20011102 Ver 1_Quantitave and Cumulative Effects_20080715

QUANTITATIVE
INDIRECT AND
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
ST
t
-
IP Projec
R
1015

r

HAVELOCK BYPASS
Craven and Carteret Counties,
North Carolina
PREPARED FOR:
TGS Engineers
PREPARED BY:
HNTB North Carolina, PC
343 East Six Forks Road
Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
July 15, 2008
SAW"
1
1
Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
I Havelock Bypass
I STIP Project R-1015
Craven and Carteret Counties,
North Carolina
I July 15, 2008

1
11
' Prepared for: TGS Engineers
Prepared by: HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
343 East Six Forks Road
Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
11
1
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1: DOCUMENTATION & BACKGROUND
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................13
1.2 METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................14
1.3 FIELD SURVEY/LOCAL INTERVIEWS ...................................................16
1.4 TIMEFRAME FOR THE ANALYSIS ..........................................................16
CHAPTER 2: INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
2.1
2.1.1 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES (STEP 1) .....................................................
Growth Impact Study Area ................................................................................................... 17
17
2.1.2 Demographic Area ............................................................................................................... 17
2.1.3 Watershed Analysis Area ...................................................................................................... 18
2.2 STUDY AREA DIRECTION AND GOALS (STEP 2) ................................ 18
2.2.1 Regional Location Influences and Implications ................................................................... 18
2.2.2 Demographic and Employment Trends ................................................................................ 20
2.2.3 Transportation Plans and Proposed Projects ....................................................................... 23
2.2.4 Existing Land Use Patterns .................................................................................................. 24
2.2.5 Local Land Use Plans, Future Land Use and Zoning .......................................................... 25
2.2.6
2.3 Environmental Regulations ..................................................................................................
INVENTORY OF NOTABLE FEATURES (STEP 3) ................................. 31
35
2.3.1 Environmental Documentation ............................................................................................. 37
' 2.3.2
2.4 Natural and Human Constraints on Development ................................................................
ACTIVITIES THAT CAUSE EFFECTS (STEP 4) ..................................... 39
40
2.4.1 Changes in Traffic and Access ............................................................................................. 40
2.5
ANAL POTENTIAL INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FOR
YSIS (STEP 5) ..................................................................................................
40
2.6 INDIRECT/CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (STEP 6) ....................................... 43
2.6.1 Focus Group ......................................................................................................................... 43
2.6.2 Land Available for Development .......................................................................................... 44
2.6.3 Evaluation of Potential for Land Use Change ...................................................................... 46
2.7
2.7.1 ANALYSIS OF INDIRECT/CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (STEP 6) ...........
Scenario-Writing .................................................................................................................. 48
48
2.7.2 Quantity of Forecasted Growth ............................................................................................ 51
2.7.3
2.7.4 Location of Forecasted Growth ............................................................................................
Hydrologic Analysis Model & Estimated Effect ................................................................... 59
74
2.8 EVALUATE ANALYSIS RESULTS (STEP 7) ............................................ 75
2.8.1
2.8.2 Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................................
Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................ 75
76
2.9 ICE CONCLUSIONS (STEP 8) ..................................................................... 78
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX I - NOTABLE FEATURES
APPENDIX H - BASE DATA TABLES
APPENDIX III - OCTOBER 14, 2005 HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS REPORT FOR T
IP
PROJECT R-1015

1

' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

N STIP Project R-1015, or the Havelock Bypass, is a proposed four-lane, median-divided
freeway that will provide an access-controlled route around the City of Havelock in
Craven County. The proposed bypass would begin approximately 3.5 miles (5.6
kilometers) northwest of the City of Havelock, with a flyover intersection at existing US
70. It would extend southward before turning to the southeast on one of three potential
routes. The bypass would include a grade-separated interchange at Lake Road, and
another flyover intersection at existing US 70 just south of the southern corporate limits
of Havelock. The Havelock Bypass would be a link in the US 70 Strategic Highway
Corridor designated by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). US
70 is a primary east-west route in Eastern North Carolina, and the portion of existing US
70 in Havelock is a highly-developed commercial corridor used for freight movement (to
the State Port at Morehead City) and travel to the Crystal Coast beaches. A new bypass
route would reduce congestion on existing US 70 through Havelock and improve regional
and intrastate connectivity.
This indirect and cumulative effects assessment addresses the three new location bypass
alternatives. The "Upgrade Existing US 70 Alternative" was originally studied as well,
but it was eliminated from further consideration as a detailed study alternative due to the
potential for substantial direct impacts, and therefore is not included in this assessment.
This indirect and cumulative effects assessment was based on preliminary corridors of
325 feet (100 meters) in width. Subsequent to this assessment, the project design details
have been reviewed with the environmental regulatory agencies for incorporation of
avoidance and minimization measures (Merger Concurrence Point 4B). As a result of
this coordination and consensus reached at this meeting, the current preliminary design
proposes four 12-foot (3.6 meter) lanes, a 46-foot (14 meter) median, varying shoulder
widths, and requires a minimum of 175 feet (54 meters) of right-of-way. Additional
1 right-of-way will be required in the vicinity of the proposed interchange with Lake Road
and the various proposed grade separations.
' St
d
A
u
rea
y
In order to evaluate potential indirect and cumulative effects resulting from STIP Project
R-1015, a Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) was delineated based on the NCDOT's and
NCDENR's Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation
Projects in North Carolina. The guidance indicates that the development effects of a
new or improved roadway facility are most often found up to one mile around an
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
1
' interchange, and up to two to five miles along major feeder roadways to the interchange.
Based upon these assumptions, and the fact that STIP Project R-1015 is a new location
project in a moderately growing area, it was determined that the potential for growth
effect would be confined to a three-mile radius of the project alternatives. After
performing a field survey of local conditions, interviewing local officials, and using
professional judgment, this area was deemed more than sufficient to encompass the
potential indirect and cumulative effects resulting from STIP Project R-1015.
r
This three-mile radius, referred to as the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA), is the area
within which the project has the potential to induce land use changes, and will determine
the data collection and analysis area, but will not necessarily be the extent of the growth
effect that is expected to occur.

Timeframe for Analysis
' According to the Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of
Transportation Projects in North Carolina, the time frame of analysis should be short
enough in duration to anticipate reasonably foreseeable events, but should be long
enough in duration to capture the development and relocation effects that may only
transpire over the course of several business cycles. Most Metropolitan Planning
Organization and county-level planning forecasts use a 20-year timeframe. Therefore,
for the purposes of this analysis, impacts were assessed based on a 2000 to 2020 time
frame.
Focus Group
In order to provide the most comprehensive and accurate analysis of potential indirect
and cumulative effects resulting from STIP Project R-1015, the use of a Focus Group was
necessary. The Focus Group consisted of major property owners such as Weyerhaeuser
d
h
i
U
d S
F
i
ll
l
l b
i
S
d
an
t
e
n
te
tates
orest
erv
ce, as we
as
oca
us
ness an
government
professionals with market knowledge of growth and development trends within Craven
County, Carteret County, Havelock, and Newport. A representative from Cherry Point
MCAS also served on the Focus Group. These professionals had extensive experience in
real estate development, planning, zoning, Croatan National Forest regulations, Cherry
Point MCAS activities, and major land transactions, all of which have an impact on the
potential for land use change related to the proposed Havelock Bypass. The Focus Group
was instrumental to "ground-truth" the findings of the development suitability analysis
and growth forecasts.

' Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
2

1

1

51
L

Two meetings were held with the Focus Group during the development of the indirect
and cumulative effects (ICE) assessment. These meetings were conducted in May 2005
and August 2005, respectively. The first meeting focused on an evaluation of the No-
Build Scenario household and job forecast for the GISA. The Focus Group also provided
feedback regarding the future development suitability mapping. This feedback was
incorporated into the forecasted growth scenarios and distribution of this forecasted
growth used in the indirect and cumulative effects assessment.
The results of the No-Build Scenario growth forecast and GIS ModelBuilderTM
application used to finalize the future development suitability mapping were presented at
a second Focus Group meeting in August 2005 to confirm the methodology and "ground-
truth" the findings. During this meeting, the Focus Group also assisted in the creation of
the two "Build" scenarios. During the second Focus Group meeting, consensus was
reached on the amount and location of household and job growth within the GISA, both
with and without the Havelock Bypass.
Study Area Direction and Goals
The Growth Impact Study Area's (GISA) population grew from approximately 19,513
people in 1990 to approximately 21,201 people in 2000, a growth rate of 8.7% over a ten
year period. Because of stable manufacturing employment, as well as substantial growth
in the administrative and waste services and health care and social assistance sectors,
Craven County's overall employment grew by 29.0% between 1990 and 2000.
Several local growth and development influences exist in the GISA. The Croatan
National Forest, created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, encompasses large
tracts of land throughout the area (Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the
Croatan National Forest, December 2002). According to the U.S. National Forest
website (http:!/xv'ww.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc , accessed July 14, 2008), the Croatan National
Forest was approximately 160,000 acres (64,750 hectares) in 2007. Approximately
18,855 acres (7,630 hectares) of the GISA for the Havelock Bypass is comprised of
Croatan National Forest land. These 18,855 acres account for approximately 33% of the
total acreage in the GISA; however, only 12% of the entire Croatan National Forest is
located within the GISA boundaries. Although created for timber management, the
Croatan National Forest also provides opportunities for recreation and wildlife
preservation.
The Croatan National Forest limits the growth potential along the US 70 corridor
between New Bern in Craven County and the Town of Newport in Carteret County.
Havelock, vpass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - MY 15, 2008
1
Most of the land within Craven County, and located west of US 70, is owned by the
United States Forest Service, which currently prohibits private development within its
' boundaries.
' Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) and Camp Lejeune in nearby
Jacksonville (approximately 45 miles or 72 kilometers away) provide military and
civilian jobs to citizens throughout the region. The Cherry Point MCAS is the largest air
station in the nation, covering more than 12,000 acres (4,800 hectares). It was annexed
into the City of Havelock in 1979. The fluctuation of the base's employment and military
presence is the major factor influencing growth and development not only within the
GISA, but throughout much of Craven and Carteret County. At the time of the

' assessment in 2005, local officials indicated that approximately 8,000 military personnel
were stationed at the Cherry Point MCAS. No data was provided with regard to the
civilian component of the base employment in 2005. At that time, planners also indicated
the possibility of increasing the number of squadrons based at Cherry Point pending the
outcome of the latest Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG). The implementation of the
latest BRAC has increased the total employment at the Cherry Point MCAS facilities to
approximately 15,600 employees in 2008. Of this total, approximately 10,180 are
military personnel (www.cherry_.point.usmc.mil, accessed July 11, 2008).

Based on input from local planners, a modest amount of nonresidential development
' activity is taking place within the GISA. Recent and proposed development is focused
along existing US 70, including the recently opened Wal-Mart near US 70 and Slocum
Road. Some limited residential development is taking place, with the heaviest activity
' located between US 70 and the Neuse River north of Havelock (near the Carolina Pines
community) in unincorporated Craven County.
l
F
oodplains, wetlands, the Croatan National Forest, Cherry Point MCAS and the Camp
Bryan Hunt Club are some of the major natural/human constraints on development that
exist within the GISA of STIP Project R-1015. As mentioned previously, the Croatan
National Forest prohibits development within its boundaries. All three bypass
alternatives cross portions of the forest. Further limiting the amount of developable land
within the GISA is the presence of an approximately 4,000-acre (1,600-hectare) NCDOT

' Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank. This site is located between the alternatives of the
t
d th
t
b
f
d
h
GISA
L
L
k
Th
Ch
i
P
i
M
projec
an
e wes
ern
or
er o
t
e
near
ong
erry
a
e.
e
o
nt
ar
ne
Corps Air Station, located in Havelock between US 70 and the Neuse River, prevents
development encroachment within its boundaries.
' Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 4
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

According to local officials, public water and sewer exists within most of the Havelock
portion of the GISA, although capacity was becoming an issue in 2005. Extension of
water and sewer lines across the North Carolina and Camp Lejeune Rail corridors is
difficult and may limit growth opportunities west of the railroad corridors.
Growth and development within the majority of the GISA is guided by a series of local
land use, zoning and environmental policies/regulations that minimize any potential
effects to natural and manmade features within the GISA.
' Notable Features
There are five anadromous fish spawning areas within the GISA: Hancock Creek, East
Prong Slocum Creek, Southwest Prong Slocum Creek, Tucker Creek, and Goodwin
r Creek. The GISA also contains the NCDOT Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank. This site
is approximately 4,000 acres (1,600 hectares) and is located adjacent to the western
border of the GISA near Lake Long. There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply Watersheds, or Wild and Scenic Rivers in
the GISA for STIP Project R-1015.
According to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources'
' (NCDENR) 2008 Draft 303d list, there is one 303(d) impaired water body located within
the Growth Impact Study Area. The Neuse River is impaired from a line across the river
' from Johnson Point to McCotter Point, to a line across the river from 1.2 miles upstream
stream of Beard Creek
m Creek to 0
5 miles u
f Sloc
.
u
.
p
o
' The GISA contains portions of two registered Significant Natural Heritage Areas: the
Havelock Station Flatwoods and Powerline Corridor Natural Area and the Southwest
1 Prong Flatwoods Natural Area. The Cherry Point Tucker Creek Natural Area and the
Paupers Island/Goodwin Creek Natural Area are located in close proximity
(approximately 1000 feet), east of the northern terminus of all three alternatives. In
addition, the Masontown Pocosin Natural Area is located approximately 1000 feet
southwest of all three alternatives near the southern terminus of the project.

Methodololo?y
Analysis of Growth Trends
Population and job growth trends within the GISA were analyzed by reviewing US
' Census Block Groups and employment data from the North Carolina Employment
Security Commission. Because the three-mile radius GISA boundaries did not match
' Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 5
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

' those of the Census Block Groups, the number of households and jobs within the GISA
were determined by estimating the portion of each Block Group within the GISA, based
on geographic coverage, access (or transportation network) and professional judgment.
Development of Growth Projections
' Three future scenarios - one "No-Build" and two "Build" scenarios - were evaluated for
each proposed alternative. The No-Build Scenario forecasted the amount and location of
households and jobs within the GISA that would be added between 2000 and 2020,
assuming the Havelock Bypass would not be built. The first growth scenario, Growth
Scenario 1, forecasted the amount and location of households and jobs within the GISA
that would be added between 2000 and 2020 assuming the Havelock Bypass would be
built. This scenario included an evaluation for all three proposed alternatives, following
M the assumption that an additional 10% (DeCorla-Souza and Cohen, Cervero, Hartgen) of
the No-Build Scenario baseline growth would be attributable to growth that would have
taken place outside of the GISA boundaries without the construction of STIP Project R-
1015, but is now taking place within the GISA boundaries. The second scenario, Growth
Scenario 2, was the same as Growth Scenario 1, except it was assumed an additional 15%
(DeCorla-Souza and Cohen, Cervero, Hartgen) of the No-Build Scenario baseline growth
would be attributable to growth that would have taken place outside of the GISA
boundaries without the construction of STIP Project R-1015, but is now taking place
within the GISA.
i The growth range of 10% to 15% used in Growth Scenario 1 and 2, as well as the
assumed growth distribution areas were reviewed with the project Focus Group. They
concurred that a 10% assumption for land use change for Growth Scenario 1 and a 15%
assumption for land use change for Growth Scenario 2, and that the assumed growth
distribution areas within each scenario were reasonable.
A series of development constraints were compiled and analyzed in order to determine
' the land available for future development. Feedback provided by the Focus Group
allowed for adjustments to GISA growth forecasts. The feedback was also used to
establish a consensus rating (most suitable compared to least suitable) of the development
constraints, which were then incorporated into a GIS future development suitability
model. Based on the model output and the collaborative effort between the study team
' and the Focus Group, it was determined that the majority of land within the GISA is not
suitable for future development.

Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
6

?J
Analysis of Indirect and Cumulative Effects
A summary of the GISA growth forecasts (households and jobs) for all three scenarios
can be found in Table ES-1. Because all alternatives have a similar geographic location,
' an equal level of access control, identical typical sections and the same number of
interchanges, it was determined that there would be no variation in the amount of growth
potential or land use change by alternative. The location of growth should shift slightly
r from one area to another because of the alternate interchange location for Bypass
Alternative 2, but the project should still generate the same amount of potential land use
' change as Bypass Alternatives 1 and 3. Most of the differentiation by alternative would
be in terms of direct impacts, not potential for land use change.
1

Table ES-1. GISA Households and Jobs By Scenario. 2000-2020
Case 1 Baild Scenarlo (108/8) CaseZ Ruild'scenario (I5%) `
No-Build Scenario Z?IQ-ZQ29 1000-2020
2000-2020 B ads Alts 1-3 lkywm Alts. 1-3
HH Jobs HH Jobs HH Jobs
4,027 3,903 4,430 4,293 4,631 4,488
' Source: HNTB
It should be noted that the increase in projected growth in Growth Scenario 1 and Growth
Scenario 2 is relatively small in comparison to the No Build Scenario. The increase of
jobs and households over a twenty year period under both Growth Scenario 1 and Growth
Scenario 2, as compared to the No-Build Scenario, is shown in Tables ES-2 and ES-3.
1

1

1

Table ES-2. No-Build Scenario vs. Growth Scenario 1

GISA Growth Scenario Total Households
2000-2020 _ Total Jobs
_2000-3020
No-Build Scenario 4,027 3,903
Growth Scenario 1 (10%)
Bypass Alts 1-3
4.430
4.293
Growth Scenario 1 Increase + 403 390
Source: HNTB
Table ES-3. No-Build Scenario vs. Growth Scenario 2

GISA Growth Scenario Total Households
2000-2020 Total Jobs
2000-2020
No-Build Scenario 4,027 4,027
Growth Scenario 2 (20%)
Bypass Alts 1-3
4,631
4,488
Growth Scenario 2 Incr se 604 461
Source: HNTB
' Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 7
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
1
1

Most of the residential growth resulting from any of the three proposed bypass
alternatives of STIP Project R-1015 would be located along the Lake Road, Greenfield
Heights Boulevard, Miller Road and Hollywood Boulevard corridors. The project may
' accelerate growth in already developing subdivisions along Carolina Pines Boulevard and
Lewis Farm Road.
Most of the commercial growth resulting from any of the proposed alternatives of STIP
Project R-1015 would be surrounding the proposed interchange at Lake Road, along Lake
Road itself, and near the northern terminus of the project along US 70. Infill commercial
development along US 70 between the termini is expected with and without the Havelock
Bypass, while new commercial development along US 70 and Chatham Street in
' Newport (Carteret County) should become more likely as a result of each bypass
alternative.
'
Indirect Effects

' The potential for extensive land use change as a result of any new location alternative of
STIP Project R-1015 is low to moderate. The entire section of the new location Havelock
Bypass is proposed to be fully access controlled with only one proposed interchange with
an intersecting roadway (Lake Road). The majority of the land through which the project
would extend is undevelopable because of constraints such as the Croatan National
Forest, Cherry Point MCAS, the NCDOT Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank, the Camp
Br
an Hunt Club
and numerous wetlands
y
,
.
' Furthermore, the difficultly in extending water/sewer services across the various railroad
tracks should further minimize growth resulting from the project. According to local
' planners, much of the future growth within the City of Havelock is expected to be along
the existing US 70 corridor, and will be in-fill and redevelopment type of growth because
of the diminishing amount of land that has US 70 frontage.
'
The potential for land use change as a result of the Havelock Bypass will likely be
focused along Lake Road near the proposed interchange, where there are a few pockets of
developable land that would benefit from the new access provided by the project. Other
than immediately surrounding the proposed interchange and the northern terminus of the
project at US 70, which is likely to build up as highway-oriented commercial
development, most of the new development should be residential in nature. The
' Greenfield Heights Boulevard, Lake Road and Sunset Road corridors may become more
attractive for residential subdivisions, while build-out of the residential communities in
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report -July 15, 2008
8

I the extreme northern portion of the GISA between the Neuse River and US 70 along
Carolina Pines Boulevard, Lewis Farm Road, and Stately Pines Drive may accelerate.

Cumulative Effects
Most of the future growth and development within the GISA is dependent upon Cherry
Point MCAS activity, and the amount of growth occurring at Cherry Point MCAS is
unrelated to the Havelock Bypass. The fluctuation of the base's employment and military
l
t
t
l
ithi
th
i
th
f
t
i
fl
i
th
d d
an
opmen
no
on
y w
n
presence
s
e major
ac
or
n
uenc
ng grow
eve
e
GISA, but throughout much of Craven and Carteret County. The growth forecasts
developed as part of this indirect and cumulative effects analysis were estimated before
the latest BRAC initiative was completed, but local officials were aware of the possibility
of additional squadrons being assigned to the MCAS. The implementation of the BRAC
and its effects upon Cherry Point MCAS may create some additional residential and
' commercial development within the GISA that was not necessarily incorporated in the
forecasts. However, the growth that is occurring off-base because of the BRAC
implementation is minimal and fits within the parameters of this quantitative analysis. In
dditi
th
lti
th
BRAC i
l
t
ti
ill
dl
f
f
a
on, any grow
resu
ng
rom
mp
emen
on w
occur regar
e
a
ess o
the construction of the Havelock Bypass.

