?i
L '
'"' Ln r
W 0 to
al .
d
L
C '`p O U-) O
_ ? r r N
1 V
C4
Q!? 00
r
0, to C?
Q V to O
D
X
C
X
W
U
N
31,
N y
m co
a a
a >1
m co
0 0 0
C C M
O O N
2 2
HMS * Summary of Results
'
Project : Monroe Run Name : Run 1
'
Start of Run : 23SeP02 1200 Basin Model Lake Twitty - Exist.
' End of Run : 24Sep02 1200
E
ti
Ti
2 Met. Model Lake Twitty
xecu
on
me :
3Sep02 0801 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
Subbasin-4
Junction-2
Reach-2
Subbasin-6
Subbasin-5
' Junction-3

3958.7 24 Sep 02 0145 1367.6 6.300
1966.9 24 Sep 02 0145 667.34 4.000
5925.6 24 Sep 02 0145 2034.9 10.300
5897.6 24 Sep 02 0200 2010.6 10.300
3156.3 24 Sep 02 0130 956.94 4.500
2846.0 24 Sep 02 0200 998.20 6.000
11613 24 Sep 02 0145 3965.8 20.800
11538 24 Sep 02 0145 3958.2 20.800
825.74 24 Sep 02 0115 238.65 1.300
4981.6 24 Sep 02 0145 1684.3 9.900
17284 24 Sep 02 0145 5881.1 32.000

L

n
n

O
.
1 R
A

N d
?+ U
Cl)

Q
O

U
B -
r
0
1 0

O U
L.

? d
1 = N

a
U O
?
n.
1

CL =

a m
1

m

O I-
1

Y
O
? J
1
ca

c
a
i 7
C
o M IT N d' I!' d

t
_ M N M N N N ap

a
Q.
E
d
N
O Z N O N M O O
EU a w w r- ti ?
O
U

m
R
> 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
U
m
L
H to 0 to to to to
0

a a
of
R
c ??
m
o to o o 0

a 0
L
d

o r-
U ? to 0 0 0 0 0

C ?
(d
J ?
C
0 LO to to to to O
CO f- CO 1-- I-- ti
N
d
Q:
N
L to to tf) O O O
0
U.

Q
? ? M o to O O M Cy
R CO 4 4 Co ai r- M
C fA

0

C
m a ? a a a a
o

cn
Z
U o
ti CD
ti
rn -
rn "t
?- 04
ao
m
a

2 L7
C
f0
?L
?
O N C
7
U U- Q? D S 0?. U
1 ,
X
r
0
C
O
''U^^
v/
U
O
y y
tC (6
0- 0-
>1 >1
W M
000
c c IT
O O N
2 2 rn

r

tD
N
to
O
p M
O
O co
O p
p
In
CVp N
CD
'IT O
U)
r
co
m
Q O m c
n 0 O N O O O N C't O r O

1tf

N

to

p cn

0

O LO

O

p

O

co
O
N

t`

N

M
Q C Crl M O
O e? O
O to
N O O g
O N O
r O N r
N Io O O O O p 0 D O
co O
O
of
Q O M M O r OO N O O O N of r N r
N

M
N
to
c cr1
O
O tL)
O p
p N
O N
O O
O
N
1`
O
Q O cn M
l O
l r O N O O N C O r r
I l ' 1 I

?y
N
cC)
O
O
O
O
p
cA
O
st O
CO
M
Q
Q O M M O e? O N O O O CV r-:

r
O
N

r

N

Lo

O
cn
O

O
LO
O

p

to

O

00 O

LO

co

M
Q C) M I O T- O N O D O N O N
r
Y
C
v
i
1
co
L
a)
Qa
L
N
H
?"
d C
C v `?
N
L
U d
d p
?
m i
a
O .
C O
cn 0-
t C Q' co
j
N L ?. v
i ++ =O Cn
~ 3 m a
O 'O N C O
U. c 0) V5
'
J
w. c0
d o 3
0
L >
co O N U_ J
.G L
.:
3
a?
O c
C R
c0
(d v ? .Vi

w Z

3 N
?
o ?
u.
0 ?
c c "
"
t
C +' U O cA C

U 3 0 c
c

U

L
O
O .0 cu L
U
n

3 CL
0 C co
N
-y O •? o
O

= -1

,
c C C
C C C ` DI
0
m o s Co s m 45
>, aci
(n JU_ v2U2.J
CF
0
R
C
d
U
c
0
U
r-
O
0
p
t
H
a?
10
J
c
.N
ca
m
V
•? 3
? R
t
y O
W as
D
it co M
V N c-i
? r
v Ul)
L
c •
.
c N
?
te
? I
0 '
L > r
"
O
C V
O

O
d
10
0

N

kc)
O
w ` Q V
r
C
O ?
a)
N
c0
.O

ca

to
7
c!f
M
7
v
m

U
7
N
a?
L
a)
0
Z
N
O
M
c
a)
U
/)
O
az
y cn
m ca
a
0.
co co
0 0 0
c c v
O O N
2 2 rn
HMS * Summary of Results
' Project : Monroe BP-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 : 24Sep02 0902 Control Specs : Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
QucJnasin-i 5ut5b.7 24 Sep 02 0115 1509.3 6.300
' Subbasin-2
Junction-1 2794.4
7880.0 24
24 Sep
Sep 02
02 0115
0115 822.50
2331.8 4.000
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

1

i
N
N .t
U,
C
Q L
R ?
U
O C
0 L
= u
i c
r+ ?
^U L
W A
•O ,
a c
y 'u
a
co
O H
L Q
O R
?v
L

d >
0
co CO
M M
d' CD
M to
N "t
N T7
?
L
t
a)
a
E
d
y
o V O
co M
co ,t
co N
co o
co CD
F
E -
0
U

m

>_
i 0 0 0 0 0 0
_
7
U

y 0 0 0 0 0 0

4) IL
a?
R
c
d w
t) y to to O LO
O
O
O N Cn r-
a ?
L C
LU

O =
U o a tn 0 0
L N
c D
to
J

0 O to to O O to
C N to ? CD co t`
f/)
d
D:
N
L O o 0 0 0

U.
t0
L

M O to O m M
N
R a CD "T v to
O
?-
M
•
L
0
O
c

Q
¢ M
Q
Q LO
Q CO
Q
0

0
v)
Z C)
ti
t` --t
Q)
O
r` N
co
ty
Q.
H O_
.
..
C CQ O
C
U O O y
. w '?
o
U-
D I O
-
a
U
I ,
y
N
O
S
C
O
U
rn
a.0
i
y
w cu 0.
0o m
0 00
C C 'IT
O O N
2 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

C
u
R
l
l
U.

to
N
to
0 M
0
O U7
O O
O
to
CVO N
O
? O
to
r
to
m
Q O M M
O r O
O Lo
N O
O
O N N O r O
?

to
N
to
O
O
O
O
p
ul
N
O
O
CO O
to
N
ti
N
M
Q O M M
O r
O LO
N O
0
0 N

tp O N r
er N to O O O O 0 to f q O

co
O
0

O

d

l

tlf
l
Q O cri M O r O N O O O N C4 r tV r
N I I I I
M N to 0 0 O O p to q O v O N h O
Q O M C O
O r o
O to
N O
0 O
0 N q
to O r V

ty
N
to
O
O
O
O
p
0
O O
0
00
M
et
Q O cM M o r o N O O O N
r O N r

r

N

to

O co

O

O LO

O

p

to

NO

O

o0
O

00

M

tt
Q O M M O r o N O O O N O N r
r
d
to
r

N C ?r
w C C_.
y .- d

U O-
a ?o
y O - ?,
E U m •?