According to the discussions with the Focus Group, proximity to New Bern and the
' North Carolina beaches is also a factor in attracting growth to this portion of eastern
North Carolina. Additions to the commercial market, including a new Wal-Mart Super
Center along US 70 near Slocum Road, indicate that the momentum for growth within
the GISA may be increasing somewhat. Retirement and vacation homes are becoming
increasingly common in the area, as property values closer to the coast continue to
escalate. In addition to STIP Project R-1015, these trends may cumulatively improve the
attractiveness for growth and development within the GISA.
1 At the time of the Focus Group scenario building exercise, Havelock had plans to annex
the land between its current city limits and the Havelock Bypass, which may result in an
' expansion of sewer coverage (assuming additional capacity is achieved and extensions
across the railroad corridors can be achieved) within the GISA, and make the area to the
' west of Havelock's current city limits more attractive for growth. The completion of
STIP Project R-1015 combined with the potential extension of Havelock's extraterritorial
jurisdiction (ETJ) to the north could increase development opportunities within that
portion of the GISA. The annexation or extension of the ETJ will occur with or without
the Havelock Bypass.
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 9
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

7
U
1
Havelock is surrounded by environmental and political features that limit its growth
potential, including Cherry Point MCAS to the east and the Croatan National Forest to
the west. Most of the residential growth resulting from any of the three proposed bypass
alternatives of STIP Project R-1015 would be located along the Lake Road, Greenfield
Heights Boulevard, Miller Road and Hollywood Boulevard corridors. The project may
accelerate growth in already developing subdivisions along Carolina Pines Boulevard and
Lewis Farm Road.
Most of the commercial growth resulting from any of the proposed alternatives of STIP
Project R-1015 would be surrounding the proposed interchange at Lake Road, along Lake
Road itself, and near the northern terminus of the project along US 70. Infill commercial
development along US 70 between the termini is expected with and without the Havelock
Bypass, while new commercial development along US 70 and Chatham Street in
Newport (Carteret County) should become more likely as a result of each bypass
alternative.
The July 2002 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan indicates that Slocum Creek
adjacent to Cherry Point has been exposed to jet fuel spills over years of fueling
operations at the base. There is also an accumulation of water treatment alum sludge
from past operations. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality recommends not
disturbing the sludge until such time as it can safely be removed and disposed of.
Slocum Creek is on the eastern side of Cherry Point MCAS. Cherry Point MCAS is
under the control of the United States Marine Corps, therefore residential, commercial
and/or industrial growth as a result of the Havelock Bypass is not anticipated within the
MCAS boundaries.
According to the Final Biological Alternatives Analysis for Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
and Bald Impacts. US Highway 70 Bypass (R-1015), Craven County. North Carolina
(December 11. 2007), indirect and cumulative impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker
(RCW) may result from noise, development of some private properties along the highway
corridor and/or restriction of necessary management activities (e.g., burning). The report
concludes that such impacts could individually or collectively adversely affect RCW
dispersal to/from Subpopulation 3 and inhibit unification of the CNF RCW population.
Efforts to quantify direct, secondary, and cumulative effects to the CNF RCW will be
evaluated by the NCDOT Natural Environment Unit.
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
10
1

1

1
1
1
1

1

?I

1
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Conclusions
The potential for land use change as a result of STIP Project R-1015 is low to moderate.
There are no major urban centers in close proximity, traffic volumes on intersecting
roadways are relatively low, and public water or sewer services are limited throughout
much of the GISA. The majority of land in the GISA is undevelopable because of
constraints such as the Croatan National Forest, Cherry Point MCAS, the NCDOT
Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank, the Camp Bryan Hunt Club, and numerous wetlands.
In addition, BMPs would be required for any new development resulting from STIP
Project R-1015 that could potentially have wetland impacts. Furthermore, the CAMA
regulations (buffers, permitting process, etc.) that are in place as they relate to potential
impacts to Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) should serve to protect coastal
resources from encroachment of development. Overall, STIP Project R-1015 has a low
to moderate potential to cause land use changes or accelerate growth and development in
new areas of the GISA.
Hydrological Analysis
A hydrological analysis was performed to compare the peak discharge rates and runoff
volumes for three possible future scenarios to existing conditions (Year 2005). Because
all alternatives have a similar geographic location, an equal level of access control,
identical typical sections and the same number of interchanges, it was determined that
there would be no variation in the amount of growth potential or land use change by
alternative.
The hydrologic analysis completed as part of the ICE assessment was based on an
estimated right-of-way width of 325 feet. It is believed that the reduction in right-of-way
width will not affect the growth projections and distribution of growth in the ICE
assessment. Additionally, the subwatershed land use assumptions utilized in the
hydrologic modeling will not change as a result of the reduced right-of-way corridor.
Therefore, it is believed that the reduction in right-of-way width will have negligible
effect on the results of the hydrologic analysis.
A Watershed Analysis Area (WAA) was delineated for the purpose of assessing the
hydrological effects of potential growth resulting from STIP Project R-1015. The
Watershed Analysis Area includes sixteen sub-watersheds as defined by current drainage
patterns. All sub-watersheds that intersect the GISA of STIP Project R-1015 were
incorporated into the Watershed Analysis Area. Similar to the GISA, household and job
data from all Census Block Groups that encompass and/or intersect the WAA were
utilized for the determination of baseline growth forecast.
' Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
11
7

1
1

r
1

1

C

1

J

1
Based on the findings of the hydrological analysis, r4jWmAl future hydrological impacts
are expected from the change in land use associated with construction of any of the three
proposed bypass alternatives and both scenarios of STIP Project R-1015 as compared to
existing conditions. Most GISA subareas (or subwatersheds) show only minor increases
(less than three percent) in the peak discharge and runoff volumes for the three future
conditions for the 1.5 year storm event.
The subwatersheds that show a greater percentage increase in the peak discharge and
runoff volumes are Subwatersheds 5 (west side of US 70 in Carteret County), 6 (east side
of US 70 in Carteret County), 9 (west side of US 70 along Catfish Lake Road), 12 (east
side of US 70 north of Carolina Pines Boulevard) and 13 (along the Neuse River north of
Carolina Pines Boulevard), with values ranging from approximately 4% to 11 % for both
the peak discharge and runoff volumes, respectively. In comparing the two future
"Build" scenarios to the future "No-Build" scenario, the percentage increases for the peak
discharge and runoff volumes are negligible (less than one percent).
' Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 12
Final Quantitative ICE Report - Julv 15, 2008
1

1
r

F

f
r

I

DOCUMENTATION & BACKGROUND
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
STIP Project R-1015 includes the construction of an approximate 9.9- to 10.85-mile
(14.5- to 17.7-kilometer), four-lane, median-divided, fully-controlled access freeway that
will bypass the City of Havelock in Craven County. The proposed bypass would begin
approximately 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) northwest of the City of Havelock, with a
flyover intersection at existing US 70. It would extend southward before turning to the
southeast on one of three potential routes (see Figure 1). The bypass would include a
grade-separated interchange at Lake Road, and another flyover intersection at existing US
70 just south of the southern corporate limits of Havelock.
This indirect and cumulative effects assessment was based on preliminary corridors of
325 feet (100 meters) in width of three new location alternatives. Subsequent to this
assessment, the project design details have been reviewed with the environmental
regulatory agencies for incorporation of avoidance and minimization measures (Merger
Concurrence Point 4B). As a result of this coordination and consensus reached at this
meeting, the current preliminary design proposes four 12-foot (3.6 meter) lanes, a 46-foot
(14 meter) median, varying shoulder widths, and requires a minimum of 175 feet (54
meters) of right-of-way. Additional right-of-way will be required in the vicinity of the
proposed interchange with Lake Road and the various proposed grade separations.
Three bypass alternatives are currently being evaluated, and are described below. The
"Upgrade Existing US 70 Alternative" was considered for study as well, but it was
eliminated from further consideration due to the potential for substantial direct impacts.
Bypass Alternative l: This 10.85-mile (17.5-kilometer) alternative would begin on new
location between the intersections of US 70/Lewis Farm Road and US 70/Hickman Hill
Loop Road. It would cross the North Carolina Railroad and extend west of and parallel
to a U.S. Forest Service road before crossing over Slocum Creek. There would be an
interchange at Lake Road just east of another U.S. Forest Service road, and the
alternative would continue in a southeastern track, crossing over the Camp Lejeune
Railroad and the North Carolina Railroad again before connecting with existing US 70
between the Havelock city limits and the Carteret County border.
Bypass Alternative 2: This 9.9-mile (15.9-kilometer) alternative would begin on new
location between the intersections of US 70/Lewis Farm Road and US 70/Hickman Hill
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
13
1
?r r M OE MM M MM M" M MM M M MM
D
m
N
90
GO
V

D

? l
Q?
Peoille? /I
M
N
N
90
w
J
W
Q
P^ls Saud
obi
G00
rid
n
?D I
_<..:- n
I r
S/oo4/h
Cats ' %' c°
60 711
G
s
m
?v
Ket r &I..,
v
O r '_
C
v a I. tea`
< / ?.

D

mooocm Z3 Q C) r---, ? ? ?
4D?m,Ht I I ? ? ?
tA< ? ? ?
tn
zf^OAA 0O0C -= I I I ? ? ?
Q Z T< y z n C ? ? ?
IO<ODzm1Om n N
=ZmZm c-) S (7
( ;u (n (n C o 0o up o0
(7 r -4 fn D ? (n N S p? v CD Iy Ul O `< < `<
0 fn m fn m Z) 0 < W 3 ? a X 0 < to (n cn (n
fn co
O
vM wm> Z o a ° a c° m o D D D
m fan `< n (D c (D (D (D
nm <mm 0 (D O Q 3 3 3 v+ -n
1fnZ, N n 77 a °' ' R RI
c mAOT -n m N (<D Q /'1
0 --1 A N m w N > C
< S
D T
91, m
i ? G7
mD Z ..
coZ
A W NV Z
0
'A
CD. V/
(D
cn
t
ti
?b
b
fop'
?. o
n V^
? A
A ?
•A
Qot
?7 V
A
N A, ?
fi
pp ?•`c

Loop Road. It would cross the North Carolina Railroad and extend west of and parallel
to a U.S. Forest Service road before crossing over Sunset Road just west of its
intersection with Greenfield Heights Boulevard. It would also cross over Slocum Creek
and Gray Road, with an interchange at Lake Road about three quarters of a mile (1.2
' kilometers) west of the Lake Road/Miller Boulevard intersection. It would continue in a
southeastern track, crossing over the Camp Lejeune Railroad and the North Carolina
Railroad again before connecting with existing US 70 between the Havelock city limits
and the Carteret County border.
' Bypass Alternative 3: This 10.3-mile (16.6-kilometer) alternative would begin on new
location between the intersections of US 70/Lewis Farm Road and US 70/Hickman Hill
Loop Road. It would cross over the North Carolina Railroad and extend west of and
parallel to a U.S. Forest Service road before crossing over Sunset Road where the public
utility corridor exists. It would cross over Slocum Creek, with an interchange at Lake
Road in the same location as Bypass Alternative 1. It would then continue in a
southeastern track, crossing over the Camp Lejeune Railroad and the North Carolina

i Railroad again before connecting with existing US 70 between the Havelock city limits
and the Carteret Count
border
y
.
Each of these three bypass alternatives shares common corridors at both termini of the
project.
At the time of the assessment, the Havelock Bypass, which is designated as a Strategic
Highway Corridor and Intrastate project, was included in the NCDOT's 2006-2012 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) with construction scheduled to begin in
post years and right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in 2010. The current NCDOT
2009-2015 STIP indicates that right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in 2010 and
construction is scheduled to begin in 2015. The purpose of this project is to reduce
congestion along existing US 70, improve regional and intrastate connectivity, and
upgrade the local hurricane evacuation route.
' 1.2 METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis is to evaluate the potential
` amount and location of land use change as a result of the three proposed alternatives of
STIP Project R-1015, and to determine the likelihood of any environmental effects
(particularly water quality) that could result from that land use change. This report also
contains a summary of the independent habitat assessment completed by Dr. Jay Carter &
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 14
Final Quantitative ICE Report -July 15, 2008

I Associates in December 2007 to determine potential effects to the federally-protected
Red Cockaded Woodpecker and Bald Eagle' resulting from the Havelock Bypass.
j

from STIP Pro
ect
In order to evaluate potential indirect and cumulative effects resulting ?
R-1015, a Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) was delineated based on NCDOT's and
NCDENR's Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation
Projects in North Carolina. Site visits and interviews with local planners were conducted
in late 2004 and 2005. Data were collected with respect to growth trends, development
plans, land use policies and environmental regulations. These trends, plans and
regulations were used to conduct a development suitability analysis for all land within the
GISA, and a growth attraction analysis to evaluate each proposed alternative of STIP
Project R-1015.

A Focus Group, comprised of local planning and development professionals, as well as
' major property owners within the GISA, was assembled for the purpose of providing
specific knowledge of current growth trends, as well as to "ground truth" the findings of
the development suitability analysis and growth forecasts.
Three future scenarios - one "No-Build" and two "Build" scenarios - were evaluated for
each proposed alternative. The "No-Build" Scenario forecasted the amount and location
of households and jobs within the GISA that would be added between the study's
timeframe assuming the Havelock Bypass would not built. The two "Build" scenarios
forecasted the amount and location of jobs within the GISA that would be added between
the study's timeframe assuming the Havelock Bypass would be built. Two "Build"
scenarios were developed for each of the three bypass alternatives. Further discussion of
the evaluated scenarios can be found in Section 2.7.1 of this report.
Based on the findings of these scenarios, a hydrological analysis was conducted to
compare the peak discharge rates and runoff volumes for the three future scenarios
' (including each of the proposed alternatives) to the existing land use conditions. This
analysis was based on existing and future conditions within the Watershed Analysis Area,
and these boundaries are defined in Section 2.1.3 of this report.

' The Bald Eagle was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species on August 8,
2007.
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 15
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

1

1

1
1

1.3 FIELD SURVEY/LOCAL INTERVIEWS
A field survey was completed which included identification of existing land uses along
each proposed alternative, existing access, proximity to major destinations, and existing
condition of the surrounding public infrastructure. Interviews with local planners from
the City of Havelock, Craven County, the Town of Newport, the Croatan National Forest,
and Cherry Point U.S. Marine Corps Air Station were also conducted in late 2004 and
2005.
1.4 TIMEFRAME FOR THE ANALYSIS
According to the Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of
Transportation Projects in North Carolina, the timeframe of analysis should be short
enough in duration to anticipate reasonably-foreseeable events, but should be long
enough in duration to capture the development and relocation effects that may only
transpire over the course of several business cycles. Most Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) and county-level planning forecasts use a 20-year timeframe.
Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, forecasts were evaluated based on a 2000 to
2020 time frame.
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
16

t

INDIRECT & CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

2.1 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES STEP 1
Area
d
t St
th I
1
1 G
2
y
mpac
u
row
.
.
NCDOT's and NCDENR's Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of
Transportation Projects in North Carolina indicates that the development effects of a
new or improved roadway facility are most often found up to one mile around an
interchange, and up to two to five miles along major feeder roadways to the interchange.
Based upon these assumptions, and the fact that STIP Project R-1015 is a new location
project in a moderately-growing area, it was determined that the potential for growth
effect would be confined to a three-mile radius of the project alternatives (see Figure 2).
After performing a field survey of local conditions, interviewing local officials, and using
professional judgment, this area was deemed more than sufficient to encompass the
potential indirect and cumulative effects resulting from STIP Project R-1015.
This three-mile radius, referred to as the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA), is the area
within which the project has the potential to induce land use changes, and will determine
the data collection and analysis area, but will not necessarily be the extent of the growth
effect that is expected to occur. More specific areas within the GISA that are most likely
to experience land use changes as a result of the roadway improvements will be identified
later in this report.
2.1.2 Demographic Area
The Demographic Area for the project was delineated in order to analyze the population
and employment growth trends for the area encompassing the GISA. All Census Block
Groups that intersect the GISA were incorporated into the Demographic Area (see Figure
2). This area is generally bounded by the following: County Line Road, Old Airport
' Road, Wilcox Road, and the Neuse River to the north; Clubfoot Creek, the Craven/
Carteret County line, and Little Creek Swamp to the east; the Newport River, Nine Foot
Road, Millis Road, Townsend Lane, NC 58, and the White Oak River to the south; and
the Jones/Carteret County line and the Craven/Jones County line to the west. The
following Block Groups from the 2000 US Census are included in the Demographic Area
for STIP Project R-1015:
• Census Tract 9707, Block Groups 2-5
• Census Tract 9708, Block Group 1
r Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
17
1

<. o y .?

op -C,
I ,
?
o °
\ n
%

i

i o
lip

/ \ R -l?n• / Lrr \\ /
5
r _
J
O
l?? V \
tntrac
Atlantic Ocean

o=
P
mmz3 p --
?
Zzo>
OD
ozzoC
mzOm q C) n n C) Cn _U) ?C/? n
D CI) z N N -I -? -i v v ,/, O C
p r o °o CD M CO CD CD N (D a) 0 n ~ D D
DmD? O O O O O Q X O `G C m
N
? m A OJ v v v v 00 O O O Co
c CD O O
c?mm O)
f 4N. W W W W Q D
C7 C7 G7 0 0 -3 ?J D
-n CJ1 W N CD
0 --1 xD Q D T M O CI)
40 V D
40
mD O
cA 0C_
Z 3 C) n C) n C) C) C7 C) C) 0 C)
CD (n
?-
-p
A/ (n (C) (D (C) Co Co 0) C° m m m m
(n 0) rn 0) (3) a) 0) 0) rn rn rn m D Qp
D
w w w w w W NJ O
O Cn 4?- W N -• -? W N -? v
*%
b
4 ~
?. o
A
A b
tai A O
fi

1

v

1

1

• Census Tract 9610, Block Group 7
• Census Tract 9611, Block Groups 1-3
• Census Tract 9612, Block Group 1
• Census Tract 9613, Block Groups 1-6
2.1.3 Watershed Analysis Area
A Watershed Analysis Area (WAA) was delineated for the purpose of assessing the
hydrological effects of potential growth resulting from STIP Project R-1015 (see Figure
3). The Watershed Analysis Area includes sixteen sub-watersheds as defined by current
drainage patterns. All sub-watersheds that intersect the GISA of STIP Project R-1015
were incorporated into the Watershed Analysis Area. Similar to the GISA, population
and household data from all Census Block Groups that encompass and/or intersect the
WAA were utilized for the determination of baseline growth forecast (see Appendix 11I).
2.2 STUDY AREA DIRECTION AND GOALS (STEP 2)
2.2.1 Regional Location Influences and Implications
The City of
Havelock, Craven
County, and
Carteret County are
located in the
coastal lowlands of 4
eastern North
Carolina. The area
is relatively flat,
contains numerous '
streams and
wetlands, and
encompasses much US 70 at Craven/Carteret County border looking south
of the Croatan
National Forest.
Havelock is home to the Cherry Point U.S. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), and is
located along the Neuse River at the point where it flows into Pamlico Sound. US 70 and
NC 101, which provide access to coastal areas and nearby New Bern (the Craven County
seat), are the only regional highways traversing this area. US 17 in New Bern provides
the best north-south mobility along the North and South Carolina coasts.
r Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 18
Final Quantitative ICE Report -July 15, 2008
1
?m mm mmm mwm m mm m moo mm mm
I t?
On
v ?
< CD
CD
Z3 CD
xmz3 CD Q
zzOD
x N
o3Do 1'I
zoomm
00
D ? z Cl) N Z Z 2 D (n Cn (A C G7
> CD CD CD
ou) °m = N CD O N ,l CD D D C
'U _0 CD (n
?3? N CD U) o o co Q c Z m 0 77 6 X m :3 O CD Q O CD Q r w
mI co
CD
CD 0
'^
x o 0 n CD Cv to
Q
A
zz
I ? D - i
c° m
rn o m
CD (n
A` (
v
b
?. O
A
? A
A b
?• A
?TJ V
A
?zn
ti 1 fi
00 gin' `c
1
1

1

1

1
1

t
1
1
STIP Project R-1015 will cross a portion of the Croatan National Forest while bypassing
the City of Havelock, which had a 2000 population of 22,442. Other than New Bern,
which is located approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers) northwest of Havelock, the
nearest urban center is Jacksonville, at a distance of 45 miles (72 kilometers) from
Havelock. According to the 2000 US Census, the population of New Bern and
Jacksonville was 23,128 people and 66,715 persons, respectively.
Development within Craven County has been occurring along the US 70 corridor, as well
as in the New Bern area. US 70 is the primary route through the County and should
continue to be the focus for development throughout the region. STIP Project R-1015
should improve access to and from the eastern coast of North Carolina, providing a better
link to North Carolina's second largest seaport in Morehead City. In New Bern, US 70
also has a direct connection to US 17, which is the major north-south route along the
North Carolina and South Carolina coasts. Because of land availability and proximity to
the coast, the stretch of land between New Bern and Havelock (outside of the GISA) has
been experiencing additional development, particularly along the northern side of US 70
nearer to the Neuse River and away from the Croatan National Forest.
Several local growth and development influences exist in the GISA. The Croatan
National Forest, created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, encompasses large
tracts of land throughout the area (Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the
Croatan National Forest, December 2002). According to the U.S. National Forest
website (http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/, accessed July 14, 2008), the Croatan National
Forest was approximately 160,000 acres (64,750 hectares) in 2007. Approximately
18,855 acres (7,630 hectares) of the GISA for the Havelock Bypass is comprised of
Croatan National Forest land. These 18,855 acres account for approximately 33% of the
total acreage in the GISA; however, only 12% of the entire Croatan National Forest is
located within the GISA boundaries. Although created for timber management, the
Croatan National Forest also provides opportunities for recreation and wildlife
preservation. Cherry Point U.S. Marine Corps Air Station and Camp Lejeune in nearby
Jacksonville (approximately 45 miles or 72 kilometers away) provide military and
civilian jobs to citizens throughout the region. At the time of the assessment in 2005,
local officials indicated the possibility of increasing the number of squadrons based at
Cherry Point pending the outcome of the latest Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).
Furthermore, Weyerhaeuser, one of the largest timber industries in the world, owns a
substantial portion of land within both Craven and Carteret counties and several large
parcels within the GISA.
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report-July 15, 2008
19

1
2.2.2 Demographic and Employment Trends
Growth trends were analyzed by reviewing US Census Block Group data. Only Census
Block Groups that intersected the GISA were used. Because the three-mile radius GISA
boundaries did not match those of the Census Block Groups, the GISA population was
determined by estimating its portion of each Block Group's population based on
geographic coverage, access and professional judgment. Upon so doing, it was
determined that the GISA's population (including military personnel) grew from
approximately 19,513 people in 1990 to approximately 21,201 people in 2000, a growth
rate of approximately 8.7% over a ten-year period. Please refer to Figure 2 to see the
exact boundaries of the Demographic Area, as well the Census Block Groups, and how
they relate to the GISA boundary.
1
1

1
1

11

1
I
Table 1. Population Growth & Share, 1990-2000
Counties & Growth Impact Studv Area (GISA)
Po u lation Growth,1 990-2000
.ea 1990 2000 # %
GISA 19,513 21,201 1,688 8.7%
Craven County 81,613 91,436 9,823 12.0%
Carteret County 52,556 59,383 6,827 13.0%
GISA Share of
Counties
14.5%

4.1%
L

0.1%

/A
Source: US Census Bureau, HNTB
Compared to Craven County and Carteret County as a whole, the GISA did not grow as
rapidly in terms of population between 1990 and 2000. Consequently, the GISA share of
the combined county growth declined slightly from 1990 (14.5%) to 2000 (14.1%).
Household growth in the GISA between 1990 and 2000 was determined using the same
methodology for population growth. Craven and Carteret County household growth for
1990 and 2000 was retrieved from the US Census Bureau. Similar to population,
households in the GISA did not grow as rapidly as those within each county as a whole
between 1990 and 2000. Consequently, the GISA share of the combined county
household growth declined from 1990 (11.8%) to 2000 (11.1%). Furthermore, the GISA
had a lower share of the county household totals for 1990 and 2000 than it did for
population, more than likely a result of the high number of group quarters (i.e. Cherry
Point MCAS) located within the GISA. The household totals do not include group
quarter facilities such as military barracks.
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
20

1
1
C

Table 2. Household Growth & Share, 1990-2000
Counties & Growth Impact Studv Area (GISA)
l?s .. Ord L -2000

GISA 5,970 6,616 646 10.8%
Craven County 29,542 34 582 5,040 17.1%
Carteret County 21,238 25,204 3,966. 18.7%
GISA Share of
Counties
11.8%
11.1%
7.2%
N/A
Source: US Census Bureau, HNTB
Employment growth in Craven County between 1990 and 2000 was steady. Unlike most
counties in North Carolina, Craven County did not experience a decline in its
manufacturing sector; it actually added 1,026 jobs during the time period. Because of
this, as well as substantial growth in the administrative and waste services and health care
and social assistance sectors, Craven County's overall employment grew by 29.0%. In
2000, the largest employment sector in Craven County was the government sector, which
employed 13,526 people in 2000 (more than one-third of the county total). Much of this
growth could be attributed to the Cherry Point MCAS, which employed approximately
8,000 military personnel in 2005.