H

4)
cu C O

(5
y C
N V
L
>
m ..
CD

~ :3 0
3 rn a
LL C N a

(D J
CU
.C

VI
> 00
0 64 J
s
3
o c
r s
_
R .N.. O v

w Z
N
U
o ?
C C l W
w

w L
?+
` O 0 C
m
c
c m
- ?
3 o

U Q ? m L
r
Q orn
O C z y, CO V
cm - •- O
O ? J C C C? w
C O c Co
t m C ?o.

L
L
0
w
C
d
U
C
O
U
O
F-
t
d
Of
J
C
to
Cd
V
L 'O
.C
W d
D
f 00 M
V N M
I .
'tt to
C
? w
O
U') 0

t T-
N
CD
c C?
o
O to
l00 !s
O LO N
r
O
w C L
?Q ' t
V

O c
O
m
m
m
.O
O
N
7
N
fA

co
co
NI.L
U
3
N
m
O
Z
N
X
N
O
cu
C
O
U
V
O
O
'OO
CL
` _
M rn
m m
O- d
m m
CD a) c\j
O O O
C C q-
O O N
2 2 rn
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Monro BP-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 : 24Sep02 0933 Control Specs : Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Sunaasin-i 5783.8 24 Sep 02 0115 1764.6 6.300

' Subbasin-2
Junction-1 3320.2
9104.0 24
24 Sep
Sep 02
02 0115
0115 990.23
2754.9 4.000
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

n

n
p

?
N
• C
?
V

C ?
Q C
O
?

?
O 0
o U

O
? Q
U

. L
a
o

n. c

m m
a
.

m

' 0
a

C Q7
Y
O
? J

?a
ro

C N
d O
i .- co m (D to ?t ?-
-0 (D M d M N N N
d j r
o. d
a
E
m
N
nv w m t N O CD
0 co co co co co ti
O
U
v
m
a
> o 0 0 0 0 0

U
L

N 0 0 0 0 0 0

4) CL

R
c
m
L y Lo 0 t
o O O
d O N r
a. '0
L C
d

O C
U ? o 0 to to 0 0

C 7

J C

to a LO 0 0 0 tn
'O N to '7 0 o ti
N
d

N
` to O O O O O
O
U.
R

a
? ? M O LO O rn M N
to 0- O q. V to O ?- M
C (n

0
c
Q ry Q Q Q Q
0

7
N
U O O d' N
ti f` O to ti o
tv
O.

C

(D
f?
O
>

U H

C
co

m

y

7

7
t

m
m
>
o a?

N
X
M
O
f6
C
tV
U
(n
CL i
co n. n
m m
0 0 0
c C: O O N
2 ;E rn

1 !A
? C
(aa
> .G
t0 N to O O O O p to N O 't ton T- t0 O
Q O M B
O r o
O LO
N p
O O
p N N O O
e-
49
Q N
O to
M 0
CO 0 O
r O O to
O N
D O co
N LO P. N M
O O N O O N r

er
Q
N
O
to
M
O
O
r
O
p
Lo
to

O
cli
Co
00 O
0
O
-

N
U)

-
CO O O N C1 a N fV r %
N
M
Q N
O W)
vi O
M O
CR O
r' O p
V) to
O N O V
N O
Ct N
O h O
O O N O r r

ry

Q
N

C
u)

C7

CD

o M
O
O

e= to
O
p
to

O
0
O
st

N o

to
00

C

M

N
c O O N 0 O ^ e-

r
N
O
to
M
O
O
O
r
O
p
to
O
NO
O
00 0
V)
co
O
m
d;
r i M O O N O N O
r N r
L
w
N
l11
t
N
c
d c ..

G C:
L V d
CL
m O
E U ?o w

I-
O to C_ O
M

t O
co
C
> f/1 L ?
v
_
O

L N
t C
_O
4) CU

L >
> > , o
_
V) O N LL J
t L

O ?
C
-
N
v `
? v
v

Z

a?

m
c

w t .?
V ? N ? w
Cl.
w O j C
O Cn C
'
0 C
U 'O
CL (M
u. y.m?U
-0)-5 •V O
J O C C
3

0 (
9
C C C
cu
JlL
UMUm a
s
c
O
w
L
C
d
V
c
O
U
O
H
L
d
O)
R
J
C
R
m
V
H
-0 N N M

N
W
r ,
to ?--
4 to
d ?
C
c'a o a N
R
? t
U
m
O l0 o O
i to N
r
Q V to 0
N
x
M
O
C
U
O
Q. _
rn rn
y to
m m
Q a
m m
0 0 0
c c v
O O N
2 2 rn
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Monroe BP-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 : 24Sep02 0943 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
Subbasin-4
Junction-2
Reach-2
' Subbasin-6
Subbasin-5
Junction-3

5783.8 24 Sep 02 0115 1764.6 6.300
3320.2 24 Sep 02 0115 990.23 4.000
9104.0 24 Sep 02 0115 2754.9 10.300
9043.0 24 Sep 02 0130 2730.1 10.300
4771.4 24 Sep 02 0100 1157.0 4.500
4658.5 24 Sep 02 0130 1454.3 6.000
17630 24 Sep 02 0115 5341.4 20.800
17494 24 Sep 02 0115 5334.5 20.800
1257.9 24 Sep 02 0045 278.82 1.300
7968.7 24 Sep 02 0115 2231.0 9.900
26471 24 Sep 02 0115 7844.3 32.000

W
"O
O
L
U
v
0
a
a
0
0
a
x
U
W
x
N
C
.N
co
m
U)
N
C
O
U
G_ _

.N
C
Q
V
'm r
0 ?
2
= U
? Q
V
N
CL uj
(n I
N =
Q
>% co
m ,a
d
O ,Y
c O
O
O
2 U
cv

., a
a 1A
v O N N N ca

CL
Q
E
d

0
V o ~ O v
.
E oo i. r- r-_
O
V
v

> to o o to
= - N M r
75
V

?
.
. O O O O
IA N N ch V

d a
cm
m
c
m
C 3 O O o o
a.
-
d

o
? m N O O O
C ?

J C

C1 0 o 0 o
N r
U)
d

N
L1 O O O O
O N (M N Cl)
LL

d

?- o O
C a- 04 ? ? GO

' U)
O
0
0
c
Q Q Q

a

U 0 0 t* ? d' N
ti ti 0 0 ti 0
d
Q.
F" t0 _

O

U N C
cc,
y
7 N
>
LL n. U

N
X
O
C
ui
U O
ca m
0. CL
m
co
0 0 0
O O N
2 2 rn

N
A C
K ?
A
N

et
Q
d
C
cC9
Crl
ao
0
et
r
O
p
1t7
O
?
0
co 0
N
M
N
Af
r
M O O N O D N M
co

M
Q
X
O
0
CrJ
0
0
IV
?-
O

co,

O
D
O
M
7 0
N
N
e-
M
CJ?
M O O 0 O C C
m
M
Cy
Q v:
O u
M a v
i- O p 1n
O CN O M 0 gn
- e-
M O O N 0 O M O e C7 N

Q
N
O
cif
M
0
O
co
O
O
p
to
O
D
O
M O
0
N

N
to
M O O N O D M N r r
Cl)
r t ,?

N 3 .2 C
C

yy„
d v
C w <O
L v
w ? V
v
Z
O

c o
o
c .•
i
^
G)
?' _
t0
L
d y c
f
r c?v?? C j (?
O
v a a?
' O
> N L
cm CU +
C
Fn .2 a C 41

E
1 0
0 _=
o C
° w
a O O d N L
U m U
U
m C
o ~
rn

r- o
LL C N aa) U

3 C;)

2 H
.
??
O
d C y U

., o

J
C9 J O J =
C L O
4) CO
O C
>
M -0
C 0 C C
C CD
S M cc C d

E
y
_
r
O N LL J Cn J LL U 2 U Z >1
J ?-- Co
R It Go M
R CV CV vi
r
W LO r
O LO
?r
C O Ul) O
m e- ? N
V
d
Cf O O
N
r
C LO
i Q V O
N
X
c
X
W
2
'D
CL 2
N N
cn en
m co
a a
mm
0 0 0
c a M
O O N
2 2 rn

HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Monroe Run Name : Run 3
Start of Run : 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model : Crooked - Exist.
End of Run : 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Crooked
' Execution Time : 23Sep02 0810 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
Junction-1 5152.4
18889 24
24 Sep 02
Sep 02 0200
0200 1807.6
6717.4 10.000
33.700
Reach-3 18883 24 Sep 02 0200 6700.7 33.700
' Subbasin-4
Junction-2 3947.8
22831 24
24 Sep 02
Sep 02 0200
0200 1389.9
8090
6 8.000
41
700
. .

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N o
.y •L
A ?
C
C v
Q cn
V O
O O
0
? U
'Q
V O
a
0 o
a o.
N C
C.
>% 00
m ?
O ,Y
O O
O LO
? U
R
L
? Q

O O
i M ?} O M
CO CO N N

a
m
Q.
E
m
N
Q
V CD N co rn
. co co r r.
O
U

.a:
R
>
w O O O O

U

y 0 0 0 0
0 a
.
a?

C
m
L N ° N O to
d ? C
D
a =
d -

o
O N LO 0

C
IC
J ?

m Lo to o In
Cn O r
N
m

N
L In to to In
c
U.
m
d
a`
° °
N
rT .N-- Cn
• y
L
0
0
C
Q ¢ Q Q

.n

U
U o rn v ?
co
r r rn rn I- co
d
Q

d = co m
O

U
Coo

N

w
ti
t,
N
O
co
c
O
U
U
4)
a =
N N
co m
a a-
>1 >,
co co
0 0 0
c c v
O O N
2 rn

H
1 H
t0
1 L
? L
1 ?
?I cn

t}
Q
N
O
Lo
C7
0 1n
0
co
O L
O O
p
to
O
D N
O
CO
N O
N
M
t0
tD
-
M O C N Co 0 r r N %
M

rf
Q
N
O
O
M
p
M
O
00
O
O
p
UY
O
N
0
O
M
M O
LO
N
LA
N
L<f
O O N O r i-
co
N N Lo 0 O
O a0 O p to NO O M OO ttf ap ??
Q O M M O O
O Lo
N O
0
0 fM r N r

r

Q r

O

M 0

r 00 Lo

O Co CD L

O Q O co
O
N
N
N
M
? O C N 0 O CM N r r
M
L
d
d
L
N
L
w v
c ?.
y d
E C
C
N L
a ?o
d
E O __
U co
_
~
(D c_ o
a) Cl)
> L c R' y

i ?

1- ?. 7 O U)
O = w
LL N O
c
(n
L
rr
d m
J
co
O
w > >. 0C
oCN6:J

O C
!0 =
?
L
O
?.
Z
N
a?

d
c

?+ O O N C
r f!1 c
N
s
V
a rn
O C y CO
V
O
cm •
fn _I c f0
C c `
3
m O -
R
L O L m
>. N
J LL. V m U Z J
L
L
c
w
L
C
d
U
C
O
V
4--
0
E
H
L
L
ai
H
vs
J
C
.N
t0
m
U
N
00 O d 00 M
- N N CO)

1 Lo r-
W ?t Lo
? L
C O O O
m ?- s- N
V
0)
O O O
c L U) N
` Q V O
X
O
c
m
U
(D) 2
CL Z
N N
N fn
co m
a o_
T T
co co
a) 0 04
O 20
c c Iq
O O N
2 2 rn

'
' HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Scenariol Run Name : Run 1
Start of Run : 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model : Crooked
End of Run : 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Crooked
Execution Time : 24Sep02 1157 Control Specs : Monroe

- P1
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
Junction-2 5443.5
31192 24 Sep
24 Sep 02
02 0130
0130 1749.0
10000 8.000
41.700

't

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
.N
R
Q
R
V
O
O
L
2
V
W
.0
CL
N
N
R
CL
m
d
0
O
m
I
I
?a
L

O O CD O M
C LO Cn M N co

a
a
E
m
N
Q Z co r? T cn
EU 00 co co a
0
U

m

_> 0 0 0 0

U
L

? O O O O

d a

?a
c
m
Ln
0
(V =
? CD O
a
L =
d

0 C
v 0 0
0
U-)
c
?a
J ?
C
d o O O Lo
N N r-- I`
N
41

N
L O O O
U-)
O T T T
LL
R
D
Q
T O O N

0

C
Q a

U 0
f? 0
i?
O T
CA 'T
f? N
00
d
Q

C
CC1
N
ju

C
w
w

LL CL)
X
? v
=
a
U
o,
H
X
N
O
ca
c
N
U
m?
a.
y y
as
mm
0 O o
LC c v
O O N
22 o)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

N
C
H
R
.G

N
to
O to
O
co to
O p
p
to
C N
O
co O
N
M
O
t0
Q O M M C O O N O C O N r r N r
M

M
N
to
O
O
o0
O
p
to
D
O
M O
N
N
to
Q O cn M O O O N O 0 O t'7 r r N r
CO

N
N
to
O
O
co
O
p
to
NO
O
M O
pO
to
W
n
Q C C") M o O O N ci t7 O M O r CV r

r
r
to
O
O
to
to
p
p
LO
D
O
M 0
0
N
N
M
Q O M M
O O
O to
N O
O
O CM
M I
r N r

L
d
d
L

N C w
N C v
0-
E
N L
IL cc
tv
E O - ^
U ? w
F=
o . .
d N °
tC

m d O
M
L c?va
> N L
O !n
~ 3 = rn a

LL. C N C O
fn
L J
d N
0
> O
L
rnONU_J
L L

3 is
d
O C

is
L
'? R
L
tU
w O w+
Z
(D
O

C
C C i
=
a
.
L aci ai ? `
V '
•• o vi c
L f!) C
°
r a s
o U a) t
CL CF) U- cn co
- U O
fn J C C C L

0 C C C ti.
Co
I-L U 2 U Z
L
L
O
w
R
c
N
c
O
U
O

L
d
H
O
R
J
C
•N
R
m
N
= 7 vco M
?" ? N N M
L
to r
W d ? IT
O L
?p
C
N C? OtoO
L - r r N
O
c U
o
O ro
C
N
O
O
L.. L Q yU.) O
r
C
O ?
(D
N
w
L
2
co
O
tv
N
N
7

.U
7
m
'O
T
ro
f-
O
O
Z
to
X
N
O
c
N
U
U)
CL =
N N
N N
f0 t0
a o.
T T
mm
tv tv N
O O O
? L .
C C ?f
O O N
2 2

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 : 24Sep02 1325 Control Specs : Monroe
Hydrologic
Element Discharge
Peak
(cfs) Time of
Peak Volume
(ac
ft) Drainage
Area
(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

1
1

T
N
2,
m
C
Q
R
V
0
L
U
d
.0
CL
N
N
a
m
d
0
C
0
t?
M
0
z
0
L
R
C
d
U
I
U
R
L
,. a

-
2 u
) to c) M
0 r
a
CL
E
d
N
co Z co I-- N r-
E ao co co co
O
U
.o
d
R
0 0 0 0

U

3
N o 0 0 0

d a
a?
R
c

V N to to O
d O 0 t1) r
a =
L _

o C
U

. .0 o

?- LO

r

r
LO

r
LO
a
C L
R
J
C
m O LO O LO
O N N 1? I?