1

1

Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 21
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

U
1

1
1

1

1
Table 3. Employment By Industry, 1990-2000
Craven Countv
f - E to em Graff
Ind
Itry
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing &
Hunting
355
497
142
40.0%
Utilities 94 65 -29 -30.9%
Construction 1,564 1,790 226 14.5%
Manufacturing 3,608 4,634 1,026 28.4%
Wholesale Trade 907 952 45 5.0%
Retail Trade 3,906 4,310 404 10.3%
Transportation and Warehousing 504 875 371 73.6%
Information 635 674 39 6.1%
Finance and Insurance 673 758 85 12.6%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 224 489 265 118.3%
Professional and Technical Services 1,095 1,508 413 37.7%
Administrative and Waste Services 670 1,874 1,204 179.7%
Educational Services 47 97 50 106.4%
Health Care and Social Assistance 1,732 3,105 1,373 79.3%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 695 373 -322 -46.3%
Accommodation and Food Services 1,999 2,875 876 43.8%
Other Services, Ex. Public
Administration
833
1,017
184
22.1%
Government 11,026 13,526 2.500 22.7%
Total: ` 30,567 39,419 8852 29.0%
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission, accessed 12/22/04
Unlike Craven County, Carteret County does not have a major employment base (21,512
jobs compared to 39,419 jobs in Craven County). However, in terms of percent increase
N in overall jobs between 1990 and 2000, Carteret County (31.3%) slightly outpaced
Craven County (29.0%). This trend was due in most part to tourism-related job increases
' (wholesale and retail trade sectors, accommodation and food services sector), as well as
escalating government jobs.
1

Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 22
Final Quantitative ICE Report -July 15, 2008
1
e
i
i
i
Table 4. Employment By Industry, 1990-2000
Carteret Countv
ltt [tt$#1# ,,'?Gr h
ndintry,
199
rZWV
O/f
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing &
Hunting
105
171
66
62.9%
Utilities 129 123 -6 -4.7%
Construction 957 1,358 401 41.9%
Manufacturing 1,875 1,748 -127 -6.8%
Wholesale Trade 334 726 392 117.4%
Retail Trade 3,260 3,923 663 20.3%
Information 281 387 106 37.7%
Finance and Insurance 380 406 26 6.8%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 507 726 219 43.2%
Professional and Technical Services 385 707 322 83.6%
Administrative and Waste Services 222 724 502 226.1%
Educational Services 7 54 47 671.4%
Health Care and Social Assistance 1 072 1,429 357 33.3%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 494 626 132 26.7%
Accommodation and Food Services 2,578 3,304 726 28.2%
Other Services, Ex. Public
Administration
670
795
125
18.7%
Government 3,166 4,355 1,189 37.60/(
Total: 16,422 21,562 5140 313%
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission, accessed 12/22/04
2.2.3 Transportation Plans and Proposed Projects
The City of Havelock, in April of 2007, prepared a Comprehensive Transportation /Land
Use Plan to guide future growth and development through 2030. STIP Project R-1015 is
identified in the Plan as a recommended new freeway to be located parallel to the existing
US 70. It would alleviate congestion and provide a controlled-access facility with a
future interchange at Lake Road. The Plan shows a recommended new location freeway
corridor in the approximate location of the Alternative 3 alignment for STIP Project R-
1015.
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
23
11

I Other projects that were identified in the 2006-2012 NCDOT STIP at the time of the
original analysis and were located within or partially within the GISA include:

• STIP Project R-4431- a 33.1-mile (53.3-kilometer), multi-lane roadway on new
location from the southern terminus of the Havelock Bypass in Craven County to
the City of Beaufort in Carteret County; right-of-way and construction scheduled
for post years
o The current NCDOT 2009-2015 STIP indicates that a feasibility study
reevaluation is in progress for STIP Project R-4431.
• STIP Project R-3437 -a 10.7-mile (17.2-kilometer), multi-lane connector on new
location from US 70 in Newport to NC 101 in Craven County; right-of-way and
construction scheduled for post years.
o The current NCDOT 2009-2015 STIP indicates that STIP Project R-3437
is a two-lane connector with right-of-way and construction scheduled for
post years.
• STIP Project U-3431- a 0.9-mile (1.4-kilometer) widening to multi lanes of SR
1763 (Miller Boulevard) and NC 101 from SR 1756 (Lake Road) to Outer Banks
Drive in Havelock; right-of-way and construction scheduled for post years.
o The current NCDOT 2009-2015 STIP indicates no changes to STIP
Project U-3431.
As noted above, all three of these projects remain in the current NCDOT 2009-2015
STIP. However, a feasibility study reevaluation is in progress for STIP Project R-4431.
Additionally, STIP Project R-3437 has been redefined as a two-lane connector. Right-of-
way and construction for STIP Projects R-3437 and U-3431 are still scheduled for post
years (after 2015).

2.2.4 Existing Land Use Patterns
Using Craven County parcel data and the Town of Newport existing land use (GIS)
information, an existing land use map for the GISA was created (see Figure 4). Although
the predominant land use within the GISA is either Croatan National Forest or
1 vacant/undeveloped, most of the land within the City of Havelock is single-family
residential. Commercial uses front most of US 70 in Havelock, and there are several
institutional uses related to both Cherry Point MCAS and the Croatan National Forest.
Existing land use in the GISA portion of Newport consists of forested/vacant land, as
' well as single-family residential. There are scattered agricultural areas, as well as small
areas of commercial uses along or near US 70. Outside of Havelock, in unincorporated
' Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 24
Final Quantitative ICE Report -July 15, 2008
i

00 2:; -4
O o
N
CD
?I

rm
v -
x
fD !n
6 1-1
Q
a
?? Lf Q
G1 a-
p Vl "`? CA
N i 7 ' ?d V
3 rt Cd Leh
4L .?Cr
w N• ? beret Ct
1. W

vo l
bz-m

z>-xzz
iD m _rnH O O , 1,

z -

E I

j I ?
?? ?
?? ?
o
zZ??oOxO _y I_ i IM 11 11
A?xv?3n? n u? n ? D c C) ;o cn n (z C) G7 co

G co co
YI
=c???zOm
z??
rcn 3
c c ca m m CD
n> Q
o 0
m W
o o CA
D O
a a
m
a C
?
ND
??3

v c

3

W

0 a

x
U)
m
m

X
?
T?Do
owry? joN ? m O
m x Ti
W <
Z 0 c
Q 'D
o a s ?- m o m o D D D m
mom-
cn -4 -0 3
. m N L
C G n N c m m

3 m
1 m>
Dip - N a m 3 v v v v 3
m
nMo ;mm

p ? CD a p
G
<
w
<
iv
G
X77
:?:
a y z
m my p 9 CD
N
c
Z .u 0 -4 w N (n
-<p xA
z
z
w N
O Z
1
z ^
m
mD Y/
(6z r
22 n w
?
L Z
;511
o
C
CD Cl)
CD
cn
f
0
t
I *%
b
0
?. O
n ?
? a
fi Ri
A
ti^o
o??
Craven County, there is a cluster of industrial uses along NC 101 near Hancock Creek, as
well as single-family residential in the northeastern portion of the GISA between the
Neuse River and US 70.
2.2.5 Local Land Use Plans, Future Land Use and Zoning
The following
section contains an
inventory and
general summary of
the local land use
plans, transportation
plans, local AIL_
ordinances,
development
regulations, and
other documents
meant to guide local US 70 through Havelock looking south
growth. This
information
originates from a variety or sources, but the overall intent is to provide a general
understanding of local planning efforts related to land use within the study area.
Local Plans and Ordinances
Craven County, North Carolina 1996 Land Use Plan (Addendum 1998)
This land use plan documents existing conditions within the county with respect to
demographics and the economy. It also projects land development patterns and identifies
future infrastructure and land use issues, as well as creates a policy and vision statement
for resource protection, economic and community development, and public participation.
' Key land use issues identified within the report include:
• Creation of protected "404" wetland areas;
• Expansion of central water and sewer areas where feasible and as development
occurs;
• Traffic congestion along US 70;
• Continued support of economic/industrial development;
• Development of a regional solid waste facility; and
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 25
Final Quantitative ICE Report-July 15, 2008

1 • Expansion of county-wide recreational opportunities.
The plan also designates areas of environmental concern (natural and marine resources).
Craven County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, May, 2004
The purpose of this ordinance is to:
• Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due
to water and erosion hazards;
• Require that uses vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage at the
time of initial construction;
• Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural
protective barriers; and
• Control filling, grading, dredging.
Provisions regarding the types of uses permitted within floodplains, floodways, and flood
hazard areas are specified. The ordinance also outlines the permit requirements that need
' to be met in order to develop within a floodplain. Specific design standards for
residential and non-residential construction are disclosed.
The ordinance stipulates that new construction or substantial improvement of any
structure within flood hazard areas shall have the lowest floor, including basement,
1 elevated above the base flood elevation. No encroachments, including fill, new
construction, substantial improvements and other developments, shall be permitted within
floodways unless certification by a registered professional engineer is provided that
stipulates no increase in flood levels during occurrence of the base flood discharge is
anticipated.
Havelock Comprehensive Transportation /Land Use Plan, April, 2007
The City of Havelock, in April of 2007, prepared a Comprehensive Transportation /Land
Use Plan to guide future growth and development through 2030. The Plan shows a
recommended new location freeway corridor in the approximate location of the
Alternative 3 alignment for STIP Project R-1015. The Plan includes a discussion of
goals developed to integrate land use and transportation, meet the needs of the
community and implement the Plan's recommendations. In order to meet these goals,
i eight "tools" were outlined in the Plan to provide guidance with regard to integrating
transportation and land use within the community. These "tools" are:
0 To reinforce the community's sense of place;
Havelock Bypass - STY Project R-1015 26
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

• To promote sustainable land development principles;
• To support efforts to increase connectivity within and between developments;
• To promote development design to manage access and reduce congestion levels
on major roadways;
• To maintain viability of the US 70 corridor after construction of the proposed
bypass;
• To manage development at new interchanges proposed along the planned
bypass;
• To encourage growth management initiatives to manage community growth; and
' • To develop engineering design and construction standards.
The Plan suggests that the US 70 bypass may cause some businesses and development to
shift from existing US 70 to the new bypass. However, the City's vision is for US 70 to
be maintained as a viable corridor for local commerce. A plan for managing the effects
of potential land use migration to the new bypass is presented in the City of Havelock
Comprehensive Plan being developed concurrent with the Comprehensive
Transportation/Land Use Plan. In general, the Plan indicates that areas for commercial
development would be limited to interchanges at each terminus of the proposed bypass
and at Lake Road. The Plan indicates that land use controls adopted in local zoning and
subdivision ordinances and a capital improvements program for providing municipal
water and sewer to these locations would regulate what, where, and when development
occurs along the bypass.

' The Plan states that a primary method for making sure that existing development along
US 70 thrives after construction of the bypass is to reinvent the corridor as a community
asset and a center of commerce for local needs. By making sure proposed improvements
to the existing corridor are completed, the City of Havelock will be able to better manage
the plan for the new main street. A streetscape plan should be developed as a community
initiative for protecting the long-term sustainability of the community. An effective
streetscape plan would include action items for addressing both appearance and function
of US 70. Further, it would extend beyond the right-of-way for making
recommendations that would encourage private investment and redevelopment of the
corridor. A successful streetscape plan would result in a vibrant street with the look, feel,
' and function of a local street rather than a highway corridor.
City of Havelock, North Carolina 1996 Land Use Plan (Addendum 1998)
This plan not only documents land use trends that have shaped the City of Havelock
during the last couple decades, but it also includes projected land development patterns.
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 27
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

1

Below are some of the findings:
• Commercial and residential development will continue to be heavily dependent
upon military personnel;
• Commercialization will increase along NC 101 south of Havelock;
• Congestion along US 70 will hinder access to commercial establishments;

i • Active industrial recruitment efforts by the Craven County Committee of 100
will result in industrial growth, particularly within Havelock Industrial Park,
which is located on NC 101 across from Cherry Point MCAS;
• The city encourages the redevelopment and revitalization of existing
underutilized industrially or commercially-developed areas;
• The City will expand its extraterritorial jurisdiction as much as possible, with the
extension of infrastructure into this area as a factor for growth; and
• Construction of the US 70 Havelock Bypass.

Havelock Zoning Ordinance, 2005
The purpose of the Havelock Zoning Ordinance is to promote the "health, safety, morals,
and the general welfare of the community. The ordinance outlines the permitted uses
within each zoning designation, as well as the site development regulations within these
designations. The regulations set forth in the ordinance affect all land and buildings, as
well as every use of land and/or buildings. The provisions of the zoning ordinance are
applicable within the corporate limits of the City of Havelock, as well as within
Havelock's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ).
i Zoning classifications within the City of Havelock range from low-density residential to
light industrial (see Figure 5). The classifications were generalized and combined for the
purposes of this assessment. Craven County and Carteret County do not implement
zoning regulations, except for a small area adjacent to the Cherry Point MCAS, which is
' zoned for medium-density residential, forestry/fishing, and mining uses. Most of the
commercial zoning within the GISA exists along the US 70 corridor, with a few smaller
areas along NC 101. As is indicated on Figure 5, most of the land within the GISA is
either unzoned, National Forest, or part of the Cherry Point MCAS.
Town o Newport Core CAMA Land Use Plan, October, 2004
This plan includes an identification of key growth-related issues, an existing conditions
analysis, a comprehensive plan for the future, tools for managing development, and a
hazard mitigation strategy for the Town of Newport.
r Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
28
1

(' 1 `I
(R
r
L
N
D
,
f(D
W
D)i

SU rt
CD
Cl)
N
Cl)
1
D
rv
_
?

3
W z r
C
00 '? u c
?G m I n a
W N F
?- N N o
a
_ o
?
w
90
D ?
m cQ vi w f

,?
y D
f
rt 7 C
su (D 03 ?

N r
<? O
w <> _ uu d
? CC

x ,
m o
u

U)
0
'IN f-,
a
arch
?•
i
'A e,
O
r

N

cn
N

N

C
N
tel. l..
?•? IV
90

x Cff?C)cmz3

Z A ? o x Z Z O D
1DmgzHt

z
<
O O

I

I i O 0

I ? ?
IU

O

?
Amo
=ar
Z
z
t LJ ?- O

?
nD
-13D2 ::E
C7 s n N

m
m ;o cn
(n
q
C7

o
,n 'co W

a
W
^^
Y/
?Z?zmToy c? o
i o o m ?
z D m
w m N C

'i
p??3?Do
oaoxDZ 3 W
Q°
Z o a v

c

m

o

D D u)

D
<?? m 0
fD
c
(m
m
m
D? Q 1 m DA
? i
?mi N -n m
D o. not
a 0 v v
< < v
<
V1
m
m 0 xmm
m m
c m m m

Z
0z mm?
0
r
(p co N
T
111
z? z
< W
N o X
z D cn Cl)
Cl)
v (D

10
?
D

1

N _

z
3 L? N ^
Y
Z W r (? 2
< 3 - 5 a r
* on
m Z
N K C? D D
N N N N

(D a (D
CL 3
N m c 5 3

o (D ,71

„

cn

?

Z
O
3 cn = K _- G
FD, 7
T G
A N
:3- _
?.
°
'
Z
(D
, m m
< n m o - r1
V
.
CD m

I *%
b
0
?. o
n v'
? A
? O
fi
A
^• A
n7 u
` P 1
A
?~ ? CO
[v A O
fi
O ? fi

Below are some of the key issues in the plan, as identified at an August 2003 public
meeting:
• Clearing of debris within the Newport River;
• Improving pedestrian access to Newport Middle School;
• Development of Old 70 Highway;
• Expansion of wastewater treatment plant;
• Maintenance of Newport's small town identity; and
• Rerouting commercial traffic out of residential areas.
Town offewport Zoning Ordinance, October. 1997
This ordinance contains the criteria for use of all land within the Town of Newport and its
extraterritorial jurisdiction along with requirements for land use, setback, different type
uses, special requirements, etc.
Zoning classifications within the Town of Newport range from low-density residential to
light industrial (see Figure 5), and were generalized and combined for the purposes of
this assessment. The Town of Newport portion of the GISA is predominantly zoned for
low-density residential with commercial and medium-density residential areas along US
70 and Chatham Street.

Cherry Point WAS Zoning Ordinance, September, 1989 Lpdated April, 2004)
' This ordinance was originally developed in 1989, but was updated in April 2004 to be
consistent with recommendations contained in the Eastern Carolina Joint Land Use Study
(ECJLUS) completed by the Eastern Carolina Council of Governments in November
2002 for Craven County, Carteret County, City of Havelock, Town of Emerald Isle,
Town of Bogue, Town of Atlantic, and MCAS Cherry Point. Regulations within this
document focus on the how land is developed within the noise contours and general
airport environment of Cherry Point MCAS. The focus is to minimize the amount and

' intensity of residential development within what is termed the Air Installation
Compatibility Use Zone (AICUZ) and the Accident Potential Zones (APZ). Permitted
uses are identified, and development requirements are specified.

Zones include (see Figure 5A):
• A = Clear Zones (CZ); greatest potential for accidents and highest noise
exposure; no residential development
• B3 = Accident Potential Zone 1 (APZ 1) & Noise Zone 3 (751dn or higher);
significant potential for accidents and area of significant noise impact; no
residential development
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 29
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

1 = r == 1 m 1 m = = w m mm m m m I
ir Llz I

N "'i

xooocmz3 C:) Q ?Do o 0
zz-xzzOD
omOc I I I L_ 0 0 0 "
x
zm< _ ? C
xc<2lzOm c) C7 C7 (n Z7 cn (n C 0 0 W W W 0 c
zl m ... O ? O N ' v c0? O ? ?
D?p3Trzn N (D N ' O (D .(l 7 D w m m m 0 (n (n (n
za°, cn-4? z o a 0 ° °' c m o D D D > CJ1
1 m 3? IV v (D C) (D c D
oMmz mxg O (D O Q 7
p nN1 n Q a w d w i?
D > F D Z Z, Z*
z* m?OT W O W N
0 z IV (n
0 (n
A C
(n fj) O Z
CA ? N??
I D rn
NO V1117-1
pZ
11C O
A/ p nni W W W > w ^> N Z>
o rn
CD 5
CD Q Z
It
con
b
b
y
ti
n ?
? A
4
A ?
A
?• A
n
A O
O `~ O

I • 3 = Noise Zone 3 (751dn or higher); area of significant noise impact; no
residential development
• B1= Accident Potential Zone 1 (APZ 1) & Noise Zone 1 (below 65 ldn);
significant potential for accidents and area of some noise impact; maximum
' density is one unit per five acres (two hectares)
• B2 = Accident Potential Zone 1 (APZ 1) & Noise Zone 2 (65 to 741dn);
significant potential for accidents and area of moderate noise impact;
maximum density is one dwelling unit per five acres (two hectares)
• C1= Accident Potential Zone 2 (APZ 2) & Noise Zone 2 (65 to 741dn);
measurable potential for accidents and area of moderate noise impact;
maximum density not to exceed two dwelling units per acre (0.4 hectares)
• C2 = Accident Potential Zone 2 (APZ 2) & Noise Zone 1 (below 651dn);
measurable potential for accidents and area of some noise impact; maximum
density not to exceed two dwelling units per acre (0.4 hectares)
' • 2 = Noise Zone 2 (65 to 741dn); area of moderate noise impact; maximum
density not to exceed two dwelling units per acre (0.4 hectares)
• 1= Noise Zone 1 (below 651dn); area of some noise impact
Croatan National Forest Land and Resource ManaPement Plan. December 2002
This plan provides a description and history of the Croatan National Forest, guides
management of the forest for the next 10-15 years, and addresses issues and goals related
' to:
• Biological diversity;
• Recreation opportunities;
' Special land allocations;
• Silviculture, forest health and forest products;
• Fire management;
• Access; and
• Coordination with local communities.
The Plan indicates a desire to use a variety of means to support the consolidation of
ownership pattern, to mitigate for wetland drainage, and to provide linkages to other
biologically significant areas such as Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point. The Plan
' also indicates a desire to limit additional special use permits to uses that clearly serve an
overall public benefit and are compatible with existing permitted uses. The construction
of the US 70 Bypass is specifically mentioned in the Plan as an activity that would
i
i
li
l
i
i
al use perm
prov
c benefit and wou
d requ
re a spec
t.
de pub
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
30
1

r
2.2.6 Environmental Regulations

Erosion Control and Stormwater Re lations
The North Carolina Division of Land Resources' Sediment and Erosion Control Act
requires that any development disturbing more than one acre of land within the State of
North Carolina to submit a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan to the Division of
Land Resources. Local governments may review and enforce the plan within their
jurisdiction, but the plan has to be as strict as the program administered by the Division
of Land Resources. Site disturbances of less than one acre require the use of Best
Management Practices (BMPs), but not a site plan. According to the NCDOT report
entitled "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" (March 1997),
t
t
BMP
i
l
i
i
i
i
k
d
d
d
d
d
en to preven
or re
uce wa
er
nc
e act
es, pract
ces, an
proce
ures un
erta
s
u
v
t
pollution. This includes things such as: on-site detention areas, vegetative buffers,
culverts, and erosion control mechanisms.
In 1972, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program was
' established under the authority of the Clean Water Act. Phase I of the NPDES
stormwater program was established in 1990. It requires NPDES permit coverage for
large or medium municipalities with populations of 100,000 or more. In North Carolina,
there are six Phase I communities. The Phase II program extends permit coverage to
smaller (< 100,000 pop.) communities and public entities that own or operate a municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) by requiring them to apply for and obtain an NPDES
permit for stormwater discharges. Federal law requires communities and public entities
r that own or operate an MS4, and that meet either of the following two conditions, to
obtain an NPDES Phase II stormwater permit:
r
1) The MS4 is located in an urbanized area as determined by the latest Decennial
Census of the Bureau of the Census. If the MS4 is not located entirely within an
urbanized area, only the portion that is within the urbanized area is regulated.
2) The community or public entity is designated by the NPDES permitting authority.
In the state of North Carolina, the NPDES permitting authority is the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC).
' Based on 2000 Census data, neither Craven nor Carteret County or the City of Havelock
are designated as either a Phase I or Phase II community.
i
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
31
L
1
Coastal Area Mana ement
Craven County and Carteret Counties are considered a Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) county. The Division of Coastal Management (DCM) enforces a policy which
was enacted in order to protect, conserve and manage North Carolina's coastal resources
' through an integrated program of planning, permitting, education and research. The
DCM requires that all CAMA counties institute land use plans that address elements
associated with the environmental policies outlined as part of that act.
There are four categories for Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC), within which
CAMA permits are required in order to build any kind of structure. These include the
Estuarine and Ocean System, the Ocean Hazard System, Public Water Supplies and
Natural and Cultural Resource Areas. AECs within these four categories include:
• Navigable waters within the 20 CAMA counties;
' • Marshlands or wetlands;
• Within 75 feet (23 meters) of the mean high water line along an estuarine
shoreline;
• Near the ocean beach;
• Near an inlet;
• Within 30 feet (9 meters) of the normal high water level of areas designated as
inlet fishing waters by the NC Marine Fisheries Commission; and
' • Near a public water supply.
Based on mapping in Craven County's 1996 Land Use Plan, the following AECs exist
within the GISA: wetlands, estuarine waters and/or public trust areas, inland primary
nursery areas. Because of the environmental sensitivity associated with these resources,
' they could potentially restrict where growth related to the project could take place.
Watershed Regulations and Water Quality
STIP Project R-1015 would be located within the Neuse River Basin, which extends from
' Person and Orange Counties in central North Carolina to the Atlantic Ocean. The GISA
also encompasses a small portion of the White Oak River Basin, which includes the
majority of Onslow County and extends along the North Carolina coast north to the Town
' of Atlantic in extreme northeastern Carteret County. According to the July 2002 Neuse
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, there are three major National Pollutant Discharge
' Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge sites located within the GISA, all of
which are located east of US 70. Two minor NPDES discharge sites are located along
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 32
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

1
' S
0
h
U
7
, one nort
of its intersection with NC 101 and one south of it. A Benthic Station is
located along Slocum Creek west of US 70 just outside of the city limits of Havelock.