41

N
V to to to to
o
U.
R

? ? .- CO O p N
R er p
cf)

L

C
_
Q
Q
Q R
m

3

ti ti 0 0 ? o
d
a

o y
U N ' l
,
p
U. ? d c
a
0- 7
1 ,
N
X
M
O
ca
C
tU
U
N
a
N N
Q. O_
m m
O 0-0
C C ?
O O N
2 2 rn

N
C
N
ttl
L
.G
7
N

N to O

O

p
O tl0 O

p p to N

O O
co 0
O
N
M
to
to
Q O M M O O O N O O W N r r N r
M
M N to O Go O p to O M ON N to N
Q O th M CD O O N O O O C7 r r N r
Cl)
ty N LO O O

O Go
U)
O
O p Lq N
CN
O
M O
p
to
00

1-
c; c7 M
O O
O LO
N O
0 p
0 M
0 e- N r
d
r r to O O to c p LO N O M O
O
N
N
t7
Q C cM M O O O N O D O C') N r N r
M
L
d
d
L
lA
v
` v w
? C
o
+
(D
C n-
C
) wL
u O.
d ?
p
tY
E i
a
O .
U m
p

O
rn c o
'n
.O M
O

y
3

L
L
C
?
v
>

i
N L
_ v

F- .+

O O U)

=
WO
Q
? O
C
N
O
L J
c
a+ t
o
t
? > ?. O
0C Um -j
z t
O d
C
C

?
w O w
Z
Q?
a?

Z v
E c 55

CL -
r+ j C
C
L
a p V m L
?U
u
?
O

tll . ?co
-0

_
01 - O
fn J C O
C C O
C C C
O)
U
iE: ?U=?
r
C
0
L
C
d
V
C
0
U
4-
0
E
H
L
d
F..
0
t6
J
C
R
m
tOp O co M
NNcli
L
?' In r
O L
ca otoo
_ > r r N
V
W
O O O
r
C i v N
Q ? O
U)
X
M
O
m
c
to
U
N O
CL =
N N
N m
a a
>% >1
C13 co
0 0 0
c c v
O O N
2 2 rn
' 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 : 24Sep02 1426 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
W
v
O
O
C7
O
d
C
rO
!-r
O
L
a
x
U
W
x
N
M ?
C
?
C ?

?
j

i
fA
.y
C
Q
V
O
O O
L +? 'G
= O
.a+
L y
O. .X
y W
CL
U)
m R
O m
d
O
O O
m 0

„a

L O N
r
a m
Q
E
m
N
o. Z
U Lo U-) co
E
O
U

d
i° O M to
r r M
3
U

O U-) U-)
N N ? N
N !0
a) a
cm
m
c

m a 0 0

a
L _
d

o
U
.0 Ln C) 0
L
C D

J ?
C
d O O O
.
N
d

N
` O O O
O to In co
U.

V
Q
co to o M
Q' ti r- CO N
c N

0
2
C
0
m
< co
<

a 0
.a
7
N
Z
U O
? O
? d'
? ?
rn ?'
ti N
?
d
Q
F- a
• _
L C .O ?
0
U N
O` ;o
d c v>
'
O
LL.
0? D
C Co
CL =3
U

N
X
O)
C
A
X
W
W
ai
U) N
a o.
m
co
0 0 0
C C M
O O N
2 2 rn
i
C H
C
N Yl
K ?
u?
co
V)
Q --t
O Lo
Crl p
ca')
??
p
0 O
0

O N
O N
p
O O

t"
N
O
r
N
N
p N O p N M
I
r
,It

O to

th 0

M LO

r LO O W)

O 0 0C%j
00
N
0
CA
O
IV
to
o p N O D N
r N r
r
Q et
O O
CM
M O et
r o p to
O D O 00
V U.) CO
O to to
p p N O O C M
e- N r
t t t
O d
d C
° Z ? Cti
w C L .=
' N ?
n. to " O w
E ?? .. z
a 3 m

E O

U m

c
°
d N C 00
m
d
^
N
L
Z O
M
Z C Q' V?
N L
C v
N
U a O
> L ?.
•• ? o ? d
c
cn '? _O j C
c
3 0 ? 'v C y
E
~ °=? ° c
a o ~
? cm a V am hm
CL C N O 3 0 d CA - _V O
C w
++ Co _l
°`

ai m 3 O J
p

3 C .
C 7
C C C L L r
O
O

°
c
_ > >+ O
C/) O N u
J c
co es c
C
2
J N
. U.. V=
01 H m
to
'LO ego
W N 't
IT co M
CV CV cli
to r
m t
C
C O LO O
M ?- r N
V
d
ZT W O O
N
r
= i O
` Q V O
Q r
y
X
CT
c
X
., W
CL 2
N N
N CA
co co
a a
m
co
0 0 Q
C C Cl)
O O N
2 2 rn
HMS * Summary of Results
' Project Monroe Run Name Run 4
' Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model : Goose - Exist.
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Goose
' Execution Time 23Sep02 0817 Control Specs : Monroe

Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Qunnasin-t
Reach-1
' Subbasin-2
Junction-1
Reach-2
' Subbasin-3
Junction-2

tzots.5 24 Sep 02 0130 1386.7 7.300
4531.8 24 Sep 02 0145 1362.1 7.300
4730.5 24 Sep 02 0130 1433.3 7.600
9126.7 24 Sep 02 0130 2795.3 14.900
9065.6 24 Sep 02 0145 2752.0 14.900
5671.1 24 Sep 02 0115 1471.4 8.000
13629 24 Sep 02 0130 4223.4 22.900
N
N`
_^
C
Q
V
O
O
L
V
w
v
d
.O
a
N
N
R
M
m
O
O
L
C
O
r
O
Z
O
.L
O
O
U
d
N
O
Q
O
L
CL
m 01
m
L
r.. Q
N

i C o e- r. o
CV C'7 N Co
CC•
a 0
Q.
E

.y
Q V F- 00 co
E
0
U
.0
ar

>_ a o 0

V
L

H O O
N !C
0 a

c
m L.

a. ?

d

o C
U o U") O
L r r r
C ?
f?
J ?
C
4) O U•) LO
Lo r-
N
d

N
L c o o
G Ch CV r-
LL.
R
m
Q
4) Ch CO O C'7
I` t--: Cn CV
C (n
?s

0
c
Q Q 0

.Q
7
N
Z o rn ? •- v N
U ? r. rn rn ti ao
m
n.
1--
N

d C u

0
U H C
to
y
u0,. ? ? 5 n?. U

N
X
,o
m
C
O
U
N
a =
mm
o. a
co co
O 00
L- C C ?
O O =
m 2 rn

N
C
H
t0
L
L
3
N
I
M N tt7 O O co O to 0 p Iq N O co tto cm to 0
Q O m M o O o N O D O CV C r O
M
N N to D O ap O p to D O CO M Li CO r
Q O M M O O O N O C CV Cj O r r

r
N
O
O
O
CO
O
O
p
tC!
N
0
O
CO 0
tC)
~
ip
Of
?-
Q O M M q
O C;
O tip
N O
0 0
0 N O r r
L
d
CD
L
v
L F ?.
.
(D
C
y CL
E N L
•. U 0.
a ?o
0

~ rn c_ o

.O
CC M
CC

y r=
L y
C
> N t ..
mo'

F- ..
o
30 t rno

LL C N ? O
L
U)
J
d >
3
0 cco
?,
Cn O N LL J
L L
r:
O
C
C
?
L ? L
v CC

Z
CU
O
Cl)

w U
v r+ 0 N C)
c
U5 .2 c
ca
w 0
o U ? cts ?
a0)
O
C LL rnco

U
0
_
O
O) -
? J C C C O .c
Co
0
0 c c c
` rn
Co r
5
JLL -
,
v2U2J
c
O
C
m
U
c
O
V
V-
O
F
L
d
F=
O
td
J
C
.y
lC
v
7 3
M m
L
U) CL
l1J G
",! CO M
N CV CO
U')
l4t to
d
? C w
O r N
p m
c
o
O
C
N
LO
w .? Q V O
C
O 0
O
O
N
iv
N
C9
O
H
3
y
Vf

v
co

U
7
a?
f-'
CU
O
Z
M
X
O
cu
C
N
U
N
n. _
ai N
m M
CL a
>1 >1
mm
O O O
C C 't
O O N
2 2 0)
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 24Sep02 1500 Control Specs Monroe
'

' Hydrologic
Element Discharge
Peak
(cfs)• Time of
Peak Volume
(ac
ft) Drainage
Area
(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

1

N
O
d1 Z
N O
TL
a
N
U ?
•0 O
o
>+ O
= U
t V
V ?
N
•0 Q
CL
U) a
•tC
co
m
O N
O O
E CD

„a
c
a
i cn cn t? ti
d N M N

a d
M
E
d
N
C) (Z) ti 000 0O0
E
0
U

m

0 0 0

U
i

H 0 0

N IC
d a.
tm
R
c
m w
L LO

a
L
d
0

0 _
U a 0 0
L ?-- N •-
C ?
R3
J C

d to Lo Lo
LO ti
N
d

a.
N
L U') Lf) O
0 N °- ?-
a
cti
L

M CO O Cl)
{p rT r-: ti O N

O
0
c
? Q Q Q

0

U
Z o
ti rn
? v
0 .-
0 .r
ti N
0
d
Q

L c
O (O
" Q?
>
o
U
C
O
y

rn cc
O
L1- 4)
w In a
S CL lo
/ ,
y
X
N
O
c
O
u
cu cu
>1 >1
co co
0 0 0
c c v
O O N
2 2

N
C
N
{0
a
a
N
I
M
Q N
O
co Cj
M O 00
O 0 C, to
O p 0 m
V ?to N
O of
r 0
O
O C N O O C M

?Y
N
c4?
0 UA
00 In O
O
04 N
O
00 O
CD
tl'!
00
Q O M M o O O N O O N 04 O r r
Q O to 00

M 0 00

O O

Lb to NO 0 co

N to
t0
O
Cn
r
r
0 c 0 O M
r r
L
d
L
N

w C ?•
y .: Q.
? m s
a FEo
y
E 0--

U r
cn c)

0)
L C ?'
V Z:,
> N L v
F- O m
L N O
L
?
(/)
,J
w f9
d >
0
>
.C
O N
O N LL J
s
O 0)
C
C
R
L
v ^

r W
0)
? O w'
Z

0)

d
C C i
w
D
_
i m
w
w L
a
V
w O C
w
cn O U C
3
O v
o m
L
w
a: y
a0)
O C m
U
O
Od
C
J C C o r
3
r
m C ccv -0 C
JLL. O V 2UZJ
L
C
O
w
i
C
OJ
c
O
V
4-
O
E
H
L
01
P
O
c0
J
C
.N
R
m

N
R 7 It 00 M
? ? N N M

'r
(n CL to e-
UJJ 4 ui
m
9
0 :6 0 LO N
0
' R
O1
c U
0
m
_

L N
? L Q V ? C)
C
O
0)
N
t9
L
d
cm
O
N
N
N
c0

v
7
A
2
0)
F'-
0)
O
Z
y
X
N
O
C
0)
U
,? fn
au) 2
CL _
(n cn
m to
O. a
>1 >1
m m
0 0 0
C c v
O O N
2 2 rn
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 : 24Sep02 1516 Control Specs : Monroe

Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1
' Reach-1
Subbasin-2
Junction-1
' Reach-2
Subbasin-3
Junction-2

6499.4 24 Sep 02 0100 1630.7 7.300
6475.2 24 Sep 02 0115 1608.0 7.300
7300.8 24 Sep 02 0100 1848.3 7.600
13377 24 Sep 02 0115 3456.3 14.900
13279 24 Sep 02 0115 3414.1 14.900
8321.2 24 Sep 02 0045 1836.4 8.000
19908 24 Sep 02 0115 5250.4 22.900

cr
C
N 2
? C
T
? R
= L
Q G
C
? V.
v
B L
O C
O
>+ C
? Z
V G
d u
O. i
U) a
L
m •R
d ?
c c
O C
m c!

L
„a
d
7

C
o co CD M
t ?- N N

a
Q.
E
d
N
L V f- co r--
0

U
V

ro
> 0 0 0

U

a ° 0 0

d a.
as
c
m w
m U ° to

a ?
?
m c
'-

0 c

C ?
ca
J ?
C
d o to to
v_ co l.
N
d

N
` o Cn to
O M r
U.
R
G1
a
Ch Cfl O M
N I` r` C6 N
c U)

C
a k a

u)
Z o 0) 'It 4
? ti ? D7 ti ?
d
a

O c f0
'? N

O N c

N
cn ca
U uo .0 D m 75
I ,
N
X
M
O
cu
C
O
U
CD "
a =
CL m
m m
0 0 0
c c v
O O N
2 2 rn

N
C
N
R
a
a
N
I
M N U) 0 O ao O p tc? N O CO to cm of Of
Q O M M O O C N O 0 O N M O O

N
Q N
O to
M Q O 00
O O p to
O O OO
N to
O 00
M O O N O O N
r r r

r
Q
N
O
LO
CM
C)
00
00
O
O
p
t0
O
D 04
O
co
N O
<D
O
C
r
M O O N D O
•- r r
N C
d c
a

0

d ++ N C O
(n CD
L

> C V
N L L ..
3
"=

i- ..
fn
0
O =
.2 'a
N O
U a
fn
•+ m _I
0
c
t >
NONU.J
L L L

?
L O
w
., z
a?
O (n
? m
c

C

d

v

O
M Oa
C
Fn '
C
'a m
0
'
0 0 CU L
0U
Q)
U 0- 0)
0 c LL U)
o) N U O
Z
O U) J
C c j =
c m
C c c 1 O
-
c
c 0 M
0
R
c
V1 J LL. V rL U = J
c
0
C
m
U
C
O
U
O
d
E
F-
L
d
a)
R
J
C
.N
O
m
v
N
R V O M
N N M
L
y Q. ? )1') r
w a v LO
Z
C rL.
r- 'o ? ?
N
p -
R
L ? •.
O
C V .
O
'O
C
LO N
N
w
` Q V
? O
C
O 0
O
y
f0
.O

N
m

N
N

m

U

FL-

O
z
+
U)
X
M
O
M
c'
U
(n
N
CL Z
N N
CL a
>1 >1
mm
0 0 0
c c v
0 O N
2 2 rn
HMS * Summary of Results

Project s Scenario3 Run Name : Run 5
l
Start of Run 23Sep02 1200 : Goose - P3
Basin Mode
End of Run 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Goose
' Execution Time 24Sep02 1528 Control Specs : Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-1
' Reach-1
Subbasin-2
Junction-1
' Reach-2
Subbasin-3
Junction-2

6111.4 24 Sep 02 0100 1523.2 7.300
6037.3 24 Sep 02 0115 1500.0 7.300
6969.3 24 Sep 02 0100 1755.5 7.600
12641 24 Sep 02 0115 3255.5 14.900
12503 24 Sep 02 0115 3210.2 14.900
8072.9 24 Sep 02 0045 1774.8 8.000
18957 24 Sep 02 0115 4984.9 22.900

W
x
u
A
v
a?
w
0
u
a
9,
x
U
W
x

c
,N
co
.O
a

ch N
C C
•N O
? C
7 ?

C
Q
R
V
O
O
L
A
r.+
V
G1
.O
a
N
N
m
Q
m
Q?
0
O
m
I
?a

., a
0
U
o
co
o
LO v,
L c
a d
C.
E

N
CL V ch .- v

O
U

m
> in t o
75
U

3
N Lo cv) N

? a

c ??
m
co O N
a
L
d

O
U a N O M

C L
?
cv
J C

N LO

Yl
d

H
` lO O O
O r-- co co
a

d
Q
d ? d: ?t O
C cr N C6 Ln r

O
0
C
Q Q O

.c

U
Z O O v. "T N
U t` ? rn rn ti co
d
0.