The Plan also indicates that because of nutrient loading issues, the Neuse River is
currently considered to be impaired from New Bern to Minnesott Beach, near the NC 306
bridge over the river. Furthermore, the section of Slocum Creek adjacent to Cherry Point
has been exposed to jet fuel spills over years of fueling operations at the base. The site is
currently an EPA Superfund site. There is also an accumulation of water treatment alum
sludge from past operations. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality recommends
' not disturbing the sludge until such time as it can safely be removed and disposed.
Most of the streams in
the GISA are
designated as Class C
or SC waters, according
to the NCDENR. Class
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
C waters are protected
for uses such as
secondary recreation,
fishing, wildlife, fish
consumption, aquatic
life including
propagation, survival
and maintenance of
biological integrity, and
agriculture. Class SC waters are tidal salt waters protected for secondary recreation such
as fishing, boating, and other activities involving minimal skin contact; fish and non-
commercial shellfish consumption; aquatic life propagation and survival; and wildlife.
The Neuse River is a Class SB water, meaning that it is a tidal salt water protected for all
SC uses in addition to primary recreation (including swimming, skin diving, water skiing,
and similar uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take
place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis).
All segments have been assigned the Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) and Swamp
Waters (SW) supplemental classifications, which require limitations on nutrient inputs,
and indicate the streams have low velocities.
Slightly downstream of Tucker Creek and Slocum Creek are designated public trust
areas, which are considered Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) according to the
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
33
D
Coastal Resources Commission. According to the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA), this classification indicates that these waters are valuable for public fishing, as
well as for public recreation. They are protected under CAMA as important resources for
economic development.
303L) Waters

' The 303(d) list is a product of the Clean Water Act, which requires states to identify
those waters that do not meet water quality standards or those that have impaired uses. If
control strategies for point and non-point source pollution exist for impaired waters, they
may be excluded from the 303(d) list. A search of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality's (NCDENR DWQ's)
2006 303(d) List reveals that there are no impaired water bodies in the Growth Impact
Ri
i
ft 2008 303
Li
i
di
h
h
N
A
GISA
h
h
D
d
S
d
ver
st
n
cates t
at t
e
euse
s
tu
rea (
);
owever, t
e
ra
(
)
y
impaired from a line across the Neuse River from Johnson Point to McCotter Point to a
line across the Neuse River from 1.2 miles upstream of Slocum Creek to 0.5 miles
upstream of Beard Creek. `14 A ?

Forest. Wetlands and Flood
plains
In terms of the surrounding environment, the Croatan National Forest limits the growth
' potential along the US 70 corridor between New Bern and the Town of Newport in
Carteret County. Most of the land within Craven County located west of US 70 along
' this stretch is owned by the U.S. Forest Service, which currently prohibits private
development from taking place within its boundaries.
' Wetlands and floodplains further limit the amount of land available for future
development within and surrounding Havelock. Please refer to Figure 6 for locations of
' various water resources within the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA). Although a few
of these resources are located in existing floodplain/floodway area, which in and of itself
' restricts development opportunities, all wetlands are protected by the provisions of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As part of this Act, a permit will be required from
the Army Corps of Engineers for any potential discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States" (which includes wetlands). In accordance with the North
Carolina Division of Land Resources' Sediment and Erosion Control Act, Best
Management Practices (BMPs) would be required for any new development. According
to the NCDOT report entitled "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters" (March 1997), BMPs include activities, practices, and procedures undertaken to
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
34
1
r = = m = = m m = w = = = = i r m m
zoomzz3 C) C) 10 0 ? ?
i D < p i
u u u u
p=OZ?^C)c u u Y/
D D I El ? ?
=cmz?Om l._1 0 O 0
c?zr?i?Ctn
D?ODOz^ D
CIr?Do ? _
p w A cn ..., c ,? Z7 ? ? m
r ti V CD O N N CD (n p
w m .. Cll p CD - n C Cn 'O _0 _0
Dz04 m D N Q N O? O CD ?7 7 > w w v
v m y A O a N fA Q a ;p `< ;D Z vi ai to
0mpm Z El D a m o D D D
O m D O W (n CD n CD ? CD CD CD
Z?z T N CD O a
? v = z CD DO
` °? Z Z ? ° z m <' <' m
(n cn cf)
d 0 GJ N -?
-.4 0 m > m
CA) D
z x Cl)
o CD D 0
'IV 3 `n v CT
CD N
CD 0
N Ill
Cl)

Ln
ti
b
ti
O
ti
? A
? o
A O
?n
ti??

' prevent or reduce water pollution. This includes things such as: on-site detention areas,
vegetative buffers, culverts, and erosion control mechanisms.
Buffer RMIations
As mentioned previously, the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) is located in the Neuse
River Basin, which has riparian buffer regulations for all water bodies within it.
According to the North Carolina Administrative Code ("Red Book") effective August,
2004, 50-foot wide riparian buffers are required directly adjacent to intermittent streams,
perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and estuaries in the Neuse River Basin. This buffer
regulation does not apply to wetlands. There are certain permitted uses (outlined in the
code) within this riparian buffer, but it is expected to remain predominantly vegetative.
RE
STEP 3
¦ )
S (
2.3 INVENTORY OF NOTABLE FEATU
The two most notable features within the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) are the
Cherry Point U.S. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) and the Croatan National Forest.
The boundaries of both of these features are within and surrounding the City of
Havelock, and limit the amount of land upon which to develop. The Cherry Point MCAS
is the largest air station in the nation, covering more than 12,000 acres (4,800 hectares).
It was annexed into the City of Havelock in 1979. The Croatan National Forest is one of
i
l
160
000
li
i
f
f
i
l
i
h
d
acres
approx
mate
y
Caro
na, an
cons
sts o
,
our Nat
ona
Forests
n Nort
(64,750 hectares) in three counties (Craven, Carteret, and Jones). Also notable are the
presence of two major railroads that traverse the GISA, the North Carolina Railroad and
the Camp Lejeune Railroad (see Figure 7). Although these railroads provide additional
mobility and access to the GISA, they also serve as barriers to development.
There are five anadromous fish spawning areas within the GISA: Hancock Creek, East
Prong Slocum Creek, Southwest Prong Slocum Creek, Tucker Creek, and Goodwin
Creek. The GISA also contains the Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank. This site is
approximately 4,000 acres (1,600 hectares) and is located adjacent to the western border
of the GISA near Lake Long.
According to the Final Natural Resources Technical Report (May 2007), the GISA
contains portions of two registered Significant Natural Heritage Areas: the Havelock
Station Flatwoods and Powerline Corridor Natural Area and the Southwest Prong
Flatwoods Natural Area. The Cherry Point Tucker Creek Natural Area and the Paupers
Island/Goodwin Creek Natural Area are located in close proximity (approximately 1000
feet) east of the northern terminus of all three alternatives. In addition, the Masontown
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
35

zOD
?-xz?z

o
< zz?m
?

?

n

u
?

u?

u
? TI
z
<timz
c d ? ?? ?? ?? /
Y
i
C< O z o m
m z
T C) 0
m
3 2 C) 2 2 n C)
? m 7• m Ul T7 Cn
m (n C -o
m o c 2
to W W W ^
C
T
,
p 3 y o r Z N
n O
D 0 m (D ?j O O m N
`? A (?' j `G m
3 a O
a n N Zl 7
m O
•< '? D
0 m
N m
N m
N /?+
m
v
0
0 Pa cn M N °m ?
D W
m ?: j
m W
o In Z a a o ° m o
m p
m D
m D
m D
m
1 to 1?
DA
?p -i m
N N
= m N m
m 7»
o C)
m
o c
a
O
) a
3
>
>
..
z z A;
z
-? < a o
3
0 < m °- D
i
o cn ° L ° <' <'
N <' Z
_ y
Cm m Da CA) n
Q
l n
a
? m
Z.0
Z.0 n?
?
D
N <
o'
7 o
c
m T
r
v
M
1 W

.-1 0
y0 r

m
m
y
`°
.'.I

?Z

W m
Lrl K D
A/ ;r"
3 c
(D /X
4 CD m
cn Cl)
It
con
ti
b
ti
0
ti
4 A
?o
A a
?n
ti??

LI

1

Pocosin Natural Area is located approximately 1000 feet southwest of all three
alternatives near the southern terminus of the project.
Based on NCDOT and NC One Map GIS information (www.nconemap.com, accessed
2004), there are five historic properties and districts within the GISA that are considered
eligible for the National Register:
Property: The Needham B. White House
Location: Southwest side of existing US 70, at junction with SR 1737
(Roosevelt Boulevard)
Date: 1840
Description: 1 '/2 story, dwelling with a side-gable roof, stepped single-shoulder
gable-end chimneys
Property: Buildings 130, 131, 298, barracks CP
Location: Cherry Point MAS, NC
Date: 1940-1045
Description: World War II era buildings

1
Property: Building 137 Cherry Point
Location: Cherry Point MAS, NC
Date: 1943
Description: Aircraft overhaul
Property: Tom Haywood Store
Location: US 70 just north of Catfish Lake Road
Date: 1880
Description: Gable-front store
Property: Croatan Presbyterian Church
Location: US 70 at Catfish Lake Road
Date: 1884
Description: Vernacular, Victorian Church
An extensive list of notable features, including these historic structures and districts as
well as federally-protected species and natural communities (within the USGS
quadrangles that encompass the GISA), solid waste facilities and 303(d) streams is
located in Appendix I of this report. This list was compiled using NCDOT and NC One
t Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report-July 15, 2008
36

' Map GIS information, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources' (NCDENR) website, and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
website. The protected species information contained in Appendix I of this report was
developed exclusively with the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database and
was not cross-referenced with the Final Natural Resources Technical Report (May, 2007)
or the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive
(PETS) Assessment Memorandum (May 30, 2007).
There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supply Watersheds, or Wild and Scenic Rivers in the GISA for STIP Project R-1015.
2.3.1 Environmental Documentation
Final Natural Resources Technical Report (May 2007)
The NRTR indicates that there are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High
Quality Waters (HQW), WS-1 waters, or WS-II waters within 3.0 miles upstream or
downstream of the project study corridors. No stream that flows through the study
corridors is designated as a National Wild and Scenic River or a State Natural and Scenic
River.

The NRTR indicates there are no Areas of Environmental Concern as established by
Coastal Resources Commission within any of the project study corridors and no CAMA
t
F
f th
U
S
ti
l
d
ores
e
.
.
ons o
so crosses por
project a
permit will be required. The propose
Service (USFS) property that are part of the Croatan National Forest (CNF).
Consequently, the project will require a special use permit from the USFS. Prior to
approving the special use permit for the project, USFS requires that the project study area
be evaluated for Protected, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive (PETS) species. This
evaluation will be completed by NCDOT Natural Environment Unit.
In addition to portions of the Croatan National Forest, the project study area identified in
the NRTR crosses portions of two registered Significant Natural Heritage Areas: the
Havelock Station Flatwoods and Powerline Corridor Natural Area and the Southwest
Prong Flatwoods Natural Area.
U.S. Forest Service Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive (PETS)
Assessment Memorandum (May 30, 2007)
The memorandum summarizes the outcomes, along with supporting documented
occurrence data, for all PETS species included in the list provided by the USFS in
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 37
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

1

January 2005. The memorandum includes a summary of outcomes for PETS species
with documented occurrences within one or more project alternative alignments or within
USFS lands that will be indirectly impacted by a project alignment. The May 30, 2007
PETS memorandum indicates that there are 25 PETS species occurrences in the Project
Study Area. The PETS memorandum indicates that further discussion with the USFS is
required to determine what mitigative measures will be required to offset anticipated
project related impacts. Efforts to quantify direct, secondary, and cumulative effects will
be evaluated by the NCDOT Natural Environment Unit.
Final Biological Alternatives Analysis for Red-Cockaded Woodpecker and Bald
Eagle Impacts, US Highway 70 Bypass (R-1015), Craven County, North Carolina
(December 11, 2007)
This assessment reports the impacts of the proposed project on the federally-protected
red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) and the federally threatened bald eaglet.
The Final Biological Alternatives Analysis report states that no cavity trees will be taken
by the proposed project and none of the cleared highway right-of-way will come within
200 feet of any RCW cavity tree. The report also concludes that indirect and cumulative
impacts to the RCW may result from noise, development of some private properties along
the highway corridor and/or restriction of necessary management activities (e.g.,
burning). The report concludes that such impacts could individually or collectively
adversely affect RCW dispersal to/from Subpopulation 3 and inhibit unification of the
Croatan National Forest (CNF) RCW population. Once a preferred design alternative is
selected, specific impacts can be better quantified. Efforts to quantify direct, secondary,
and cumulative effects will be evaluated by the NCDOT Natural Environment Unit.
No eagle nests were found during the aerial survey in March 2004. Eagle monitoring
data provided by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission listed five active
nests and one inactive eagle nest in Craven County in 2005. Although none of the nests
' are located within a one-mile radius of the survey corridor, it was noted that one juvenile
bald eagle was surveyed flying outside of the 1 mile radius corridor during the 2004
survey. No discussion of impacts to bald eagles is presented in the report.
Concurrence Form for Properties Not Eligible for the National Register of Historic
' Places (December 5, 2006)

2 The Bald Eagle was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species on August 8,
2007.
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 38
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

t

1

1
I
1
1
ri

On December 5, 2006, representatives of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and North Carolina Historic
Preservation Office completed a historic architectural resources photograph review
session/consultation. Based on the session, all parties agreed:
• There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet
Criteria Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
• There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential
Effects (APE), but based on the historical information available and the
photographs of each property, the properties identified as 1-21 are considered
not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is
necessary.
• There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the
project's area of potential effects.
• All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been
considered at this consultation, and based upon the above concurrence, all
compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
2.3.2 Natural and Human Constraints on Development
Floodplains, wetlands, the Croatan National Forest and Cherry Point MCAS are some of
the major natural/human constraints on development that exist within the Growth Impact
Study Area (GISA) of STIP Project R-1015. The Cherry Point U.S. Marine Corps Air
Station, located in
j; , ??` ?f f> : Havelock between
r US 70 and the
Neuse River,
7 prevents
development
encroachment
i
hi
i
w
t
n
ts
boundaries.
Further limiting
the amount of

` developable land
Lake Road looking west at proposed interchange location within the GISA
is the presence of
an approximately 4,000-acre (1,600-hectare) Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank. This site
is located between the alternatives of the project and the western border of the GISA near
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report- July 15, 2008
39
1

Long Lake. As mentioned previously, the two railroads located within the GISA could
serve as constraints to development.
The geographical extent and severity of all of these features substantially reduces the
amount of developable land located within the GISA. For a complete listing of these
natural and human development constraints refer to Section 2.6.2 of this report.
2.4 ACTIVITIES THAT CAUSE EFFECTS (STEP 4)
2.4.1 Changes in Traffic and Access
As a result of constructing STIP Project R-1015, traffic patterns within the southern
portion of Craven County and Havelock may change. Most of the beach traffic will be
re-routed around Havelock. Traffic wishing to continue on US 70 to access existing
commercial businesses or Cherry Point MCAS will likely see improved access in the
form of reduced traffic congestion.
The proposed project includes the construction of an interchange with Lake Road. This
proposed interchange will provide the only access point to the new facility between the
two termini. The improved access provided by the proposed interchange with Lake Road
could also make nearby land more attractive for both residential and commercial
development. Consequently, traffic volumes on Lake Road may increase with the
' construction of the project.
Due to the full control of access and higher design speed, it is anticipated that drivers
utilizing the proposed Havelock Bypass will likely experience a travel time savings of
more than two minutes, no matter which alternative is chosen.

2.5 POTENTIAL INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FOR
ANALYSIS (STEP 5)
NCDOT and NCDENR, in their April 2001 handbook titled Guidance for Assessing
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, outline a
set of factors that need to be evaluated to determine whether or not additional detailed
analysis is required for specific projects. The following is an assessment of those factors
as they relate to STIP Project R-1015.

Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
40
1

Conflict with local plan:
STIP Project R-1015 is identified in the City of Havelock, North Carolina 1996 Land Use
Plan (Addendum 1998), the Craven County, North Carolina 1996 Land Use Plan
(Addendum 1998), and the Havelock Comprehensive Transportation /Land Use Plan
(April, 2007). According to the Havelock Comprehensive Transportation /Land Use
Plan (the most recent of these plans), areas for commercial development would be
r limited to interchanges at each terminus of the proposed bypass and at Lake Road. The
Plan shows a recommended new location freeway corridor in the approximate location of
the Alternative 3 alignment for the proposed Havelock Bypass. The proposed
construction of STIP Project R-1015 does not conflict with the recommendations in this
plan.
STIP Project R-1015 appears generally consistent with the Croatan National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plan. In general, the Plan indicates a desire to limit additional
special-use permits to uses that clearly serve an overall public benefit and are compatible

a with existing permitted uses. The construction of the US 70 Bypass is specifically
ti
d i
h
Pl
i
i
h
ld
id
bli
f
ld
i
b
d
men
one
n t
e
an as an act
ty t
at wou
prov
e pu
ene
it an
wou
requ
re
v
c
a special-use permit.

Explicit economic development purpose:
There is no specific economic development purpose for this project.
Planned to serve specific development:
The project does not appear to be designed to serve a specific development.
Likely to stimulate land development having complementary functions:
The assessment of this factor partially involves an evaluation of a subset of factors
commonly used to determine the potential for growth resulting from transportation
projects surrounding rural interchanges including:
1
1
1
1
• Distance to a major urban center
• Traffic volumes on intersecting roadways
• Presence of frontage roads
• Availability of water/sewer
The closest urban center is New Bern. The City of New Bern is the County seat and is
located approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers) northwest of Havelock. Other than New
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
41

11

1
1

1
Bern, the nearest urban center is Jacksonville which is located approximately 45 miles
(72 kilometers) from Havelock.
According to NCDOT traffic volume maps, the 2006 Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADT) volumes on US 70 and major intersecting roadways within the GISA are as
follows:
Location {?)
US 70 south of Greenfield Heights Road/Gray Road (SR 1746) 24,000 vpd
US 70 south of Southwest Prong of Slocum Creek 28,000 vpd
US 70 south of Cunningham Drive (SR 1735) 32,000 vpd
Greenfield Heights Boulevard/Gray Road (SR 1746) west of US 70 3,400 vpd
Miller Boulevard (SR 1763) west of Belltown Road (SR 1739) 7,800 vpd
Church Road south of Southwest Prong of Slocum Creek 1,600 vpd
Source: NCDOT Online Traffic Survey Maps, accessed June, 2008
Traffic volumes along roadways west of US 70 (i.e., Greenfield Heights Boulevard, Lake
Road, Miller Road) are expected to remain the same or increase if STIP Project R-1015 is
constructed. Frontage roads are not planned as part of STIP Project R-1015.

According to local officials, public water and sewer exists within most of the Havelock
portion of the GISA, although capacity is becoming an issue. Figure 8 shows the local
' water and sewer lines. It was noted by the Focus Group that it is extremely difficult to
work with the North Carolina Road and Camp Lejeune Railroads to extend water and/or
sewer lines across their tracks, which are located in close proximity to developable land
within the GISA. Craven County provides some water service, but no sewer service in

' unincorporated portions of the county. The Craven County Waste Transfer Station is
l
d
h
id
ocate
on t
e west s
e of US 70, north of Hickman Hill Loop Road.
' Based upon these findings, STIP Project R-1015 is unlikely to stimulate a substantial
amount of land development having complementary functions. Relatively long distances
to urban centers, relatively low existing traffic volumes on intersecting roadways, and
lack of public water or sewer service throughout much of the GISA will likely limit the
amount of growth associated with the project. Some commercial development may take
place at the proposed termini interchanges. However, this development would likely
' Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
42
m m m m? m m! m m m m m i m m r m m
Z10 00 r j = o o In
u u
p
Cl 11
(?Z-Dor(n T?
D?OroZn> cn (n /V
p N (n = D °o (D (D C n g? W 00 W m
r < N N p? (n O `G G G
za-,? N m v m o m D v m m 00
D o o m D O 7 p fn (n vi
vm?3 Q d c < (A (n (n
omz 3 o p c m co D D
Q D
0 OT (mn ?m W (7 < (D c CD (D (D m
OmD o N (D O Q p 0 0
Z-0n ? a m v v v
x
;z z z mm
c A W N N
o
m > D
( Ul W Z
N Z
22 0
CD
3
CD D
CD
Tm
N
-4

b
ti
O
ti
a, a
? o
a
?n
pOp ?A''7

occur with or without the proposed Havelock Bypass. Some residential and commercial
development may take place at the proposed interchange with Lake Road.
1
Likely to influence intraregional land development location decisions:
Typically, if the conditions are favorable for development and/or a region is currently
undergoing urbanization, an enhancement in the transportation infrastructure is likely to
influence where development will occur. In this case, development within the GISA is
r constrained by floodplains, wetlands, the Croatan National Forest and Cherry Point
MCAS. These conditions make it unlikely that STIP Project R-1015 would influence
intraregional land development location decisions.
2.6 INDIRECT/CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (STEP 6)
2.6.1 Focus Group
In order to provide the most comprehensive and accurate analysis of potential indirect
and cumulative impacts resulting from STIP Project R-1015, the use of a Focus Group

1
t

1

was necessary. The Focus Group consisted of major property owners, as well as local
business and government professionals with market knowledge of growth and
development trends within Craven County, Carteret County, Havelock, and Newport.
These professionals had extensive experience in real estate development, planning,
zoning, Croatan National Forest regulations, Cherry Point WAS activities, and major
land transactions, all of which have an impact on the potential for land use change related
to STIP Project R-1015.
Two meetings were held with the Focus Group. The first meeting focused on an
evaluation of a no-build growth forecast for the GISA (see Section 2.7.2) and the
suitability for development of land within the GISA. As is discussed in Section 2.6.2 of
this report, a series of development constraints were compiled and analyzed in order to
determine the land available for future development. Feedback provided by the local
Focus Group allowed for some minor adjustments to the no-build growth forecast. This
feedback was based on recent building permit data, and a consensus rating (most suitable
compared to least suitable) of the development constraints, which were then incorporated
into a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) ModelBuilderTm program used to
determine the most suitable land for future development. This model or analysis is
explained in Section 2.6.2.
Results of the no-build growth forecast and GIS ModelBuilderTm application were
presented at a second Focus Group meeting to confirm the methodology and "ground-
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
43
1

truth" the findings. The Focus Group also assisted in the creation of the two "Build"
scenarios (which are described in Section 2.7.1). A consensus was reached on the
amount and location of household and employment growth within the GISA, both with
and without STIP Project R-1015.
2.6.2 Land Available for Development
A series of development constraints was compiled and analyzed in order to determine the
land available for future development. GIS data included the following layers:
• Water bodies
• Wetlands
• Sewer service area
i
• Water serv
ce area
• Soils not suitable for septic
• Soils not suitable for development
• Existing development
• Croatan National Forest
• Special properties (including Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank, Weyerhaeuser