L C fC ?
>
O y

N
C
c w

N

w fB

'

LL 0f Z) 5 a U
1 ,
N
X
O)
C
X
W
N
CL =
N N
ca ca
CL CL
>, A
co co
0 0 0
c c co
O O N
2 O

N
C
A H
l0
u?
N
M

Q

O

M O of

e? O p 40

O ? O co
?
Qf
O
ap
(.?
M O a N O O N ? N e
N

ry
-,t
LO
O
O
?t
=
O
p
li9
N
0
O
CO O
LO
w
Lo
Ln
Q O M N O e O N O O CV j C N
r

Q 7

O to

M 00 O

C' -V

r to
O
O p

LO Ln

O
NO
O
tt
V

to-

01
O
CO
N
1?
m
O
p
N
O
O C
o0 r
S
w
d
d
r

L v ++
m a
? a s

IL ?o
O

~ N C O
47 N .O M

L
F- •F+ 7 O (!1
o = w
O
L N
_
L
(n
w t0 L J
O
_ >
T
co
ONm_1
r .C
3
O -
C

r
^
? C
!d
r
y
O
z
O
O

d
C

V -

cn w 0 ? C
? a m
3
0
O.O

O LL N co
w
Of - U O
J C C = t00 w
a O
0
N m
r O r T 4)
emu. U?U= -i
r
c
0
.L., r
tU d
= F=
O O
V ?
O =
d
E N
R
I- co
H
{Op Itt co C)
N CV ri
r
H Q?t=?
W ' d d to
C
O
w
t0 C 't7 oo to N
z
3
c
c
0

o
m

N
(1)
•L c
L
L Q
v
C
O ?
O
N
N

co
QD

fA
M
fC
w
U

T
O
H
N
O
z
X
W
U
O
CL x
vi N
m m
a O.
T T
m co
a) a) CNI
O 2-0
C C Cl)
O O N
2 2 rn

HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Monroe Run Name : Run 5
Start of Run : 23Sep02 1200 Basin Model : Duck - Exist.
End of Run : 24Sep02 1200 Met. Model : Duck
Execution Time : 23Sep02 0818 Control Specs : Monroe
Hydrologic
Element Discharge
Peak
(cfs) Time of
Peak Volume
(ac
ft) Drainage
Area
(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

Ir-
.N
N Z
>+ O
Q =
_ d
? V
V N
O ?
= o
U
m ?
O N
L O
CL a
O
L
N a.
o.
A ?
co y
d m
o °a c Y
O U
:3
E 0

„a

O O co co M
d N N M c"1

CL
E
a?
to
O Z
V O
CO O
co N
co
L
O
U
.Q
d
R
>_ O O O

U
L

7
N O O O

a s
ai
R
c
m
7 O O O
0
a
-
d

o c
U LO LO LO

c M
R
J ?
C
d LO ul) LO
r, ? ca
N
d

N
d
L O o o

0 ` r
LL
R
L
Q
CD "T :r o
r
{? a- N M L
.c ?
L

0
C
? a ? a o

U O o d v N

d
Q.

f0 O
O y v
_ c y
> >
U o ai
? a U
i,
N
X
O
co
c
(D
U
U)
U
O
CL 2
N N
0. o..
mm
0 0 0
c c Nr
O O N
:2 2

H
t
M
Ca
d
L
7
N
I

M
N

O
1n

e7
00 LO
O
O
o0

O to
O

O
p

O
C
O
co to
Of
N
M
M O p N O ci N O N r

cy

Q
N

O
to

ri
Cl t1)
O

O
co

O to
O

O p

p
10

O
N N

O

co

V O
LO

0

O

?

-
M O p N 0 O C C,j
r r r
r
Q N
O tC )
CM 00 0 co
O 0 p 10
O O ?Y
V C71
O N M
M Cl p N O O C N r
L L ,_
a p to
i
,= 3 c

.-. v 0 .?
-. to
L
L
d v
C
L to
. r
O U

?_ N
.. O
z
a 3 N
a ) O

U
cam- _
c

~ m N c o_
d
O .. _ ? c 'y ?
?'
O
M w
L v w S-' -
V N
'
V- O C L
= L
N
?' °
?? +
cL
3 °
°
t= o
fl c
0 -0 c
as
o c
o
.
C N V .rn
° N LL
cn co
d En _ V O
R
LL
w Ca J N 3
O J C a t O
a°i a? (D 3 c c 3 c cco v m °' S
? O N LL J ?
cc
i
5,
U 2 U= J

1-
m
to
N
(3p 3 It co M
N N M
L
"' to r
W `r V to
N
L
c 'O O LO N
L
V
tv
R t9 O N
t
L Q V O
O ?
X
0
cu
c
N
U
.? fn
'EF 31,
a. 2
W ti
h N
m co
a o.
>1 --%
CIO co
0 0 0
c c v
O O N
2 2 rn
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 : 24Sep02 1546 Control Specs : Monroe
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
buDDasin-1
' Subbasin-2
Junction-1
Reach-1
' Subbasin-3
Junction-2
1
t

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
4251.1 24 Sep 02 0115 1200.3 5.000
9189.0 24 Sep 02 0115 2509.6 10.800

N Z
O
a
? U
V ?
O G.
0
= O
U
O N
L
a o
L
N a
CL
m R
O m
O
Y
O
E
R
L

0 O co O 0
- N N N M

a
CL
E
m
N
co z o
co O
co O
ao
E U
O
U

E'
R
>_ 0 0 0

U

V1 O O O
#A m
0 a.
a?
R
C ca
d r

L
d
O C
U m LO in o
L r r r-
c ?
R
J ?

4) LO LO LO
2 t? ti cD
N
d

a.
N
` O O Lo
O
U.
?a
m
L
Q '
O t
M N M LO

0
O_
c
U)
R
Q co
Q 2.
O

U
Z O Q » rt N
U ? ti rn o ti o
m
Q.

L
C
C N C N
7 >
U ti X ? S d U

N
0
co
c
O
U
U)
IL =
co m
>>
LM co
CD a)
`c c v
O O N
2 2 ,

C

C

u
H
n

0

.y
C
V
0
a+
V
.O
CL
N
N
O
Q
A
m
d
0
C
O
2
O
z
1
1

•+ a
C N
i Q N ?- e- N M N `? CM
d
CL
a
E
m
N
0Z
v CO
ti CO
ti CO
ti O
? M
ti N
o rn
ti ti
ti
E
0
U

0 o o O 0 LO 0 o

3
V
L
O O O O O O O O
y co M M CO ?- M Ict

I a

19 -
c
a
L
0 0 0 O O N O
0 N
a.
L
d C.
0
O
r-
.G O O O O O LD O
l
l
c
m
J ?

0 0 0 0 O O N O to
D
fA

d O 0 0 1A 0 0 0 0
M N N M (O N N •-
LL
m
L
Q
0 00 M ?- r OD O (D N
M r, o0 0o O 6 M 6 v O

L

c
Q a ? a a a a a a

.Q

I -A
O O ? ?- v N
U ti ti O O ti O
d
CL

L
0)

y
a
N M N y .?. c

u m
N
p
u. L O a U
y
X
O
cu
C
U
(OD 2
CL. S
n Q.
mm
0 0 0
0 0
2 2 O

tl
L
0
S
1
co
BI

ao
O
O
O
O
p
p
0
V LO
M
N
1
Q O M M O N O O O N to
r
N
r
N

ti
Cq

Iq
O O
O
O
p
NO
O
V O
M

r
co

ti
Q O M O O
O N O O O N I` N
O N

w to O O O O
C p Ln N
C! O
0
d O
N
N
Q O M M O ?
O N O O N co N r
O N
tCf
Q
O io
M 0 0 d:
r O
O p
O O
O M
M tpo
'
~ r
O
N N
r
m G N O '
c
O O O et O p uY 1 04
O
O
M
N
I C',
N

M
1-:
Cfs
Q O M M O
p to
N p O
C5 CM r r
C> M
t

I M

V

Lo

0
to

O

p

Ln

NN

0
1

cn
CDI
a

0

0

ti
Q O M O p 0
O 0
N C6 O ?
O 6 O O N
O N

N
?n
o
o
V
o
p
p

ul

0

o

ao 0

op

o
M

ao
S
Q O M M C? O N O O O N LO e
N
d to O O et O p w NO O
O CO N N r
M Of
r
Q O M O O
O r O
O to
N O O O N r
N
S:
d
C)
S:

h ? w
L
w C ?
N
L
V p.
IL ?o
y o .
U io
E
F- d m Ce)
s
? ?
d c
N L ti ..

t- =3 o

O z -5
3 w
a
O 'O N C O
W C L J
d N N ? 'D
t > ?? O
Fn, O N LL J
.C ?