' property, Camp Bryan Hunt Club property)
• Fl
l
i
d
/Fl
d
ns
oo
p
a
oo
ways
• Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ)
' • Accident Potential Zones (APZ)
In addition to the above development constraints, a 50-foot (15-meter) riparian buffer
was created around all water bodies. Sewer and water service areas were delineated
based upon existing GIS layers from the NCDOT and local jurisdictions. A total of five
buffers were created based on the distance in 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) increments from
existing service. Those areas closer to existing service received lower constraint values.
' Also, in areas where soils not suitable for septic overlapped with existing sewer service
areas, those soils were not considered to be constrained in any way.
Collaboratively with the Focus Group (see Section 2.6.1), the study team applied
constraint values to each of the GIS layers as follows:
'
• Water bodies with 50-foot (15 meter) riparian buffer 50
• Wetlands
_> Managed Pinelands 2
' Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 44
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

f => Pine Flats 25
_> Pocosin and Swamp 50
' _> All others 1
• Sewer service area
_> Existing service 0
_> 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) buffer of existing service 1
_> 2-mile (3.2-kilometer) buffer of existing service 2
r => 3-mile (4.8-kilometer) buffer of existing service 10
_> 4-mile (6.4-kilometer) buffer of existing service 25
• Water service area
_> Existing service 0
_> 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) buffer of existing service
_> 2-mile (3.2-kilometer) buffer of existing service 1
2
_> 3-mile (4.8-kilometer) buffer of existing service 10
• Soils not suitable for septic
_> Served by existing sewer/within 1-mile
(1.6-kilometers) of sewer 0
_> Outside of 1-mile (1.6-kilometers) buffer of
existing sewer 50
' • Soils not suitable for development 10
• Existing development 50
• U.S. National Forest Service land
_> Between Bypass Alternative 1 and existing US 70 25
_> Everywhere else
i
l
S
i 50
•
pec
a
propert
es
_> Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank 50
_> Weyerhaeuser property 10
_> Camp Bryan Hunt Club property 25
• Floodplain/Floodways
_> 100-year floodplain 25
_> 500-year floodplain 0
• Air Installation Compatible Use Zones 25
• Accident Potential Zones 10
' The constraint values were then incorporated into a GIS ModelBuilderTm program. The
overlapping of GIS layers and resulting combination of constraint values created a
development suitability hierarchy. Land which had a combined constraint value between
r Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICEReport -July 15, 2008
45
1

0 and 29 was designated as being highly suitable for future development, while land that
had a combined constraint value between 30 and 49 was designated as being moderately
' suitable for future development. All land with a combined constraint value of 50 or
above was designated as being unsuitable for future development. Please refer to Figure
9 for a visual representation of this analysis.
2.6.3 Evaluation of Potential for Land Use Change
To further evaluate the potential for and magnitude of land use change resulting from
STIP Project R-1015, the following factors were evaluated.
Table 5. Potential For Land Use Change, 2000-2020
Chi I.And
sup* Water/
t' hAup in < Property Fo recasted vi. Land $ewer Market For
Rating Acceasibiilty Values Growth Demand Availability Development POW Policy
> 50%
increase Less
> 10 min. in < 10-year Existing Development stringent; no
travel time property > 3% annual supply of service activity growth
Strong savings values pop. growth land available abundant management
A
"
X
X
" X X X X
" X
No No service More
< 2 min. property > 20-year available Development stringent;
travel time value 04% annual supply of now or in activity growth
Weak savings increase pop. Growth land future lacking management
Source: HN B (2005)
STIP Project R-1015 would be an approximate 9.9 to 10.85 mile (14.5 to 17.7 kilometer),
four-lane, median-divided, fully-controlled access bypass of the City of Havelock with a
design speed of 70 mph (113 kph). Existing US 70 through Havelock has a posted speed
limit of 45 mph (72 kph), with numerous traffic signals and limited access management.
Due to the full control of access and higher design speed, it is anticipated that drivers
utilizing the proposed Havelock Bypass will likely experience a travel time savings of
more than two minutes, no matter which alternative is chosen.
Property values could increase in those areas that will have improved access as a result of
the Havelock Bypass, namely those areas surrounding the Lake Road interchange. Other
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 46
Final Quantitative ICE Report -July 15, 2008
m = = = = m = = m m = r r mm r = =
2
oel
N

v
,t

I
x000cmz3

z?-xzz0D
i D m < p
m<
m A N p p
TI
M.
o
p
o
o
uo
0
0
z??
z??
Z ? o 0 0 0
y
0nn. rn
xc
zOm
Z
? z
O
p
0
v
D
o
0yz"
? (p
' (n (n a O rn -n

o
x;A oN
o Q^ ?n
m
Cl)
(D
v

m
o
0
CD
o
D
N
ccnn
ccnn _
r
..
m w
Duo ?mA
N
v
N
c _
O W
o
o Q 0- C
m fn
D to
D (n
D
C
vm? -i
y
m
? ?G ;:w Q -?
m
Z
10 <
to
m O C/)
C
CD
CD
O 7

? =3 :3

m
rn
O m
D 0
Z.V n W ^* ?,
O rr a)
a .
' Z LC

<
x N
(D
A zz
cn
O
?
'?
C
W
N -n
z
10
c ;o o

T

d
c

c
mD
m CD c --I
c
?
A Z
O
CD
N <
D
W
3 ° o w m
'A' CD cD < -0 r -
CID
(A CD 3
O ?

CD
7
I *%
b
?rz
4.1
O
ti
R A
?o
fi b
?n
ON ? fi

1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1

factors including water/sewer service and proximity to major destinations should increase
property values within the GISA more so than STIP Project R-1015.
According to the population forecast in Section 2.7.2 of this report, the GISA is expected
to increase at a rate of approximately 2.4% annually between 2000 and 2020.
Furthermore, because of the presence of the Croatan National Forest and the Cherry Point
MCAS, which restrict growth within their boundaries, there is probably only slightly
more than a 20-year supply of developable land within the GISA, depending on the
specific area.
According to local officials, public water and sewer exist within the portion of the GISA
in the City of Havelock, although capacity is becoming an issue. The Focus Group
indicated that it is extremely difficult to work with the North Carolina and Camp Lejeune
Railroads to
extend water
and/or sewer lines
across their tracks,
which are located
between existing
service lines and
developable land
within the GISA.
Craven County
provides some
water service but
no sewer service
in unincorporated
portions of the county. At the time of the assessment, the Town of Newport was planning
on extending sewer service to the northern extent of their ETJ in Carteret County, in
order to attract additional commercial development in the area. Similar to Craven
County, much of the Carteret portion of the GISA is Croatan National Forest, and is
therefore not serviced with public water and sewer.
Based on input from the local planners, a modest amount of development activity is
taking place within the GISA. Recent and proposed development is focused along
existing US 70, including a recently constructed Wal-Mart near US 70 and Slocum Road.
Residential development is occurring sporadically, with the heaviest activity located near
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 47
Final Quantitative ICE Report-July 15, 2008
1
1
' the Carolina Pines community, between US 70 and the Neuse River north of Havelock in
unincorporated Craven County.
Growth management strategies in the form of land use zoning, and environmental
'
' regulations (see Section 2.2.5) are in place for the City of Havelock, the Town of
Newport, and Craven County.
' 2.7 ANALYSIS OF INDIRECT/CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (STEP 6)
2.7.1 Scenario-Writing
Methodology for Selection of Growth Rates
A household and employment forecast between 2000 and 2020 was conducted for the
Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) with the assumption that an additional 10% to 15% of
' the future no-build growth within the GISA would be attributable to growth that would
have taken place outside of the GISA boundaries without the construction of the
Havelock Bypass.
The assumption of 10% to 15% additional growth attributable to STIP Project R-1015
' was based on three previous studies and was used for the analysis following a review
with the Focus Group.
One previous study referenced was "Accounting for Induced Travel in Evaluation of
Urban Highway Expansion" by Patrick DeCorla-Souza, AICP of the Federal Highway
' Administration and Harry Cohen.
DeCorla-Souza & Cohen's 1998 work included behavioral shifts in their calculation, as
well as land use shifts. DeCorla-Souza's model separately accounts for trip diversion,
but not for land use shifts. In his example, which uses a hypothetical eight-mile corridor
increased from four to six lanes, with parallel arterials, and a projected freeway ADT of
80,000, the projected induced vehicles miles traveled (VMT), which includes land use
' and behavioral factors other than diversion, is at slightly above 15% over projected VMT
for his moderate demand elasticity and at approximately 22.5% over projected VMT for
his extreme elasticity in which all new capacity would be absorbed by induced travel.
A second study used as a reference was "Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced
Travel: A Path Analysis" by Robert Cervero of the University of California at Berkeley,
published in the Spring 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Planning Association.
' Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 48

Final Quantitative ICE Report-July 15, 2008

1

Cervero's analysis of 20 California freeway corridors explicitly tried to isolate and
calculate the land use shift portion of induced travel, (i.e., excluding behavioral shifts like
route diversion, temporal change, modal shifts, reduced car occupancy, etc). Cervero's
"path model" explains traffic increases in terms of both faster travel speeds and land use
shifts that occur in response to adding freeway lanes. His research revealed "induced
growth" and "induced investment" effects in terms of real estate development gravitating
r to improved freeways and traffic increases generating additional road investments over
time. His generalized results showed an average land use shift/elasticity of
approximately 12.5%.
The third study referenced was based on a presentation by David T. Hartgen, Professor of
Transportation Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and subsequently
published by the John Locke Foundation in September, 2003 as "Highways and Sprawl in
North Carolina."
Hartgen's analysis was based on GIS comparisons of North Carolina census tracts in
' which highway improvements were made during the 1990s with population growth from
1990 to 2000, as reported by the US Census. While Hartgen's analysis tended to
' minimize the relationship between road construction and change in land use, he did find
cases in which road improvements, particularly urban and rural widenings, were
' positively correlated with growth. His analysis found that the relative impact of these
effects is modest, about 2% to 14% added to baseline growth.
Each of these quantitative methodologies has limitations, reflecting the state of the art of
modeling change in land use effects of roads. DeCorla-Souza & Cohen's analysis was
primarily an effort to estimate change in traffic, rather than change in land use, and did
not attempt to specifically correlate real estate investment with increased transportation
capacity. Cervero's work went further in attempting to separate change in land use and
real estate investment effects, but was specific to conditions in the Bay Area of
California. Hartgen's analysis was limited in that it was based only on 1990 to 2000 data,
' and did not reflect long term effects of roads on development. For example, a road built
in 1999 would have shown up in his GIS analysis, but any growth in the same census
tract would not be apparent until the 2010 or later census. Similarly, roads built prior to
i 1990 were not included in his GIS analysis, so growth in a census tract between 1990 and
2000 might not reflect any growth effects from the road project.
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
49
1

1

r
1

I
LJ
Nonetheless, we found the DeCorla-Souza & Cohen and Cervero analyses to be the most
commonly cited state of the art models for estimating growth occurring as a result of
transportation or road projects, and Hartgen's to be the only quantitative model of the
relationship between road projects and growth in North Carolina. Since all three
indicated an effect between 12% and 15%, and growth rates in the GISA were neither
notably lower nor higher than statewide rates, a level of land use change between 10%
and 15% related to a road project seemed to be a reasonable assumption to test in Craven
and Carteret Counties.
Cervero and DeCorla-Souza & Cohen also defined estimated distances from the
transportation improvement within which change in land use might take place. This
helped define the GISA boundaries, as well as the distribution of change in land use
within the GISA. The entire GISA may have grown by an additional 10% or 15%
because of the increased transportation capacity, but not all of the GISA subareas were
estimated to grow by the same percentages. Other factors such as environmental
constraints, public utilities, etc. helped to more accurately distribute change in land use
within the overall GISA.
To test the assumption, the growth range of 10% to 15% and the assumed distribution
' areas were reviewed with the project Focus Group, which included planning, real estate
and development professionals in the GISA. They concurred that a 10% assumption for
' land use change for Scenario 1 and a 15% assumption for land use change for Scenario 2,
and that the assumed distribution areas within each scenario were reasonable.

1

1
1
No-Build Scenario:
A household and employment forecast between 2000 and 2020 was conducted for the
Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) with the assumption that STIP Project R-1015 would
not be built. Results of this analysis, in terms of the forecasted amount and location of
future growth, are presented in Sections 2.7.3 and 2.7.4 of this report.
Growth Scenario 1:
A household and employment forecast between 2000 and 2020 was conducted for the
Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) with the assumption that STIP Project R-1015 would
be built. It was estimated as part of this scenario that an additional 10% (DeCorla-Souza
and Cohen, Cervero, Hartgen) of the future no-build scenario growth within the GISA
would be attributable to growth that would have taken place outside of the GISA
boundaries without the construction of STIP Project R-1015. This additional 10%
growth was added to the "No-Build" growth forecast. Results of this analysis, in terms of
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 50
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
1

' the forecasted amount and location of future growth for each alternative, are presented in
Sections 2.7.3 and 2.7.4 of this report.

Growth Scenario 2:
' Another household and employment forecast between 2000 and 2020 was conducted for
the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) with the assumption that STIP Project R-1015
would be built. It was estimated as part of this scenario that an additional 15% (DeCorla-
Souza and Cohen, Cervero, Hartgen) of the future no-build scenario growth within the
GISA would be attributable to growth that would have taken place outside of the GISA
' boundaries without the construction of STIP Project R-1015. This additional 15%
growth was added to the "No-Build" growth forecast. Results of this analysis, in terms of
the forecasted amount and location of future growth for each alternative, are presented in
' Sections 2.7.3 and 2.7.4 of this report.
2.7.2 Quantity of Forecasted Growth
Growth Impact Study Area (GISA)

No-Build Scenario: Households and Employment
Residential permit data (2000 to 2005) was used to determine that Craven County is
permitting an average of 727 residential units per year. The annual number of residential
permits being issued during that five-year period has been increasing by about 85 permits
' per year. Based on conversations with Craven County planners, it was determined that
both of these trends should be taken into consideration in order to forecast the number of
' residential permits in Craven County through 2020.
First, the average number of residential permits issued per year from 2000 to 2005 (727)
' was applied to each year between 2006 and 2020, resulting in a forecasted total of 14,687
residential permits in Craven County between 2000 and 2020. Then, in order to account
' for the increasing trend in permits being issued, the average increase of residential
it
2000
2005
li
h
t
2006
f
85
d
b
d
perm
s per year
rom
to eac
year
ween
an
to
(
) was app
e
e
2020, resulting in a forecasted total of 24,933 residential permits in Craven County
' between 2000 and 2020. The average of these two forecasts (19,810) was used, with a
5% allowance for units that will be permitted but not built, resulting in a forecasted total
of approximately 18,820 new households in Craven County between 2000 and 2020.
Building permit trends were not available from Carteret County; therefore, its forecasted
' household growth rate between 2000 and 2010, as well as between 2010 and 2020, was
estimated to remain the same as it was between 1990 and 2000 (18.7%). This would
' Havelock B
ass - STIP Project R-1015
yp
51
Final Quantitative ICE Report -July 15, 2008
1

result in a forecasted total of approximately 10,292 new households in Carteret County
between 2000 and 2020.
Based on residential permit data between 2000 and 2005, the City of Havelock is
permitting an average of 126 residential units per year. The annual number of residential
permits being issued during that five-year period has been increasing by about nine
permits per year. In collaboration with the City of Havelock planners, it was decided that
both of these trends should be taken into consideration in determining the number of
residential permits to be issued in Havelock between 2000 and 2020.
First, the average number of residential permits issued per year from 2000 to 2005 (126)
was applied to each year between 2006 and 2020, resulting in a total of 2,576 residential
permits in Havelock between 2000 and 2020. Then, in order to account for the
increasing trend in permits being issued, the average increase (9) in residential permits
per year from 2000 to 2005 was applied to each year between 2006 and 2020, resulting in
a total of 3,608 residential permits in Havelock between 2000 and 2020. The average of
these two forecasts (3,092) was calculated, with a 5% allowance for units that will be
permitted but not built, resulting in a forecasted total of approximately 2,937 new
households in Havelock between 2000 and 2020.
d 2020
it
ld
h f
2000
I
d
l
h
GISA h
h
b
was
n or
growt
orecast
etween
,
er to comp
ete t
ouse
o
an
e
necessary to determine the household growth forecast for the unincorporated portions of
Craven County and Carteret County that are located within the GISA. Excluding areas
within Havelock, it was estimated that the GISA could capture 5% (based on geographic
coverage and recent trends) of the 2000 to 2020 new households overall in Craven
County. This would equate to an additional 941 households between 2000 and 2020 in
the Craven County portion of the GISA, but outside of Havelock.
'
It was estimated that approximately 2% of the forecasted households to be built in
Carteret County overall between 2000 and 2020 would be captured by the GISA. This
would equate to an additional 206 households between 2000 and 2020 in the Carteret
County portion of the GISA. This number was based on geographic coverage and by
taking into consideration that the majority of that area is within the Croatan National
Forest, and that land along that portion of US 70 is predominantly planned for
commercial rather than residential development. Thus, a total of 4,239 new households
are forecasted within the entire GISA (Havelock, unincorporated Craven County,
unincorporated Carteret County) between 2000 and 2020, minus a 5% allowance for units
that will be permitted but not built (see Table 6). This total does not include any housing
built for military personnel on the Cherry Point MCAS property. As shown in Table 6,
Havelock B
ass - STIP Project R-1015
yp
52
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

1
the annual growth rate of the GISA household projection is approximately 2.4% between
2000 and 2020.

1

1
Table 6. No-Build Scenario
Household Forecast & Share, 2000-2020
C..ounfiec & Growth Imnact Studv Area (GISAI
Households Grtr 2000-2020
Area 2000 2020 #' %
GISA 6,616 10,643 4,027 60.9%
Craven County 34,582 53,402 18,820 54.4%
Carteret County 25,204 35,496 10,292 40.8%
GISA Share of
Counties
11.1%
12.0%
13.8%
N/A
Source: US Census Bureau, NC Office of State Demographics (2005), & HNTB
In order to forecast employment for the GISA, it was necessary to evaluate county
employment trends. The job per household growth ratio (1990 to 2000) was calculated
for Craven County. This ratio was applied, with some modifications based on
professional judgment, to the 2000 to 2020 forecasted household growth numbers to
determine the forecasted jobs for Craven County between 2000 and 2020. Based on
professional judgment and discussions with local planners, the job per household growth
ratio (1990 to 2000) was not used for Carteret County. Using this ratio likely would have
skewed the employment numbers, and made them seem too high. Therefore, the job per
household ratio (2000) was held constant to determine employment in 2010 and 2020.
In order to determine the amount of overall county job growth at the sector level, the
share of the overall 1990 to 2000 county Job growth for each sector represented was
applied to the 2000 to 2020 county job growth forecast. The forecasted employment by
sector between 2000 and 2020 was then converted into retail, office, and industrial jobs
(see tables below).
U
1
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 53
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
r

Table 7. No-Build Scenario Forecasted Jobs By Sector, 2000-2020
Craven County

r
PJ

1
i I-

?I
1
Forecasted

Added
Em a
,wes

d+at Not

Industry

Growth

Retail

Office

Industrial
;
pying
S ace
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing & Hunting
361
0
72
108
181
Utilities -65 0 -20 0 -46
Construction 575 0 115 460 0
Manufacturing 2,608 0 522 2,087 0
Wholesale Trade 114 80 23 11 0
Retail Trade 1,027 924 103 0 0
Transportation and
Warehousing
943
0
189
566
189
Information 99 0 20 0 79
Finance and Insurance 216 0 216 0 0
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing
674
135
539
0
0
Professional and Technical
Services
1,050
525
525
0
0
Administrative and Waste
Services
2,836
567
1,701
567
0
Educational Services 127 0 89 38 0
Health Care and Social
Assistance
3,263
653
2,611
0
0
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation
-360
-252
-108
0
0
Accommodation and Food
Services
2,227
1,782
223
223
0
Other Services, Ex. Public
Administration
468
327
94
47
0
Government 6,356 0 5,085 636 636
Total: 22,519 4,741 11,997 4,742 1,039
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission, HNTB
Note: Rows and columns may not add correctly due to rounding
1
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 54
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
1

i
1
t

1
1
v
Table 8. No-Build Scenario Forecasted Jobs By Sector, 2000-2020
Carteret Countv
Forerast+ed Fm M ces A dded Jobs Not

Industry

Gruwt

Retail

Office

Industrial Occupying
lhysi"I
Space
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing
& Hunting
115
0
23
35
58
Utilities -10 0 -3 0 -7
Construction 699 0 140 560 0
Manufacturing -222 0 -44 -177 0
Wholesale Trade 684 479 137 68 0
Retail Trade 1,156 1,041 116 0 0
Information 185 0 37 0 148
Finance and Insurance 45 0 45 0 0
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing
382
76
306
0
0
Professional and Technical
Services
562
281
281
0
0
Administrative and Waste
Services
876
175
525
175
0
Educational Services 82 0 57 25 0
Health Care and Social
Assistance
623
125
498
0
0
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation
230
161
69
0
0
Accommodation and Food
Services
1,266
1,013
127
127
0
Other Services, Ex. Public
Administration
218
153
44
22
0
Government 2,074 0 1,659 207 207
Total: 8,965 3,503 4,016 1,041 406
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission (2005), HNTB
Note: Rows and columns may not add correctly due to rounding
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 55
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
w
1

Because some jobs do not occupy physical space, not all of the forecasted jobs by sector
fell into one of these three categories. This number is shown in the column furthest to the
right in Tables 7 and 8. Based on geographical coverage and existing development
patterns, a GISA capture rate of the forecasted county retail, office, and industrial
' employment growth between 2000 and 2020 was estimated. For Craven County, the
GISA capture rate for each employment sector (office, industrial, retail) was estimated at
17.5%. This included employment for the Cherry Point MCAS. For Carteret County, the
GISA capture rate was estimated at 1.5% for office and retail and 3% for industrial. The
resulting GISA forecasted job growth was then converted into building acreage using
standard square feet (0.09 square meters) per job ratios for each of the three employment
categories (office, retail, industrial). Results of the No-Build Scenario employment
growth forecast for Craven County and Carteret County are located in Table B-4 and
Table B-5 (respectively) in Appendix II.
The final step in the employment forecast process was to convert the building acreages
for each commercial category into land acreages. The results of the conversion are
shown below in Table 9. This was achieved by applying Urban Land Institute industry
standard floor area ratios (0.25 for retail, 0.30 for office, and 0.225 for industrial) and
square feet per job estimates for each category. The resulting employment and land
consumption forecast for the GISA between 2000 and 2020 was estimated at over 3,900
jobs in over 1.6 million square feet (148,600 square meters) on approximately 148 acres
(59.2 hectares) of total land area.
Table 9. No-Build Scenario
1 Employment Growth Forecast
Growth Imuact Studv Area
1

1
II
u

2000-2020
Industry Land
Sector Jobs S ft Acres
Retail 882 441,118 40.5
Office 2,160 539,944 41.3
Industrial 861 645,863 65.9
Total: 3,903 11626,925 147.7
Source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 250 sqft per office job, 500 sgft per
retail job, and 750 sqft per industrial job.
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 56
Final Quantitative ICE Report-July 15, 2008
1
w
Growth Scenario]: Households and Employment
The same process as described under the No-Build Scenario was used to determine the
forecasted amount of households and jobs for this scenario. The only difference in terms
of the amount of forecasted growth is that an additional 10% "in-flow" factor was
estimated for growth that would have taken place outside of the GISA without the
construction of STIP Project R-1015. Otherwise, it was assumed that as a result of the
project, the No-Build Scenario growth would only be somewhat redistributed within the
GISA boundaries (see Section 2.7.3). It was also assumed that all three proposed
alternatives of STIP Project R-1015 would generate the same amount of household and
f

1
n
1
5
1
1
1
job growth, although the location of that growth would vary because of different
interchange locations. Results of the Growth Scenario 1 employment growth forecast for
Craven County and Carteret County are located in Table B-6 and Table B-7
(respectively) in Appendix II. The following are the series of tables associated with
Growth Scenario 1.
Table 10. Household Forecast & Share, 2000-2020
Counties & Growth Imnact Studv Area (GISA)
Households Growth 2000-2020
Area 2000 2020 # %
GISA 6,616 11,046 4,430 67.0%
Craven County 34,582 53,402 18,820 54.4%
Carteret County 25,204 35,496 10,292 40.8%
GISA Share of
Counties
11.1%
12.4%
15.2%
N/A
Source: US Census Bureau, NC Office of State Demographics (2005), & HNTB
Table 11. Growth Scenario 1
Employment Growth Forecast
Growth Imnact Studv Area
2000-2020
Industry Land
Sector Jabs S ft Acres
Retail 970 485,230 44.6
Office 2,376 593,938 45.4
Industrial 947 710,449 72.5
Total: 4 293 1,789,618 162.5
Source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 250 sqft per office job, 500 sqft per
retail job, and 750 sqft per industrial job.
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report -July 15, 2008
57

Growth Scenario 2: Households and Employment
The same process as described under the No-Build Scenario was used to determine the
forecasted amount of households and jobs for this scenario. The only difference in terms
1 of the amount of forecasted growth is that an additional 15% "in-flow" factor was
estimated for growth that would have taken place outside of the GISA without the
construction of STIP Project R-1015. Otherwise, it was assumed that as a result of the
project, the No-Build Scenario growth would only be somewhat redistributed within the
GISA boundaries (see Section 2.7.3). It was also assumed that all three proposed
alternatives of STIP Project R-1015 would generate the same amount of household and
job growth, although the location of that growth would vary because of different
interchange locations. Results of the Growth Scenario 1 employment growth forecast for
Craven County and Carteret County are located in Table B-8 and Table B-9
(respectively) in Appendix II. The following are the series of tables associated with
Growth Scenario 1.
Table 12. Growth Scenario 2
Household Forecast & Share, 2000-2020
Counties & Growth imnact Rtndv Area (G 14A1

1

1
1
1
Households Growth 2OW2020
Area 2090 2020 # %
GISA 6,616 11,247 4,631 70.0%
Craven County 34,582 53,402 18,820 54.4%
Carteret County 25,204 35,496 10,292 40.8%
GISA Share of
Counties
11.1%
12.7%
15.9%
N/A
Source: US Census Bureau, NC Office of State Demographics (2005), & HNTB
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICEReport -July 15, 2008
58
1

i
Table 13. Growth Scenario 2
Employment Growth Forecast
Growth Impact Studv Area
1
1
2000-2020
Industry Land
Sector Jobs S ft Acres
Retail 1,015 507,285 46.6
Office 2,484 620,936 47.5
Industrial 990 742,743 75.8
Total: 4489 1 1,970,964 169.9
Source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 250 sqft per office job, 500 sqft per
retail job, and 750 sgft per industrial job.
1
1
J

2.7.3 Location of Forecasted Growth
Because all alternatives have a similar geographic location, an equal level of access
control, identical typical sections and the same number of interchanges, it was determined
that there would be no variation in the amount of potential land use change attributed to
each of the three Havelock Bypass alternatives. The location of growth should shift
slightly from one area to another because of the alternate interchange location for Bypass
Alternative 2, but it should still generate the same amount of potential land use change
within the GISA as Bypass Alternatives 1 and 3. Most of the differentiation by
alternative would be in terms of direct impacts, not potential for land use change.
Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) - Subareas
A total of 16 subareas were delineated within the GISA, bounded by individual
subwatersheds that were clipped to the GISA boundaries (see Figure 10). Subwatershed
boundaries were used in order to easily transition the growth forecasts into a hydrologic
analysis model for the Watershed Analysis Area (WAA) that would calculate storm water
runoff volume and peak discharge effects of the Havelock Bypass alternatives (see
Appendices II and III).
The potential for land development and land use change as a result of transportation
investment was examined using the Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, Volume IT Practitioners
Handbook.
According to this report, empirical evidence indicates that transportation investments
result in major land use changes only in the presence of the following factors:
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
59
"m IM mm mm m m W?m m mmm m mm m
Z
GN
m
Ra

r- m
v
ID N
k
I fw • if

zr
co

i
i
y

J a?`
RCO,
LJ
r ?
(D
2) w
-.-`
\\ `? -

N cn
w rt' ,Crake
C
a
?? C
<

(D
r
te
e4
retrC? my
l

\ 90
/
w oi
0

DE

M O O O C M Z K Q Q
ZIOD =zZOD p p p
N
m? mo O?=
z < O m O
F-1 Fl n
A zo Z, O> ? n
n n
=c<21zom
0zo?MDZy O O (Q v N Cn C W C T 0 _0 _0 _0
ow?DA?o? U) m ,< <D m v o o m D? ? M
vm0 2? N 6 N C CD Oa O- O (D D D D Cl)
m z M A 3 (D N O `< (7 (CD N (D (D V/ m O
m 0 -l e-0 6 (D p (D 7 7 C
o z mm? O (D (D N (?/? v v 0
C * -n 77
W -n O CD Q < < < m u I
<p D N -' w N ?<D
z z H, C m
?D -n cl)
r r
m A (D CD "U ca
Wo o O < IS
2? _0 o (D _ 9
Jv w 9 CD -00
rn
V al CD <
(D O Z M
O CD -°o >^
(CD V
CD 0
? '« M
cn

b
ti
O
ti
V.n
4, A
,r o
? b
A ?
? n
Z
000`??`7

• availability of developable land
• supportive local land use policies
• local development incentives
• a good investment climate
Additional factors that may influence the likelihood and rate of development near
interchanges may include:
• distance to major urban area or regional center
• traffic volume on the intersecting roads
• presence of frontage roads
• availability of water, sewer and other public infrastructure
The GISA growth forecasts for all three scenarios determined in the previous section
were distributed into the 16 subareas based on an evaluation of these growth attraction
factors. In terms of the amount and location of forecasted growth by scenario, there was
no variation by alternative at this GISA subarea level. There was only variation by
scenario. Table 14 below indicates the results of this evaluation.
f]
1
1
1

1

Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 60
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
1

n

1
1
r
1

1
1
1
1

Table 14. Growth Impact Study Area Households and Jobs Distribution
Rv Cranarin and Alternative_ 2000-2026
Growth Scenario 1, Grosth SmaarW 2
No-Ruud 2000-2020
2000-MO, AIL-1 Aft.-2 AIL-3 AIL-1, Mt - 2 : Alt_ _'3
GISA
Subarea Jobs HH Jobs HH Jobs_ ' HH Jos 'HK Jobs HH ` Jabs HH Jobs
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 20 0 27 0 27 0 27 0 28 0 28 0 28 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 93 210 128 231 128 231 128 231 134 241 134 241 134 241
6 187 189 205 208 205 208 205 208 214 218 214 218 214 218
7 1,071 714 1,282 925 1,282 925 1,282 925 1,340 967 1,340 967 1,340 967
8 40 39 43 41 43 41 43 41 45 43 45 43 45 43
9 139 84 154 116 154 116 154 116 161 121 161 121 161 121
10 699 585 872 717 872 717 872 717 911 749 911 749 911 749
11 242 293 122 215 122 215 122 215 127 224 127 224 127 224
12 322 273 335 301 335 301 335 301 351 314 351 314 351 314
13 350 0 384 0 384 0 384 0 402 0 402 0 402 0
14 722 1,030 795 1,179 795 1,179 795 1,179 831 1,233 831 1,233 831 1,233
15 101 410 66 328 66 328 66 328 69 343 69 343 69 343
16 40 75 16 32 16 32 16 32 16 34 16 34 16 34
T xat: 4,027 3903 4,4M 4,293 4,430 4,293 4,430 4,293 4,631 4,488 > 4,631 4 488 4,631 4,488
Note: Rows and columns may not add correctly due to rounding
Numbers may differ slightly from Tables 11 and 13 due to rounding
It should be noted that the increase in projected growth in Growth Scenario 1 and Growth
Scenario 2 is relatively small in comparison to the No Build Scenario. The increase of
jobs and households over a twenty year period under both Growth Scenario 1 and Growth
Scenario 2, as compared to the No-Build Scenario, is shown in Tables 15 and 16.
Table 15. No-Build Scenario vs. Growth Scenario 1
j
GISA Growth Sce rio Total Households
2000-2020 Total Jobs
2000-2020
No-Build Scenario 4,027 3,903
Growth Scenario 1 (10%)
Bypass Alts 1-3
4.430
4.293
Growth Scenario I increase 403 390
Source: HNTB
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 61
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

H

I

i
Cl

1
Table 16. No-Build Scenario vs. Growth Scenario 2

GISA Growth Sce o Total Households
2000-2020 Total Dubs
2000-2020
No-Build Scenario 4,027 4,027
Growth Scenario 2 (20%)
Bypass Alts 1-3
4.631
4,488
Growth Sc rio 2 Increase 604 461
Source: HNTB
Availability o Developable Land
As can be seen in Figure 9 of this report, developable land is limited throughout the
GISA. Most of the developable land within the GISA is located in Subareas 7 and 9-14.
As Table 14 indicates, these subareas contain the most amount of future growth within
them as well. Although it is difficult to forecast military job growth, it should be noted
that a certain amount of the forecasted GISA job growth is expected to take place within
the Cherry Point MCAS, which contains small portions of Subareas 10, 11, 16, and the
majority of Subarea 15. According to the US Census Bureau, Cherry Point added
approximately 400 jobs between 1990 and 2000. Because of existing development,
Bypass Alternative 2 has less available land for future development located in the
immediate area of its proposed interchange with Lake Road. However, opportunities for
redevelopment may exist in the area of the interchange.
Local Land Use Policies

1

I
1
1
When trying to determine areas where future growth might occur, it is also important to
take into consideration where growth is currently being directed by local government
(through use of land use plans, etc.) and where zoning dictates it can be supported.
According to the City of Havelock, in-fill development and the revitalization of
underutilized parcels is a major focus for the community. Sites along US 70 throughout
Havelock are available for development or redevelopment, including Subareas 7, 10 and
14.
As was mentioned earlier, there is currently no zoning in the unincorporated Craven
County portion of the GISA, except for the AICUZ/APZ zoned areas near Cherry Point
MCAS. Growth in this area is focused within planned communities along Carolina Pines
Boulevard and Lewis Farm Road in the northern portion of the GISA. Subareas
encompassing this projected growth include 12, 13 and 14. In Carteret County, the Town
of Newport's Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) boundary extends close to the Craven
County border. Newport is trying to promote industrial and commercial growth along US
Havelock Bypass - STY Project R-1015 62
Final Quantitative ICE Report -July 15, 2008

70 and Chatham Street between the existing town limits and the Croatan National Forest
boundary.
Investment Climate
Job and household growth within the GISA relies considerably upon the continued
presence of the Cherry Point MCAS and its civilian labor force. Many of the businesses
along US 70 and the households within Havelock's subdivisions would not exist were it
not for the base. However, there is also a small market for retirement and vacation
homes, as the GISA offers a less expensive housing option than areas closer to the coast
or in New Bern.
With the completion of STIP Project R-1015, the investment climate for Subareas 4-10
and 12-14 increases or remains the same, while the investment climate decreases for
Subareas 11, 15 and 16 since they are within Cherry Point MCAS and further removed
from the project. This trend is indicated in Table 19 when comparing household and job
totals for each of these subareas with and without the Havelock Bypass.
Distance to Major Urban Area or Regional Center
The evaluation of this growth attraction factor is self-explanatory. Those subareas that
are closer to centers of activity are more likely to attract growth than more isolated
subareas, with or without the Havelock Bypass. However, upon completion of the
project, a new center of activity may be generated along Lake Road surrounding the only
planned new interchange. The new access created in this area will improve the market
for development, and thus the likelihood of Subarea 7 and a portion of Subarea 10 to
attract future households and jobs.
Tra
ffic volume on intersecting roads
It is anticipated that future traffic volumes along the Havelock portion of US 70 will be
reduced as a result of STIP Project R-1015. This reduction in traffic may reduce the
potential for highway-oriented commercial development along US 70 in portions of
Subareas 7, 10 and 14. However, traffic volumes along roadways west of US 70 (i.e.
Greenfield Heights Boulevard, Lake Road, Miller Road) within these subareas are
expected to remain the same or increase after STIP Project R-1015 is built, contributing
to an increase in development potential.

1
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
63
1

r
L
1
t
I
E

1
1i

1

Availability of water, sewer and other infrastructure
Of all three potential Havelock Bypass alternatives, Bypass Alternative 2 (and the
interchange at Lake Road) is located in closest proximity to existing water and sewer
service. Subareas that are currently within the Havelock city limits, including portions of
Subareas 7, 10 and 14, either have water/sewer service or should have it by the time the
Havelock Bypass is completed, making them more able to support future growth.
Furthermore, portions of Subareas 9, 12, 13 and 14, which include development along
Carolina Pines Boulevard, Lewis Farm Road, Stately Pines Rd, Catfish Lake Road, and
US 70, currently have water service and limited sewer service. As was mentioned earlier
in the report, the Newport ETJ portion of the GISA, particularly along US 70, is slated
for future sewer service in order to attract industrial and commercial development. This
increases the future development potential of Subarea 5, with or without the Havelock
Bypass.
Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) - Impact Areas
In order to more accurately determine the potential growth distribution within the GISA
by alternative, a series of impact areas was delineated based on the Guidance for
Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina,
Volume II: Practitioners Handbook, natural/manmade features and professional judgment
(see Figures 11-13).
Using the same
growth attraction
factors as the GISA
subareas, these``
impact areas.'
wE
identify more d ,
specific locations of forecasted GISA
growth as a result of
building the
Havelock Bypass.
Please note that not Residential Development along Hollywood Boulevard
all of the forecasted
growth within the
larger GISA subareas are included within these impact areas, particularly along the NC
101 corridor and on the Cherry Point MCAS property.
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
64
1

Growth Scenario 1- Bypass Alternative I
For Bypass Alternative 1 of STIP Project R-1015, the majority of the forecasted
households in the GISA would be located in Impact Areas H and I, which are situated
between US 70 and the Neuse River, along both sides of Carolina Pines Boulevard.
' Other impact areas that are expected to receive a large percentage of the forecasted
additional households include Impact Area N, which encompasses a large section of US
70, Miller Road, Belltown Road, and Hollywood Boulevard, and Impact Areas F and P,
which are located between the proposed Havelock Bypass and the North Carolina
Railroad (see Figure 11).

r

1
w
1

1
1

Havelock Bvpass - STIP Project R-1015 65
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

5
Catfish take
N Fr.
to
' oa¢7
4 ? uoe
e
SOU
Oo ° e
o°
O.3
\ CO
pp O
ro U O , e4? Ra 00?
U ?J?C ?JJ l'
_Q J'
z
?G (D. z
?? s n
x T f
o
Cn -4
o,
Sunset Rd T
(D y
(a1
title
aye
® etrCo my
4ht
cn
Newport River
xooocm
0
co10m??
co 1
0AO
O
O
_

I

I

I

D
?

7
zm
Oxp
Oz <?z?c +

o 11
??
<
CD CD CD
?OnODm?n

DZ a ?yDZN

m D
m C? oo
N
(n
x

o
(n

o

(n

c: Q7

D C
Z3 (D
T
N
L Z 70

?wcnmym..
D

o
o
CL
0)
a
c
=
i D

6 z

T
111
im
? D
N3

N - CD

n? C7 `< o
D
f?
3 (D m -a

my?
nm0 cmm

Yv
U)
CD
w

CL
0)

< N

U)
Z

z ..
T
Z
N
m (D
n?
Z.0
z
`X W
N r L =
D cf)
z

mz 0 00
2Z

A/ W
CD O Z
-U D
X m

cn D cn
cn 90
I *%
co?
b
ti
0
ti
4 a
?a
? b
'r A
??a

1

1

1
t
1
1

11

Table 17. Growth Scenario 1: Additional Households and Jobs,
Bvnass Alternative 1. Growth Impact Studv Area. 2000-2020

GISA
A 4 i s y1b tif? SA ?yj j s
#
?
,a
A 20 2.5%(14) 236 20.0%(14)
B 44 5.0%(10) 72 10.0%(10)
C 60 7.5%(14) 118 10.0%(14)
D 22 2.5%(10) 36 5.0%(10)
E 64 5.0%(7) 139 15.0%(7)
F 385 30.0%(7) 139 15.0%(7)
G 131 15.0%(10) 143 20.0%(10)
30.0% (13) &
H 592 60.0%(14) 59 5.0%(14)
90.0% (12) &
I 571 70.0%(13) 255 85.0%(12)
1 192 15.0%(7) 185 20.0%(7)
4.0% (7) & 25.0% (14) &
10.0% (14) & 10.0% (15) &
K 150 10.0%(15) 466 15.0%(7)
5.0% (14) &
10.0% (12) & 15.0% (12) &
100.0% (9) & 100.0% (9) &
L 209 50%(8) 261 100.0%(8)
85.0% (5) & 100.0% (6) &
M 294 90.0%(6) 439 100.0%(5)
7.5% (7) & 55.0% (10) &
N 445 40.0%(10) 487 10.0%(7)
8.5% (7) & 15.0% (14) &
O 188 10.0%(14) 269 10.0%(7)
P 320 25.0%(7) 139 15.0% (7)
Total: 3,686
43
3,4
*Assumes that 753 households and 851 jobs within the GISA subareas will take
place within non-impact area portions of the GISA
Note: Impact areas are not the same between alternatives
Totals may not match with other Growth Scenario 1 tables due to rounding
Impact Areas N, K and M are forecasted to receive the most jobs between 2000 and 2020
as a result of building Bypass Alternative 1 of STIP Project R-1015. All of these impact
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 66
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

11
areas have a substantial amount of US 70 frontage with a decent amount of developable
land. Even though Impact Areas E, P and J are located near the proposed interchange
with the Havelock Bypass, most of the commercial growth should still be focused along
the US 70 corridor.
Growth Scenario 1- Bypass Alternative 2
Bypass Alternative 2 of Scenario I would be closer to the City of Havelock, cross Sunset
Road, and would have an interchange at Lake Road closer to the Lake Road/Miller Road
intersection. Because the proposed interchange at Lake Road is in a different location,
the boundaries of the impact areas (including an additional one) are slightly different for
Bypass Alternative 2 than they were for Bypass Alternative 1 (see Figure 12).
t( As was the case for Bypass Alternative 1, the majority of forecasted households are
s located in Impact Areas I and H. As a result of the new interchange location, Impact
' Area E lost some households to Impact Area G because of the limited amount of
developable land surrounding the interchange. Also, Impact Areas N and P, which
encompass the majority of the Lake Road and Miller Road corridors east and west of the
proposed interchange, received 830 (22.5%) of the forecasted additional households
within the entire GISA.
The distribution of the forecasted additional jobs within the GISA for Bypass Alternative
2 is similar to that of Bypass Alternative 1, with Impact Areas N, K and M taking the
most non-residential growth. In addition, the newly created Impact Area Q, which
straddles both sides of Greenfield Heights Boulevard, is forecasted to receive
approximately 23% (208) of Subarea 7's additional jobs. However, because of the new
interchange location, and the reduced amount of suitable land for development
surrounding it, more job growth was forecasted in Impact Areas G, P and Q, with less job
growth in Impact Area E.

P
1

Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
67
1

Catfish lake
R
a
r
N

a ?.
?
.
P.
o
I^p

q.Ul

i
co

a
?
ts F
arm
; R
a
O \
,i

H
00
0

m N
Sunset Ra ?° ° o
v
T

V?B.
a G7
u
A?
°

e?
O jIl
o
o?
ray ? ?

® 04
ntY
°

cn
1r
I t,
v1
ti
A
O
n
A
A
A
O
A
D
L
1

1

1
J
1

I
1

1

Table 18. Growth Scenario 1: Additional Households and Jobs,
Bvnass Alternative 2. Growth Impact Studv Area. 2000-2020
GISA Impact H ousehaW ' Jabs*.
Area
(Figure 12)
# % of GISA
Snbairea
)# % of LISA
Subarea
A 20 2.5%(14) 236 20.0%(14)
B 44 5.0%(10) 54 7.5%(10)
C 60 7.5%(14) 118 10.0%(14)
D 22 2.5%(10) 36 5.0%(10)
E 32 2.5%(7) 75 8.0%(7)

F

32
2.5% (7) & 0.0%
14 & 0.0% 8

0 0.0% (7) &
0.0% (14) &
0.0%(8)
G 163 18.5%(10) 179 25.0%(10)

H
592 30.0% (13) &
60.0%(14)
59
5.0%(14)

I
571 90.0% (12) &
70.0%(13)
255
85.0%(12)
J 256 20.0%(7) 93 10.0%(7)

K

150 4.0% (7) &
10.0% (14) &
10.0%(15)

466 25.0% (14) &
10.0% (15) &
15.0%(7)

L

09
10.0% (12) &
100.0% (9) &
50%(8)

61 5.0% (14) &
15.0% (12) &
100.0% (9) &
100.0%(8)

M
294 85.0% (5) &
90.0%(6)
439 100.0% (6) &
100.0%(5)

N
445 7.5% (7) &
40.0%(10)
487 55.0% (10) &
10.0%(7)

O
156 6.0% (7) &
10.0%(14)
269 15.0% (14) &
10.0%(7)
P 385 30.0%(7) 208 22.5%(7)
256 20.0%(7) 208 22.5%(7)
Total: 3,687 3,443
*Assumes that 753 households and 851 jobs within the GISA subareas will take
place within non-impact area portions of the GISA
Note: Impact areas are not the same between alternatives
Totals may not match with other Growth Scenario 1 tables due to rounding
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 68
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

1
r -
L
Growth Scenario 1- Bypass Alternative 3
Bypass Alternative 3 has the same interchange location along Lake Road as Bypass
Alternative 1, but a different alignment between Lake Road and a Croatan National
Forest access road, which extends between those of Bypass Alternative 1 and Bypass
Alternative 2 (see Figure 13). Because of this, some of the impact areas have different
boundaries. The most obvious difference is Impact Area F, which encompasses the
' majority of Greenfield Heights Boulevard, Sunset Road, and Lake Road corridors (south
of the Bypass Alternative). This is the portion of Subarea 7 that has the best access to the
proposed Havelock Bypass, relatively large portions of developable land, and the most
development activity taking place. Thus, it is forecasted to receive 40% (513) of the
forecasted households and 30% (278) of the forecasted additional jobs within the entire
subarea.
Similar to both of the other proposed alternatives, Bypass Alternative 3 distributes most
of the forecasted household growth into Impact Areas I and H, with Impact Area N
receiving some forecasted households as well. In terms of jobs, Impact Areas N, K and
M would take the most jobs, with Impact Area F also receiving 30% (278) of Subarea 7's
forecasted additional jobs.
1
1

1

Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 69
Final Quantitative ICE Report -July 15, 2008

Ca?,f?s
h Cake
R
a
r N

co -

e

d
' pM8 SO I!

11111Z iS F
4 arm
n
Ra
? z
?
_
o 0
o 4
o
j C z

a V,
o,
a y
mo
L .? ? qa

v?

:n
(D CD -4 -L
Rd
S
f
n
J u
se ,
<: ? y
w
11 .
cD cn
E O -??

naf G) 4:Z&
i ??
e?! aU
??,? peoai! ? a??o7

` aye
Ca~tFq h C04
e?{Co hty
4
hty
0
CJt ` ?

A ?. Y
\
t CO)

rt
?

1
n ?
<
CD CD
CD
A mooocmzg
z,0=m zZ< z? O D
?D -?=i
0
m< pm ?
N I I
_
I
T

=
zZ
{00
T O

_
-
A
Y/

Z?Zm???