O C
=
Ta m
r
3k
C)
w O w
Z
C)
C)
U)
d
C c
V N d w
a
o c
••
_
U) EF=
00 U) %5 N
aim 0A "a CU U
am

O C
y
?- CO
d O) - O
fn J = C C 7 L

o r a C N p)
ra c m o c
-1 E L) 2
0
? L
L `C
V
C F-
o
U cp
O
C) ?
1"' m
V N
R CO M
N N Cr)
w Q. co r
W d .4 Sri
ds
;s c ..
04
tT V
C
O

w

C i
O
O ?- N
1? GQ V O
C
O
,D
C)
y
co
L
N
m
O
N
7
M
to
7
m

U

2
a?
r

O
Z
N
X
O
c
U
.. Cl)
N
0- 2
o. o.
>1 >1
co co
0 CD 04
`c `c
2 ? o

L

L

n
0

N
.N
C
R
V
O
2
a+
AV
W
.O
CL
N
N
ca
M
A
m
d
O
C
O
2
Rq
.y
R
m
C
O
N
T
cc
R
L
?+ Q

N
i 00 0 a)

~ M

`- ?

r
2 M co N N r N
y
a
a
E

.y
aZ M N O O ~ O O
V co co co F- Imo. ti ti
O
V
'O
r
> O O O O U') O (n
r N N M
7
V
L
N O O O
CO N Cr)

0 CL

(a
c
? L
L y (n 0 0 to O O
CD M r r ?-
a
L
m _
>

O _
U Q N O O O O O
'
O ?
C
N
J ?
d
o o m m o O u-)
2 d (D O tt r M
y
d

N
` to O ? ? O O O
O r r r r N N M
LL
R
L
Q
d 2 N N c? N 0 ti p
?
Q O
N r
r N tY'
r ti
N C
e-
co
L
O

C
Q Q Q Q Q Q

.n

co
Z O rn ?t r ?t N
() ti ti O O ? O
d
a

I
'O -
)
T
2
L
0- ? ? S a a U
N
X
O
co
C
N
U
+. Cl)
U
(L _
m ca
m
co
0 0 0
0 0-
0
22 ,

C
R
s
s
v

t?
v
O
O
ao
O
p
Iq
0
0
* 0
t0
tt)
ti
Q O c7 M O O N O S O , co O N
r

to
.t
to
O
O
O
tq
O
p
0
0
M O
0
r
tty
Q O M p
j 0 r O N O O O M r et N

LO
LO
tf)
O
O
N
O o
C> p
to
D
O
Co O
r
to
an
to
Q 0 of M O V. oo N O O O CV C tV r
r
LO O O N O p
LO
0
O
CO O
ti

d

1A
Q Q M M
O r O
O N O O O N p-
? O CV r

ty
N
LC)
O
O
O
O
p
tC)
0
O
Ch 0

Lf)
r
tG
to

-
Q O Ch M O r O N O 0 O M O r N ?
N

N
to
a
o
p
ti
O
p
tf)
0
0
M 0
0
O
N
M
?
a 0 Crj O C; O N p 0 O trj r 04 e
N

Ln!
U.)
0
0
1-
O
C)
in
N
O
M O
O
ti
O
ti
Q Ch c) G O O N C O D M to r N e'

t
m
m
s

d - 0..
N
s
U ?
Cy ?
O
.
? a
i
o
LY y
s
y a
c `.
L F+ o cn
3 w 0)

O
U. a
0 N C O
J CO
O
d '
N 0 C
=
U) >
O N LL J

3 m
O c
? ma
.
c

+.? 00 +.
Z
a?
C?

d v

O CL a)
U
y

cn
v _
C
C
m
3 05 O
oUv t
R
m
K
O O w
?
d CA - •- O
C/) J C C Co
O
cc r- Co t >, a)
=
J m 012 U 2 J
c
0
L
C
d
V
0
V
O
I-
s:
d
m
R{
J
C
.y
to
m
t) y
R 3 Wt co M
.a N N t'7
Z
s:
?' to
Lu d et to
?a
V
O LO N
y
CA ttf
RS tY
C
a
•L
0
O O
U.) N
v o
r
y
X
0
c
U
N
"EF 30,
C 2
co m
C1 Cl
A >1
mm
C C Q
C)
2 2 O

n
n
n
0

r
0
O
Z
O
L
y

? y

Q C

V

O

' O
0 V

= N

? o
?
a

' a =_
N N
c?
m m
a

'
co
?
o

0 Y
'
0
? J
e?
L

d 3 (fl d O LO IT
O o m t M N N

a ?
O.
E
d
N
0 Z t? N M N O O
E V co co co co ti ti
O
V
Z
0

w 0 0 0 0 0 0
7
V
d
L
to
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0

LO
c
3
Q? L
V N Lo O Ln Lo
O
O
LO N N T
a ?
L
d

O C
V ? Ln o ln ln o o

c L T T T T T T
LQ
J ?
m
O In m 0 O Lo
d N L1? 'cr LI') I? ti
N

y
` O LA LO LO LO LO
O T T T T \ T
U.
m

0 M O Lo 0 q M N
Lp ? tC ? d' CO O T M
c N

0
0
c

?
a
?
a
a
a
a ?

o rn v T v N
v ti ti o rn ti o
m
a

wwL C (O +?+
N
a C
co

N C.

> Co
V N _
S a U
x
0
m
C
CD
0
co
CL _
V) U)
ca ca
D. a-
>1 m
000
C C T
0 0
o
T
0

C
u
cc
1
1
T,

Lp
N
p M
0
N to
O p
p
Ln N
O N
O O
LO
e-
00
r
Q
O Ci M O
O
p Lr)
N O
O q
O N N
r O r

U)
LLB
04
Ln
p
0
N
O
p
LA
NO
O
O O
N
ti
tt
?;
Q
M
M
O
r
O
N

O

O

O

N

O
r

C

N

r
N <n O O N O p Ul D O CO O co w
Q O M M ? r O N O O O CV N r N r
N

V)
Lo
O M
O
N LO
0 C"
0
D N
O O
O
N
01
N
Q 0 vi M 0
O r O
O N p S O
O N O
LO O r r

?y
N
LC)
0
O
N
O
p
'
Ul)
0
O
d: O
U
CO
W)
to
Q O M M O 0
O U
)
N
O
O
O
N
ti
r
O
N
eZ
N V) 0 0 N O p 119 D O O .0
LM M
O

O Lo

O 1

N

r
L`
d
m
L
v
N C r+
N
E }: d
c

Lv a
i r
a
a N o
d ?