-n m o n oo

0
?7 T
(n
°'
c G7
00 T
V C
D
0
x4c°?3-1+>- aa

O
DOcnc
w

D

%
o

v
3 -

o o
a
Q

m
x

D
o u)

v
? 70

cl)
m
o
?
?nw?nmNm=

CD o
o
o
v
c C
m a
D
Duo ?mA
vm?
y N `< C)
D
?
N D W
m
?
P m o < m m (n C O
Q cn v r
T N Z
om m>0 <
O ^
Y/
x? r ? w W
<o
Z z N D
Cl) CO)

? O
T /^
V v,
mD D C

?z O
A/ ? ?`'' p m o z ?m
N cn
rncn
4 D
90
cn
I *%
b
ti
O
ti
R A
tip • ?
n Q
A A
?• n
ti??
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 19. Growth Scenario 1: Additional Households and Jobs,
Rvnacc Alternative 3- Growth imnact Studv Area. 2000-2020
5A Impact A oise~ ` lobs*
A
Ollgttrie13)
# -?V* of LISA
rea °!/*ADfGISA
Subaru"..
A 20 2.5%(14) 236 20.0%(14)
B 44 5.0%(10) 72 10.0%(10)
C 60 7.5%(14) 118 10.0%(14)
D 22 2.5%(10) 36 5.0%(10)
E 64 5.0%(7) 139 15.0%(7)
F 513 40.0%(7) 278 30.0%(7)
G 131 15.0%(10) 143 20.0%(10)

H
592 30.0% (13) &
60.0%(14)
59
5.0%(14)

I
571 90.0% (12) &
70.0%(13)
255
85.0%(12)

J
32 2.5% (7) & 0.0%
14 & 0.0% 8
0 0.0% (7) & 0.0%
14 & 0.0% 8

K

150 4.0% (7) &
10.0% (14) &
10.0%(15)

466 25.0% (14) &
10.0% (15) &
15.0%(7)

L

09
10.0% (12) &
100.0% (9) &
50%(8)

61 5.0% (14) &
15.0% (12) &
100.0% (9) &
100.0%(8)

M
294 85.0% (5) &
90.0%(6)
439 100.0% (6) &
100.0%(5)

N
445 7.5% (7) &
40.0%(10)
487 55.0% (10) &
10.0%(7)

O
188 8.5% (7) &
, 10.0%(14)
269 15.0% (14) &
10.0%(7)
P 128 10.0%(7) 46 5.0%(7)
224 17.5%(7) 139 15.0%(7)
Total: 3,686 3,443
*Assumes that 753 households and 851 jobs within the GISA subareas will take
place within non-impact area portions of the GISA
Note: Impact areas are not the same between alternatives
Totals may not match with other Growth Scenario 1 tables due to rounding
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
70

Growth Scenario 2
The distribution of forecasted households and jobs by alternative for Growth Scenario 2
is the same as that of Growth Scenario 1. The only difference is the amount of forecasted
growth that is distributed. Please refer to the following three tables and Figures 11-13.
' Table 20. Growth Scenario 2: Additional Households and Jobs,
Bvnass Alternative 1. Growth Imnact Studv Area. 2000-2020
1
I
1
1
1
11
1
1

1
l1 . ; H cluatllDl[15* u" ?Jpl>3* ,
GISA bnpact
f
Area
l C 1<1)

r

/? of Subampg 4 Va

1
S ea
A 21 2.5%(14) 247 20.0%(14)
B 46 5.0%(10) 75 10.0%(10)
C 62 7.5% 14 123 10.0%(14)
D 23 2.5%(10) 37 5.0%(10)
E 67 5.0%(7) 145 15.0%(7)
F 402 30.0%(7 145 15.0%(7)
G 137 15.0%(10) 150 20.0%(10)

H
619 30.0% (13) &
60.0%(14)
62
5.0%(14)

I
597 90.0% (12) &
70.0%(13)
267
85.0%(12)
J 201 15.0%(7) 193 20.0%(7)

K

157 4.0% (7) &
10.0% (14) &
10.0%(15)

488 25.0% (14) &
10.0% (15) &
15.0%(7)

L

218 10.0% (12) &
100.0% (9) &
50%(8)

273 5.0% (14) & 15.0%
(12) & 100.0% (9)
& 100.0% 8

M
307 85.0% (5) &
90.0%(6)
459 100.0% (6) &
100.0%(5)

N
465 7.5% (7) &
40.0%(10)
509 55.0% (10) &
10.0%(7)

O
197 8.5% (7) &
10.0%(14)
282 15.0% (14) &
10.0%(7)
P 335 25.0%(7) 145 15.0%(7)
Total- 3,854 3,599
*Assumes that 786 households and 890 jobs within the GISA subareas will take
place within non-impact area portions of the GISA
Note: Impact areas are not the same between alternatives
Totals may not match with other Growth Scenario 2 tables due to rounding
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 71
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
1

1
1

1
t
1

1

1

1
Table 21. Growth Scenario 2: Additional Households and Jobs,
Bvnass Alternative 2. Growth Imuact Studv Area. 2000-2020
tYTSA+ 'wct ,> t r? teeholds" -Jobs*. ::
Airei:

1

# ::

?,le, of Subar

#
z
% of t?owej*
A 21 2.5%(14) 247 20.0%(14)
B 46 5.0% 10 56 7.5%(10)
C 62 7.5%(14) 123 10.0%(14)
D 23 2.5%(10 37 5.0%(10)
E 34 2.5%(7) 77 8.0%(7)

F
34 2.5% (7) & 0.0%
14&0.0%8
0 0.0% (7) & 0.0%
14&0.0%8
G 170 18.5%(10) 187 25.0%(10)

H
619 30.0% (13) &
60.0%(14)
62
5.0%(14)

I
597 90.0% (12) &
70.0%(13)
267
85.0%(12)
J 268 20.0%(7) 97 10.0%(7)

K

157 4.0% (7) &
10.0% (14) &
10.0%(15)

488 25.0% (14) &
10.0% (15) &
15.0%(7)

L

18
10.0% (12) &
100.0% (9) &
50%(8)

73 5.0% (14) &
15.0% (12) &
100.0% (9) &
100.0%(8)

M
307 85.0% (5) &
90.0%(6)
459 100.0% (6) &
100.0%(5)

N
465 7.5% (7) &
40.0%(10)
509 55.0% (10) &
10.0%(7)

O
163 6.0% (7) &
10.0%(14)
282 15.0% (14) &
10.0%(7)
P 402 30.0%(7) 218 22.5%(7)
Q 268 20.0%(7) 218 22.5%(7)
Tot l: 3 854 3Y5"
*Assumes that 786 households and 890 jobs within the GISA subareas will take
place within non-impact area portions of the GISA
Note: Impact areas are not the same between alternatives
Totals may not match with other Growth Scenario 2 tables due to rounding
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 72
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
1

1

1
1
1
1
11
1
'J

1
11
Table 22. Growth Scenario 2: Additional Households and Jobs,
Rvnacc Alternative 3- Growth imnact Studv Area. 2000-2020
GtSA' mpat .. H oMs* `Jobs
..*•.
-Aita ?L }

A 21 2.5%(14) 247 20.0%(14)
B 46 5.0%(10) 75 10.0%(10)
C 62 7.5%(14) 123 10.0% 14
D 23 2.5%(10) 37 5.0%(10)
E 67 5.0%(7) 145 15.0%(7)
F 536 40.0%(7) 290 30.0%(7)
G 137 15.0%(10) 150 20.0%(10)
30.0% (13) &
H 619 60.0%(14) 62 5.0%(14)
90.0% (12) &
I 597 70.0%(13) 267 85.0%(12)
2.5% (7) & 0.0% (7) &
0.0% (14) & 0.0% (14) &
1 34 0.0%(8 0 0.0%(8)
4.0% (7) & 25.0% (14) &
10.0% (14) & 10.0% (15) &
K 157 10.0%(15) 488 15.0%(7)
5.0% (14) &
10.0% (12) & 15.0% (12) &
100.0% (9) & 100.0% (9) &
L 218 50%(8) 273 100.0%(8)
85.0% (5) & 100.0% (6) &
M 307 90.0%(6) 459 100.0%(5)
7.5% (7) & 55.0% (10) &
N 465 40.0%(10) 509 10.0%(7)
8.5% (7) & 15.0% (14) &
O 197 10.0%(14) 282 10.0%(7)
P 134 10.0%(7) 48 5.0%(7)
Q 235 17.5%(7) 145 15.0%(7)
Total: 3 854 3,599
*Assumes that 786 households and 890 jobs within the GISA subareas will take
place within non-impact area portions of the GISA
Note: Impact areas are not the same between alternatives
Totals may not match with other Growth Scenario 2 tables due to rounding
' Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 73
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
1

1 2.7.4 Hydrologic Analysis Model & Estimated Effect
A hydrological analysis was performed to compare the peak discharge rates and runoff
' volumes for three possible future scenarios to existing conditions (Year 2005). Because
all alternatives have a similar geographic location, an equal level of access control,
identical typical sections and the same number of interchanges, it was determined that
there would be no variation in the amount of growth potential or land use change by
alternative. The hydrologic analysis is based on existing and future conditions within the
Watershed Analysis Area, which has been defined previously in the report (see Figure 3).
The hydrologic analysis completed as part of the indirect and cumulative effects (ICE)
assessment was based on an estimated right-of-way width of 325 feet. It is believed that
the reduction in right-of-way width will not affect the growth projections and distribution
of growth in the ICE assessment. Additionally, the subwatershed land use assumptions
utilized in the hydrologic modeling will not change as a result of the reduced right-of-
way corridor. Therefore, it is believed that the reduction in right-of-way width will have
negligible effect on the results of the hydrologic analysis.
The hydrological models generated to conduct this analysis are as follows:
ExistinE Condition - Year 2005
Model depicts existing (Year 2005) conditions based on the existing land use types for
the Watershed Analysis Area (WAA).
No-Build Scenario
Model depicts future conditions (2020) within the WAA assuming that the project is not
built and that the area develops based on current zoning.
' Growth Scenario 1
Model depicts future conditions (2020) within the WAA assuming that the project is
built.
This scenario assumes that an additional 10% of future "No-Build" growth, that would
have occurred outside of the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) without the construction
of the Havelock Bypass not been completed, is attributable to the project and would take
place within the GISA.
Growth Scenario 2
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 74
Final Quantitative ICEReport -July 15, 2008

M
l d
d
i
f
o
e
ep
cts
uture conditions (2020) within the WAA assuming that the project is
built.

This scenario assumes that an additional 15 /o of future No-Build" growth, that would
' have occurred outside of the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) had the Havelock
Bypass not been completed, is attributable to the project and would take place within the
GISA.

Detailed results of this analysis by Watershed Analysis Area subwatershed are located in
' Appendices B and C of the hydrological analysis report.
2.8 EVALUATE ANALYSIS RESULTS (STEP 7)

2.8.1 Indirect Effects
' The potential for extensive land use change as a result of any alternative of STIP Project
R-1015 is low to moderate. The entire section of the new location Havelock Bypass is

' proposed to be fully access-controlled with only one proposed interchange with an
i
t
ti
d
L
k
R
d
Th
f
h
i
n
ersec
ng roa
way (
a
e
oa
).
e major
ty o
t
e land through which the project
extends is undevelopable because of constraints such as the Croatan National Forest,
' Cherry Point MCAS, the Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank, the Camp Bryan Hunt Club,
and numerous wetlands.
' Furthermore, the difficultly in extending water/sewer services across the various railroad
tracks should serve to minimize growth resulting from the project. According to local
planners, much of the future growth within the City of Havelock is expected to be along
the existing US 70 corridor, and would be in-fill and redevelopment type of growth
' because of the diminishing amount of land that has US 70 frontage.
The potential for land use change as a result of the Havelock Bypass will likely be
focused along Lake Road near the proposed interchange, where there are a few pockets of
developable land that would benefit from the new access provided by the project. Other
than immediately surrounding the proposed interchange and the northern terminus of the
project at US 70, which is likely to build up as highway-oriented commercial
development, most of the new development should be residential in nature. The
Gr
f
ld H
i
ht
B
l
d
L
k
een
ie
g
e
s
ou
evar
,
a
e Road and Sunset Road corridors may become more
attractive for residential subdivisions, while the residential communities in the extreme
northern portion of the GISA between the Neuse River and US 70 along Carolina Pines
Boulevard, Lewis Farm Road, and Stately Pines Drive may accelerate.
Havelock B
ass - STIP P
t R
1015
yp
rojec
-
75
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

2.8.2 Cumulative Effects
Most of the future growth and development within the GISA is dependent upon Cherry
Point MCAS activity, and the amount of growth occurring at Cherry Point MCAS is
unrelated to the Havelock Bypass. The fluctuation of the base's employment and military
presence is the major factor influencing growth and development not only within the
1 GISA, but throughout much of Craven and Carteret County. The growth forecasts
developed as part of this indirect and cumulative effects analysis were estimated before

t the latest Base Relocation and Closure (BRAC) initiative was completed, but local
i
d t
th
dditi
l
b
i
ff
i
l
f
h
ibilit
f
d
gne
e
ona
squa
rons
e
ng ass
o
ic
s were aware o
y o
a
o
a
t
e poss
MCAS. The implementation of the BRAC and its effects upon Cherry Point MCAS may
' create some additional residential and commercial development within the GISA that was
not necessarily incorporated into the forecasts. However, the growth that is occurring
off-base because of the BRAC implementation is minimal and fits within the parameters
of this quantitative analysis. In addition, any growth resulting from the BRAC
' implementation will occur regardless of the construction of the Havelock Bypass.

' According to the discussions with the Focus Group, proximity to New Bern and the
North Carolina beaches is also a factor in attracting growth to this portion of eastern
North Carolina. Additions to the commercial market, including a new Wal-Mart Super
Center along US 70 near Slocum Road, indicate that the momentum for growth within
the GISA may be increasing somewhat. Retirement and vacation homes are becoming
increasingly common in the area, as property values closer to the coast continue to
l
I
ddi
i
STIP P
R
h
l
i
l
h
1015
d
i
esca
ate.
n a
t
on to
roject
-
ese tren
y
mprove t
, t
s may cumu
at
ve
e
attractiveness for growth and development within the GISA.
'
At the time of the Focus Group scenario building exercise, Havelock had plans to annex
' the land between its current city limits and the Havelock Bypass, which may result in an
expansion of sewer coverage (assuming additional capacity is achieved and the
extensions across the railroad corridors can be achieved) within the GISA, and make the
area to the west of Havelock's current city limits more attractive for growth. The
completion of STIP Project R-1015 combined with the potential extension of Havelock's
extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to the north could increase development opportunities
within that portion of the GISA. The annexation or extension of the ED will occur with
or without the Havelock Bypass.

Havelock Bvpass - STIP Project R-1015 76
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008

H
l
k i
ave
oc
s surrounded by environmental and political features that limit its growth
potential, including Cherry Point MCAS to the east, the Croatan National Forest to the
west. Most of the residential growth resulting from any of the three proposed bypass
alternatives of STIP Project R-1015 would be located along Lake Road, Greenfield
Heights Boulevard, Miller Road, and Hollywood Boulevard corridors. The project may
accelerate growth in already developing subdivisions along Carolina Pines Boulevard and
Lewis Farm Road.
Most of the commercial growth resulting from any of the proposed alternatives of STIP
' Project R-1015 would be surrounding the proposed interchange at Lake Road, along Lake
Road itself, and near the northern terminus of the project along US 70. Infill commercial
development along US 70 between the termini is expected with and without the Havelock
B
hil
i
l d
l
ypass, w
e new commerc
a
eve
opment along US 70 and Chatham Street in
Newport (Carteret County) should become more likely as a result of each bypass
alternative.
The July 2002 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan indicates that Slocum Creek
adjacent to Cherry Point has been exposed to jet fuel spills over years of fueling
operations at the base. There is also an accumulation of water treatment alum sludge
' from past operations. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality recommends not
disturbing the sludge until such time as it can safely be removed and disposed of.
' Slocum Creek is on the eastern side of Cherry Point MCAS. Cherry Point MCAS is
under the control of the United States Marine Corps, therefore residential, commercial
and/or industrial growth as a result of the Havelock Bypass is not anticipated within the
MCAS boundaries.
' According to the Final Biological Alternatives Analysis for Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
and Bald Impacts, US HighLvav 70 Bypass (R-1015) Craven County North Carolina
(December 11, 2007), indirect and cumulative impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker
(RCW) may result from noise, development of some private properties along the highway
corridor and/or restriction of necessary management activities (e.g., burning). The report
concludes that such impacts could individually or collectively adversely affect RCW
dispersal to/from Subpopulation 3 and inhibit unification of the CNF RCW population.
Efforts to quantify direct, secondary, and cumulative effects to the CNF RCW will be
evaluated by the NCDOT Natural Environment Unit.
1
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
77
1

2.9 ICE CONCLUSIONS (STEP 8)

' The potential for land use change as a result of STIP Project R-1015 is low to moderate.
Th
b
i
l
i
i
ff
ere are no major ur
an centers
n c
ose prox
m
ty, tra
ic volumes on intersecting
roadways are relatively low, and public water or sewer services are limited throughout
much of the GISA. The majority of land in the GISA is undevelopable because of
constraints such as the Croatan National Forest, Cherry Point MCAS, the Croatan
Wetland Mitigation Bank, the Camp Bryan Hunt Club, and numerous wetlands. In
addition, BMPs would be required for any new development resulting from STIP Project
R-1015 that could potentially have wetland impacts. Furthermore, the CAMA
regulations (buffers, permitting process, etc.) that are in place as they relate to potential
impacts to Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) should serve to protect coastal
' resources from encroachment of development. Overall, STIP Project R-1015 has a low
to moderate potential to cause land use changes or accelerate growth and development in
new areas of the GISA.

1
1
1

Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 78
Final Quantitative ICE Report - July 15, 2008
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cervero, R. and M. Hansen. "Induced Travel Demand and Induced Road Investment:
A Simultaneous-Equation Analysis." Journal of Transport Economics and Policy.
Volume 36, Part 3, September 2002: pp 469-490.
Cervero, R. "Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis."
Journal of the American Planning Association. Volume 69, No. 2, Spring 2003: pp
145-163.
Cherry Point MCAS, www.cheM..-Doint.usmc.mil, accessed July 11, 2008
Decorla-Souza, Patrick and Cohen, Harry, "Accounting for Induced Travel in Evaluation
of Urban Highway Expansion.", Federal Highway Administration Whitepaper, January
1998, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/doc.htm
Dr. J.H. Carter III and Associates, Inc., Final Biological Alternatives Analysis for Red-
Cockaded Woodpecker and Bald Eagle Impacts US Highway 70 Bypass (R-1015),
Craven County, North Carolina, December 11, 2007.
ECONorthwest and Portland State University. "A Guidebook for evaluating the
Indirect Land use and Growth Impacts of Highway Improvements, Final Report" for the
Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, OR, and Federal Highway Administration.
Washington, DC. March 2001.
Environmental Services, Inc., Final Natural Resources Technical Report - US 70
Havelock Bypass DEIS, Craven and Carteret Counties North Carolina (TIP No R-
1015), May 2007.
Environmental Services, Inc., USFS PETS species with few occurrences on the Croatan
National Forest (CNF). US 70 Havelock PETS (R-1015) ER04-046 07 (Finalized), May
30, 2007.
"Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects
in North Carolina, Volume II: Practitioner's Handbook" prepared for the State of
North Carolina, Department of Transportation/Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. November 2001.
"Guidance for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects
' Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015 79
Final Quantitative ICE Report-July 15, 2008

I (Report 403)" prepared for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 1998.
1 "
Prepared for the John Locke
Hartgen, D. "Highways and Sprawl in North Carolina
Foundation, Raleigh, NC. September 2003.
Mattson and Associates, An Architectural Resources Survey and Evaluations for the US
70 Proposed Havelock Bypass, Craven County, September, 1993
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 456. "Guidebook
for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects" for the
Transportation Research Board - National Research Council, National Academy
Press, Washington, DC. 2001.
North Carolina Employment Security Commission, www.ncesc.com, 1990 and 2000
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Water
Supply Watersheds and 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies, available from
www.enr.state.nc.us
North Carolina State Demographics, http://demog.state.nc.us/, 2010, 2020 County and
State Population Data/Forecasts
U.S. Census Bureau, www.census. ov, 1990 and 2000
I U.S. Forest Service, http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/, accessed July 11, 2008
I U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the
Croatan National Forest." December 2002.
' U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Community
Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation", Washington D.C., 1996,
' Publication No. FHWA-PD-96-036.
' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory; Available from
http://www.nwi.fws.gov/index.html , accessed October, 2005
1
Havelock Bypass - STIP Project R-1015
Final Quantitative ICE Report -July 15, 2008
80

APPENDIX I:

INVENTORY OF NOTABLE FEATURES

FOR THE

PROPOSED HAVELOCK BYPASS
' STIP PROJECT R-1015
' (July 2008)

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

State and Federally-Protected Species
Growth Impact Studv Area
Scientific Federal
Common Name Name Status State Status USGS Quad Ma
Plant:
Sphagnum Significantly Rare -
Giant Peatmoss torr anum N/A Peripheral Catfish Lake
Significantly Rare Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek,
Branched Gerardia A alinis vir ata N/A - Peripheral Masontown, Newport
Catfish Lake, Cherry Point, Hadnot
Significantly Rare Creek, Havelock, Masontown,
Scale-leaf Gerardia A alinis a h lla N/A - Peripheral Newport
Significantly Rare Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek,
Leconte's Thistle Cirsium lecontei N/A - Peripheral Havelock, Masontown, Newport
Significantly Rare
Species of - Limited and Special Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek,
Venus Flytrap Dionaea musci ula Concern Concern Masontown, Newport
Species of Significantly Rare
Raven's Seedbox Ludwi is ravenii Concern - Threatened Catfish Lake, Masontown
Yellow Fringeless Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek,
Orchid Platanthera inte ra N/A Threatened Masontown, Newport
Significantly Rare Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek,
Hooker's Milkwort Pol ala hookeri N/A - Threatened Havelock, Masontown, Newport
Significantly Rare
Drooping Bulrush Sci us lineatus N/A - Peri heral Catfish Lake
Catfish Lake, Cherry Point, Hadnot
Eaton's Ladies'- Significantly Rare - Creek, Havelock, Masontown,
tresses S iranthes eatonii N/A Limited Newport
Lejeunea Significantly Rare - Cherry Point, Havelock,
A Liverwort bermudiana N/A Peripheral Masontown, Newport
Ludwigia Significantly Rare -
Globe-fruit Seedbox s aeroca a N/A Peripheral Cherry Point
Spring-flowering Species of Threatened Cherry Point, Havelock,
Goldenrod Solida o verna Concern Masontown, Newport
Brachythecium Significantly Rare -
Rota's Feather Moss rotaenum N/A Disjunct Hadnot Creek, Masontown
Significantly Rare -
A Witch Grass Dichanthelium s p.9 N/A Limited Hadnot Creek
Eleocharis Significantly Rare
Robbins's S ikerush robbinsii N/A - Peripheral Hadnot Creek
Peltandra Significantly Rare
S oonflower sa itti olia N/A - Peripheral Hadnot Creek, Havelock
Utricularia
Dwarf Bladderwort olivacea N/A Threatened Hadnot Creek, Newport
Seven-angled Eriocaulon Significantly Rare
Pi ewort a uaticum N/A - Peripheral Hadnot Creek
Myriophyllum Species of
Loose Water-milfoil laxum Concern Threatened Hadnot Creek
Northern White Significantly Rare -
Beaksed e Rh nchos ora alba N/A Peripheral Hadnot Creek
Schoenoplectus Significantly Rare -
Hardstem Bulrush acutus N/A Peripheral Hadnot Creek, Masontown