L c o
Q'
d
N C
V
L
L F° 0 Q
~ of
p 4 5Q
c

LL. o
N
c ` (D
m `
3 C

L
V) > 0
?,
>
O N U: J
t L
3 m
O c
-
t c

r r

++ O w
Z
N
m

? v
c

O y

..
cn C

3 0N70 c
Lo
? ? o
U 'D La t
?
a 0)
O _ LL. N co
O- U O
fA J C C C r

C
O C c c m
.?C M L >, N
L
O
J LL U 2 U = .J
.c
O
R
L
C
m
v
C
O
L)
O
E
1-
L
d
I--
co M
N N M
2 ?
L
W G
O L
LO N
La
V
d
O
r
C L V N
.L Q ? O
O ?
X
0
cu
c
a)
U
.. fA
0 O
O ?
(n cn
U) U)
as
>1 >1
mm
a) (D CJ
2 2
0 0 0
O

.y
C
tm
0
6
V
d
.O
a
N
N
R
Q.
m
d
O
C
0
r?
of
z
C
r
al
ca
L
++ Q
d 3 (O M O ~
Z Lo Lo co co

Q.
E
d
N
0 Z
U ti
co CO
co N
co ?
co
E
0
U

> 0 0 0 0

V

0
N o 0 0 0
a
0

0
C
•
L
` y O O o U,
d CO In
r
a ?
L C
>
0 C
O Lo Lo U.)

C L r r r r

J ?
0
O Ln Lo O
:O N N CO r
N
d

L 0 0 0 0
L. ? T- T- ?
LL
eo

Q
d r CO O o N
O C6
r r

L

D
C

? _
Q cy
H
Q
Q 0

3
N
Z 0 0) qt r- N
V ti ti rn rn ti 0
d
Q.
.

L
C
(1)
Ld
N
rN.
o

0 N 0 C
m N ?, C
.>

Lei S
5 ?
0
U
N
X
li
0
ca
C
V
cD 2
d 2
a o.
mm
0 0 0
C C r
0 0
O
r

y
c
N
W
.C
7

N
LID
to
O

o M
O
O Lo
0 O
0
Ui N
O N
O

°
CO uuo
N

M

co

ti
Q O M `
') °c r oo Lo O 0 O CV ? r N r
M

cy 10
N
Lq
O
O
O Lo
O O
O
Co N
O N
O
M tOo
N
N
f-l
t0
Q 0 (M M O O N O O O M e_ r l N r
M

?y
N
Lo
O
O
O
O
co
?Cf
0
O
M O
to

O

QO
Q O M M O e= ? N O 0 O M O M

e-
to
O
O
O
ti
O
Op
O
O
m O
00
N
Q
O M
M O
O O
O
N O
O
O M M r N r

s
w
d
d
s
.yi
y v w
d C'
a
R N
Cy N o
.
m
E U m ?

i-
m c o
O
> N
i
E- ++ 7 p co
O =
3 W
LL. C N O

d J

s
? >
>
0 N M
t s
3 d
O C
C
s '?
r s
v ? v
w 0
O
Z
N
a?
cn
m
= c

' U O y C
+
s .
U a
to m
3 o
t
ca t
p U 4)
U
u
o. ? . y m
O- U O
fn J C C C rL.

-jE 0203:
L
s
0
a
C
m
V
C
0
V
O
F-
L
s
d
F-
m
J
C
•UI
y
m
y
R t M M
C R N N M
A ?
2
t
N CL r
W G Lo
d t
:50 0 Ul) N
R
t
V
m
O !a O O
r
C ` v i 04
Q Q ? O
X
O
c
U
w, fn
N
d. _
N y
N y
m m
a a
m m
N N N
O O O
c c
O

L

C

0
N
.y
A
R
C
V
O
O
L
V
.0
CL
N
N
c?
CL
m
0
C
O
2
d
V
1
c
N
R
m

C N
d 7 co O M M
Z r N N to

CL
E

.N
Q- V ti co F --
E
O
U
.a
m
w
L
a
> 0 0 o

U
m

N
1 c) O O

m a
o?

c r
r
?+
i 0
LO C)
to

a c
L
d
O
m
LO
°
Ln
C ?

J ?
d
O LO LO
LO co ti
N

N
d
L O to LA

O M
r
?-
LL
R
L
Q
M CO O ty
m a' r` ti 06 N

R
L
0
0
c
m a k a

N
Z O O et ? ? N
V ? ti O O ? O
d
Q.

L
d C (C N
O N
N co y
= w
LO >
U
0
0) .Q
L-
'a (
U
N
75
X
O
co
0)
U
d]
Q. Q.
mm
0 0 0
c c
o o
o
i
i
i
i
i

N
H
R
.a
3
N
I
M N O O O oo O p D O co LO N &0 01
Q C CM M o O O N O O O CV r~i O e' O

?y
N
LO
O
O
co
O
p
Lq
N
O
CO
V O

O
CO
?
e?
a O C7 M O O O N O O O C N e
r

r
N
tO
O
O
o0
O
p

ul
O
co O
w
m
r
Q O M M O O O N O O O N M O r r
l r
s r t
m o c
.c 3 c
L 5 "? ?° m 3
.6.1 0
a
E m r
a?
Es CL
o o LL m
c
m ?
0
~ O N M U N L
y W .V.? c 2 O 7 C c d
:3 0 U) 0 -0 CU
F- O O V) N .c C f-
p?d 0)C. V 0.0) ?_ ym?rV 0 R
lL C N 0 3 O d O) a) ' O y- J
Co L.: fn O J C C C t O C
.?C > >+ O C C O t tC t j. C
d10 NU.3 NJU. 020 2J F- m
- N
d co M
4 (V M
s
W O d LO
d L
r r N
O
L
V
of O
O
L to r N
LQ V LO O
O
0
X
v
O
ca
c
N
U
CL 2
m 0
CL a
? a
m m
O O N
O O O
c c
O
r
L

L

0

i

N
.N
_A
R3
C
R
v
m
0
0
V
A
V
a)
.0
a
y
N
ca
Q
m
0
c
0
m
0
a
C
to
ca
.be
0
0
e?
i
„a
4
3
i 2 0 0 It M
•- r N M
d
CL d
a
E
d
N
a 00 00 CD
v
0

U
V

>

r o O O

V
L

H O O O

c a

m
c
m w
o o
a ?

L =
d

0 C
M ? LO LO

C ?
R
J ?
d
to Lc, LO
a ti r? co
N
d

N
d O O 1 c)
C N N N
U.
R
L
Q '
I C
G d --t c) If-
R & N M L
.S o
L
0

c

a
k
a m

Z O O et r qt N
() f- ti O O P- O
d
Q.

C
C
N
0
O L
e Co
>
>
(
) o
L
U
- c a a U
N
X
O
co
C
U
.r fA
0
a. m
co ca
cl CL
mm
a) 0 C,4
0 0 o
r-

N
C
N
t0
a
N
I

09
N
U)
O
O
00
O
C)
?A
N
O
CO LO
I-
m
N
M
Q O M M D O O N O 0 0 of O N r
N

?y
N
Ul
0
O
00
O
0
&A
0
O
00 O
w
Cf
e-
Q O M M O O O N C 0 O C'4 M
r O e? r
r N U) D

) O 00 O p O D O 0
V)
M
N
M
Q O C7
CS
O
O
O
N
O
O
D
N
O
r
O
N
r
s
w
m
d
s

L
? v
C .1+
G1 d
E C
N s

n FE
O
.
E i
a
c o
C
C t Q' V
>
i H t L i

I- w
3 : O co
W0 = c
N O
C

d J

s
N >
> 5.

ONLL J
Z s
3 m
O c

v

W+ O
Z ?.
m

m

s D
i?$
a
V _
? U O N C

cn +
7
3 0 'v cu
t OVA cut
m?U
o.rn U- ca
?- U O
U) J C C ??L
C C C
M 4)
2
t
0
R
c
d
V
c
O
V
O
F-
L
s
d
m
Rf
J
C
.N
R
m
.? N
CO M
N N M
2 ?
s
C In r
Lj Q `r d• Sri
d
.C
V-
C V- N
O
s
V
0
cc o 0 04
r
.` Q V O
D `-
N
ca
C
N
U
C/)
d =
U) cn
co U)
cu cu
Q. fl.
>1 >.
Co co
O O O
C C r
o 0
O
r