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Schoenoplectus Significantly Rare
Canb 's Bulrush etuberculatus N/A - Peripheral Hadnot Creek
Cladium Significantly Rare
Twig-rush mariscoides N/A - Other Havelock, Masontown, Newport
Elymus virginicus Significantly Rare -
Terrell Grass var.halo hilus N/A Peripheral Havelock
Significantly Rare
Winged Seedbox Ludwi is alata N/A - Peripheral Havelock
Florida Adder's- Significantly Rare
mouth Malaxis s icata N/A - Peripheral Havelock
Mudbank Crown Paspalum Significantly Rare
Grass dissectum N/A - Peripheral Havelock
Snowy Orchid Platanthera nivea N/A Threatened Havelock
Ponthieva Significantly Rare
Shadow-witch racemosa N/A - Peripheral Havelock, Masontown, Newport
Significantly Rare
Georgia Nutrush Scleria eor iana N/A - Peripheral Havelock, Masontown
Short-bristled Rhynchospora Significantly Rare
Beaksed e breviseta N/A - Peripheral Havelock, Masontown, Newport
Rhynchospora
Long-beak Baldsed e sci oides N/A Significantly Rare - Other Havelock
Significantly Rare
Cha man's Redto Tridens cha manii N/A - Peripheral Havelock
Plagiochila Significantly Rare
A Liverwort ludoviciana N/A - Peripheral Masontown
Rough-leaf Lysimachia
Loosestrife as eruli olia Endangered Endangered Masontown, Newport
Asclepias Significantly Rare
Savanna Milkweed edicellata N/A - Peripheral Masontown
Species of Significantly Rare
Ponds ice Litsea aestivalis Concern - Threatened Masontown
Significantly Rare
Small Butterwort Pin uicula umila N/A - Peripheral Masontown
West Indies Significantly Rare
Meadow-beauty Rhexia cubensis N/A - Peripheral Masontown, Newport
Pineland Yellow- Significantly Rare -
eyed ass X ris stricta N/A Peripheral Masontown
Significantly Rare -
A Liverwort Frullania donnellii N/A Threatened Newport
Significantly Rare
Comfortroot Hibiscus aculeatus N/A - Peripheral Newport
Significantly Rare
Bo Bluestein Andro 0 on mohrii N/A - Peripheral Newport
Southern White Rhynchospora
Beaksed e macra N/A Endangered Newport
Re tile:
Threatened due Catfish Lake, Cherry Point, Hadnot
Alligator to Similarity of Creek, Havelock, Masontown,
American Alligator mississi iensis Appearance Threatened Newport
Eastern
Diamondback Crotalus Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek,
Rattlesnake adamanteus N/A Endangered Havelock, Masontown
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Black Swam Snake Seminatrix aea N/A Significantly Rare Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek
Glossy Crayfish
Snake Regina ri ida N/A Significantly Rare Hadnot Creek, Havelock
Ophisaurus Species of
Mimic Glass Lizard mimicus Concern Special Concern Hadnot Creek, Masontown
Deirochelys
Chicken Turtle reticularia N/A Significantly Rare Hadnot Creek
Southern Hognose Species of
Snake Heterodon simus Concern Special Concern Havelock
Pigmy Rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius N/A Special Concern Havelock, Masontown
Carolina
Diamondback Malaclemys
Terrapin terrapin centrata N/A Special Concern Newport
Amphibian:
Carolina Gopher Species of Hadnot Creek, Masontown,
Fro Rana ca ito Concern Threatened Newport
Oak Toad Bu o uercicus N/A Significantly Rare Masontown
Mammal:
Rafinesque's Big- Corynorhinus Catfish Lake, Cherry Point, Hadnot
eared Bat - Coastal rafinesquii Species of Creek, Havelock, Masontown,
Plain Subspecies macrotis Concern Threatened Newport
Dismal Swamp
Southern Bog Synaptomys
Lemming coo eri helaletes N/A N/A* Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek
Trichechus
West Indian Manatee manatus Endangered Endangered Cherry Point
Myotis Species of
Southeastern M otis austrori arius Concern Special Concern Havelock
Bird:
Red-cockaded Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek,
Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered Endangered Havelock, Masontown, Newport
Black-throated Green
Warbler - Coastal Dendroica virens Species of Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek,
Plain Population w nei Concern Significantly Rare Havelock, Masontown, Newport
Haliaeetus Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek,
Bald Eagle leucoce halus None Threatened Havelock
Aimophila Species of Hadnot Creek, Havelock,
Bachman's Sparrow aestivalis Concern Special Concern Masontown, Newport
Least Bittern Ixob chus exilis N/A Significantly Rare Hadnot Creek, Masontown
Double-crested Phalacrocorax
Cormorant auritus N/A Significantly Rare Hadnot Creek, Masontown
Ammodramus
Eastern Henslow's henslowii Species of
Sparrow susurrans Concern Significantly Rare Masontown
Eastern Painted Passerina ciris Species of
Bunting ciris Concern Significantly Rare Newport
Crustacean
Procambarus Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek,
Croatan crayfish luminanus N/A Significantly Rare Havelock, Masontown

1
I

L_
-ji
[1

Graceful Clam Lynceus
Shrimp acilicornis N/A Significantly Rare Cherry Point
Fish:
Acipenser
Shortnose Sturgeon brevirostrum Endangered Endangered Cherry Point, Havelock, Newport
Species of Special Concern
Bridle Shiner Notro is bi enatus Concern (Proposed Endangered) Havelock
Insect:
Reversed Roadside- Amblyscirtes Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek,
Skipper reversa N/A Significantly Rare Havelock, Masontown
Calephelis Catfish Lake, Havelock,
Little Metalmark vir iniensis N/A Significantly Rare Masontown, Ne ort
Berry's Skipper Eu h es ber i N/A Significantly Rare Catfish Lake, Masontown
Two-spotted Skipper Eu h es bimacula N/A Significantly Rare Catfish Lake, Masontown
Dusky Roadside- Amblyscirtes
skipper alternate N/A Significantly Rare Havelock, Masontown
Species of
A Dart Moth A rotis carolina Concern Significantly Rare Masontown
Atrytone arogos Species of
Aro os skipper aro os Concern Significantly Rare Masontown
Callosamia
Sweetba Silkmoth securi era N/A Significantly Rare Masontown
An Owlet Moth D s onia similis N/A Significantly Rare Masontown
Venus Flytrap Hemipachnobia Species of
Cutworm Moth sub o h rea Concern Significantly Rare Masontown
Decorated Spur- Melanoplus
throat Grasshopper decorus N/A Significantly Rare Masontown
Dismal Swamp Chlorochroa
Green Stink Bu dismalia N/A Significantly Rare Newport
Lithophane
Lemmer's Pinion lemmeri N/A Significantly Rare Newport
Annointed Sallow Pyreferra Species of
Moth ceromatica Concern Significantly Rare Newport
Source: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program website, accessed July 7, 2008
http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/heritagedata.html - Catfish Lake, Cherry Point, Hadnot Creek, Havelock,
Masontown, and Newport USGS topographic quadrangles
* Designated as "W2" in NCNHP website database. No definition given for designation.
Animal Assemblages
Growth Impact Stud Area
Name USGS Quad Ma
Colonial Wading Bird Colon Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek, Havelock, Masontown
Source: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program website, accessed July 7, 2008
http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/heritagedata.html - Catfish Lake, Cherry Point, Hadnot Creek, Havelock,
Masontown, and Newport USGS topographic quadrangles
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Natural Communities
Growth Imnact Studv Area
Name USGS Quad Ma
Cypress - Gum Swam Blackwater Subtype) Catfish Lake

High Pocosin Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek, Havelock,
Masontown, Newport
Low Pocosin Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek, Masontown, Newport
Mesic Pine Flatwoods Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek, Havelock, Newport
Natural Lake Shoreline Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek, Havelock, Masontown
Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest Catfish Lake
Pine Savanna Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek, Havelock, Masontown

Pond Pine Woodland Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek, Havelock, Masontown,
Newport
Wet Pine Flatwoods Catfish Lake, Hadnot Creek, Masontown, Newport
Coastal Fringe Evergreen Forest Cherry Point, Havelock, Masontown
D -Mesic Oak - - Hickory Forest Cherry Point
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater
Subtype)
Hadnot Creek
Brackish Marsh Hadnot Creek, Havelock
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain
Subtype)
Hadnot Creek, Havelock
Pine/Scrub Oak Sandhill Hadnot Creek, Masontown
Small Depression Pocosin Hadnot Creek, Masontown
Small Depression Pond Hadnot Creek, Masontown
Xeric Sandhill Scrub Hadnot Creek, Masontown, Newport
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest Havelock
Tidal Cypress - Gum Swam Havelock, Newport
Tidal Freshwater Marsh Havelock
Vernal Pool Havelock
Bay Forest Masontown
Nonriverine Swam Forest Masontown
Coastal Plain Semipermanent Impoundment Newport
source: Norm Larolma Natural Heritage Program website, accessed July 7, 2008,
http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/heritagedata.html - Catfish Lake, Cherry Point, Hadnot Creek, Havelock,
Masontown, and Newport USGS topographic quadrangles
Historic Structures and Districts
Growth Imnact gtudv Area
Name Address Status
Bld s 130,131,298,barracks CP Cherry Point MAS, NC Historic Stud List
Building 137 Cherry Point Cherry Point MAS, NC Historic Stud List

Croatan Presbyterian Church Catfish Lake Rd/US 70 intersection,
north of Havelock, NC
Historic Stud List
Needham B. White House E. Main Street, Havelock, NC Historic Stud List

Tom Haywood Store Just north of Catfish Lake Rd/US 70
intersection, north of Havelock, NC
Historic Stud List
source: NLliu I litJ Data (October 2005); NC One Map CIS Data (December 2007); North Carolina
Historic Preservation Office (February 2008), http://www.hpo.dcr.state.nc.us/
Solid Waste Facilities
Growth Impact Study Area
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Permit Name Type Location Contact
Pheonix
Recycling Site Construction and Rob Coleman
2505 Closed Demolition Landfill 899 US 70W, Havelock 252-633-1564
Roosevelt
Cherry Point Blvd/Mockingbird Rd, Alecia Filzen
2510-T Transfer Station Transfer Cherry Point 252-466-4421
Cherry Point
LCID Land Clearing and Mockingbird Rd, Cherry Joanna Curlin
25B Closed Inert Debris Point 252-446-4562
Paul Belangia
25C Closed Demolition Landfill SR 1105, Havelock Unknown
Point Properties Land Clearing and William W. Taylor
25D Inactive Inert Debris US 101, Havelock 252-633-2424
Jackson
Company US 70/Pine Grove Rd, Gene Jackson
25E Closed Demolition Landfill Havelock Phone Unknown
Rainey Pit Demo Mark L. Smith
25F Landfill Closed Demolition Landfill SR 1771, Havelock Phone Unknown
Cieszko
Construction Co Edward Cieszko
25G Closed Demolition Landfill NC 101E, Havelock 252-447-2096
Source: North Uarolina Division of Waste Management (February 2008), http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.us -
Craven County and Carteret County
Superfund Sites / Hazardous Substance Disposal
Growth Imnact Stndv Area
Name Location
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station Havelock, Craven County, NC
USMC Slocum Creek Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Craven County, NC
Source: EFA Region 4 (February 2008), http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/index.htm#NC -North Carolina
303(d) Impaired Water Bodies
Growth Imnnet Ctndv Area

Stream
Affected Portion Water
Classification Reason for
Listing
From a line across Neuse River from
Johnson Point to McCotter Point
to a line across Neuse River from Impaired - Standard
Neuse 1.2 miles upstream of Slocum Creek Violation, High pH;
River to 0.5 miles upstream of Beard Creek SB; Sw, NSW Listing year 2008
source: ine Nortn l;aroima Department of hnvtronment and Natural Resources (Division of Water
Quality), 2006 303(d) List accessed February 2008 and dated June 19, 2007, and Draft 2008 303(d)
List accessed February 7, 2008

1
1
1

1
1

1

1

Water Body Classification
Growth Impact Study Area

Stream
Description Current
Class
Basin
East Prong
Brice Creek
From source to Brice Creek
C; Sw, NSW
Neuse
Gum Swamp
Lon Lake
From source to Brice Creek
C; Sw, NSW
Neuse
Great Branch From source to Brice Creek C; Sw, NSW Neuse

euse River From a line across Neuse River from
Johnson Point to McCotter Point to a line
across Neuse River from Wilkinson Point to
Cherry Point

B; Sw, NSW

euse
Otter Creek From source to Neuse River SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Crooked Run From source to Otter Creek SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Dam Creek From source to Neuse River SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Slocum Creek From source to Neuse River SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Southwest
Prong Slocum
Creek

From source to Slocum Creek

C; Sw, NSW

Neuse

East Branch From source to Southwest Prong Slocum
Creek
C; Sw, NSW
Neuse
East Canal From source to East Branch C; Sw, NSW Neuse
Middle Canal From source to East Canal C; Sw, NSW Neuse
South Canal From source to East Canal C; Sw, NSW Neuse

West Branch From source to Southwest Prong Slocum
Creek
C; Sw, NSW
Neuse
North Canal
Ellis Lake
From source to West Branch
C; Sw, NSW
Neuse

Little Lake Entire lake and connecting canals to North
Canal
C; Sw, NSW
Neuse

Black Swam From source to Southwest Prong Slocum
Creek
C; Sw, NSW
Neuse
Wolf Pit
Branch From source to Southwest Prong Slocum
Creek
C; Sw, NSW
Neuse
East Prong
Slocum Creek
From source to Slocum Creek
C; Sw, NSW
Neuse
Joes Branch From source to East Prong Slocum Creek C; Sw, NSW Neuse
Caps Branch From source to East Prong Slocum Creek C; Sw, NSW Neuse
Sand Branch From source to East Prong Slocum Creek C; Sw, NSW Neuse
Cedar Creek From source to Slocum Creek SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Alligator Gut From source to Slocum Creek SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Mill Creek From source to Slocum Creek SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Hunters Branch From source to Mill Creek SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Tucker Creek From source to Slocum Creek SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Daniels Branch From source to Tucker Creek SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Goodwin Creek From source to Tucker Creek SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Sand Run From source to Tucker Creek SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Miry Branch From source to Sand Run SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Anderson
Creek
From source to Slocum Creek
SC; Sw, NSW
Neuse
Hancock Creek From source to Neuse River SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Mococks From source to Hancock Creek SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
1

Branch
Dee Branch From source to Hancock Creek SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Shop Branch From source to Hancock Creek SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Dolls Gut From source to Hancock Creek SC; Sw, NSW Neuse
Northwest
Prong Newport
River

From source to Newport River

C

White Oak
Shoe Branch From source to Newport River C White Oak
Dee Creek From source to Newport River C White Oak
Source: The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Division of Water
' Quality), North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin, accessed February 7, 2008
1

1

1

1

APPENDIX II:
1
' BASE DATA TABLES
FOR THE
'
PROPOSED HAVELOCK BYPASS
' 5TIP PROJECT R-1015

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Tahle B-1 - Ponulation by Census Block Groun
Census
Tracts/Block
Groups
1990
Population Census
Tracts/Block
Groups
2000
Population
BG 2, CT 9707 729 BG 2, CT 9707 1,010
BG 3, CT 9707 837 BG 3, CT 9707 1,236
BG 4, CT 9707 2,484 BG 4, CT 9707 2,429
Subtotal: 4,050 Subtotal: 4,675
BG 5, CT 9707 &
BG 2, 3, CT 9613
4,403 BG 5, CT 9707 &
BG 2, 3, CT 9613
5,122
Subtotal: 4,403 Subtotal: 5,122
BG 1, 2, CT 9708 &
BG 2, CT 9611
3,151 BG 1, CT 9708 &
BG 2, CT 9611
4,231
Subtotal: 3,151 Subtotal,: 4,231
BG 7, CT 9610 340 BG 7, CT 9610 429
Subtotal: 340 Subtotal: 429
BG 1, CT 9611 1,709 BG 1, CT 9611 2,450
BG 3, CT 9611 1,692 BG 3, CT 9611 1,886
Subtotal: 3,401 Subtotal: 4,336
BG 1, CT 9612 11,978 BG 1, CT 9612 10,778
Subtotal: 11,978 Subtotal: 10,778
BG 1, CT 9613 782 BG 1, CT 9613 902
BG 4, CT 9613 1,042 BG 4, CT 9613 1,584
BG 5, CT 9613 3,323 BG 5, CT 9613 3,804
BG 6, CT 9613 1,269 BG 6, CT 9613 1,955
Subtotal: 6,416 Subtotal: 8,245
Total: 33,739 Total: 37,816
Source: U5 census
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
Tnhle R_2 _ AnnsPhnide by f Pncuc Rlnrk f_'rnnn
Census
Tracts/Block
Groups 1990
Household
s Census
Tracts/Block
Groups 2000
Household
s
BG 2, CT 9707 269 BG 2, CT 9707 390
BG 3, CT 9707 250 BG 3, CT 9707 342
BG 4, CT 9707 933 BG 4, CT 9707 920
Subtotal: 1,452 Subtotal: 1,652
BG 5, CT 9707 &
BG 2, 3, CT 9613
1,600 BG 5, CT 9707 &
BG 2, 3, CT 9613
1,918
Subtotal: 1,600 Subtotal: 1,918
BG 1, 2, CT 9708 &
BG 2, CT 9611
1,216 BG 1, CT 9708 &
BG 2, CT 9611
1,725
Subtotal: 1,216 -Subtotal: 1,725
BG 7, CT 9610 135 BG 7, CT 9610 167
Subtotal: 135 Subtotal: 167
BG 1, CT 9611 620 BG 1, CT 9611 923
BG 3, CT 9611 609 BG 3, CT 9611 670
Subtotal: 1,229 Subtotal: 1,593
BG 1, CT 9612 2,653 BG 1, CT 9612 2,083
Subtotal: 2,653 Subtotal: 2,083
BG 1, CT 9613 336 BG 1, CT 9613 365
BG 4, CT 9613 396 BG 4, CT 9613 607
BG 5, CT 9613 1165 BG 5, CT 9613 1402
BG 6, CT 9613 457 BG 6, CT 9613 720
Subtotal: 2,354 Subtotal: 3,094
Total: 10,639 Total: 12,232
Source: US Census
i
1
1
Y
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table B-3. Residential and Non-Residential Inspections Performed
Craven County
.Iannarv 2000 to Anril 2005
Total Num ber of Inspections Performed
Month 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
January 484 581 502 565 649 754
February 502 459 528 487 614 694
March 620 507 636 591 897 810
April 427 542 703 602 832 1,073
May 631 590 637 747 797
June 558 633 347 708 853
Jul 481 637 427 699 777
August 517 718 570 684 792
September 477 569 470 738 884
October 802 651 601 728 778
November 467 624 476 644 772
December 394 572 523 609 1,030
Total: 6,360 7,083 6,420 7,802 9,675 T 3,331
Source: Craven County
Table B-4. No-Build Scenario
Employment Growth Forecast
Growth Imnact Studv Area (Cravenl
2000-2020
Industry Bldg.
Sector Jobs S ft Acres
Retail 830 414,845 9.5
Office 2,100 524,885 12.0
Industrial 830 622,446 14.3
Total: 3,759 1,562,062 35.9
Source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 250 sqft per office job, 500 sqft per
retail job, and 750 sqft per industrial job.
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table B-5. No-Build Scenario
Employment Growth Forecast
Growth Imnact Studv Area (Carteret)
2000-2020
Bldg.
Industry Sector Jobs S ft Acres
Retail 53 26,272 0.6
Office 60 15,059 0.3
Industrial 31 23,417 0.5
Total: 144 64,748 1.5
Source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 250 sqft per office job, 500 sqft per
retail job, and 750 sqft per industrial job.
Table B-6. Growth Scenario 1
Employment Growth Forecast
Growth Imnaet gtndv Area (Craven)
2000-2020
Industry Bldg.
Sector Jobs S ft Acres
Retail 913 456,330 10.5
Office 2,309 577,373 13.3
Industrial 913 684,691 15.7
Total: 4,135 1,718,395 39.4
Source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 250 sqft per office job, 500 sgft per
retail job, and 750 sqft per industrial job.
Table B-7. Growth Scenario 1
Employment Growth Forecast
Growth Imnact Studv Area (C9rtPrPt)
2000-2020
Bldg.
Industry Sector Jobs S ft Acres
Retail 58 28,900 0.7
Office 66 16,565 0.4
Industrial 34 25,758 0.6
Total: 158 71,223 1.6
Source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 250 sqft per office job, 500 sgft per
retail job, and 750 sqft per industrial job.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table B-8. Growth Scenario 2
Employment Growth Forecast
Growth Imnact Stndv Area (C'ravenl
2000-2020
Industry Bldg.
Sector Jobs S ft Acres
Retail 954 477,072 11.0
Office 2,414 603,618 13.9
Industrial 954 715,813 16.4
Total: 4,323 1 796,503 41.2
Source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 250 sgft per office job, 500 sqft per
retail job, and 750 sqft per industrial job.
Table B-9. Growth Scenario 2
Employment Growth Forecast
Growth Imnact Studv Area (C'arteretl
2000-2020
Bldg.
Industry Sector Jobs S qft Acres
Retail 60 30,213 0.7
Office 69 17,318 0.4
Industrial 36 26,929 0.6
Total: 166 74,460 1.7
Source: HNTB
Note: An estimated 250 sqft per office job, 500 sqft per
retail job, and 750 sqft per industrial job.
r

APPENDIX III:

OCTOBER 14, 2005 HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS
FOR THE

PROPOSED HAVELOCK BYPASS
STIP PROJECT R-1015

i
HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS
for the
PROPOSED HAVELOCK BYPASS PROJECT
TIP NO. R-1015
11 IL i i .J
343 E. Six Forks Road
Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.546.8997
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass - Report.doc
10/14/2005

I HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS for the HAVELOCK BYPASS PROJECT
A hydrological analysis was performed for the proposed Havelock Bypass Project (TIP
' No. R-1015), in Craven County, to compare the peak discharge rates and runoff
volumes for three possible Future Condition Models to the Existing (Year 2005)
Condition Model. The hydrological models created for this report are as follows:
Existing Condition - Year 2005
Model depicts existing (Year 2005) conditions based on the existing land use
types.
Future `No Build' Condition

Model depicts future conditions within the Watershed Analysis Area (WAA)
assuming that the project is not built and that the area develops based on current
zoning regulations.
Future Scenario 1 Condition
Model depicts future conditions within the WAA assuming that the project is built.
This scenario assumes that an additional 10% of future No-Build growth, that
would have occurred outside of the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) had the
project not been completed, is attributed to the WAA.
Future Scenario 2 Condition
Model depicts future conditions within the WAA assuming that the project is built.
This scenario °
assumes that an additional 15/° of future No-Budd growth, that
' would have occurred outside of the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) had the
project not been completed, is attributed to the WAA.
The project is located within the coastal plain region of North Carolina. This region
generally has a flat topography with large, wooded, swampy areas. (Thereby limiting the
amount of useable land for development). The majority of the study area will drain
towards the Neuse River to the north via Slocum Creek, Tucker Creek, or Hancock
Creek. Runoff in this area would tend to pond in the swampy areas before making its
way to the Neuse River. However, detention was not considered in this analysis.
The computer application used to perform the hydrological analysis for these models
was HEC-HMS, developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Soil Conservation
' Service (SCS) Curve Number Model was used to compute the runoff volume and the
SCS Unit Hydrograph model was used to compute the direct runoff.
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass - Report.doc
' 10/14/2005

J

1

In order to determine the Curve Number (CN) values for the various land cover types for
these models, it was necessary to review the soil types in the area of study to determine
the drainage characteristics of the soil. After reviewing the soil reports for Carteret and
Craven Counties, it was determined that the soils in the area of study belong to
Hydrologic Soil Group 'C'. Soils in this group generally have slow infiltration rates, when
thoroughly wetted, and therefore have a higher percentage of the total precipitation
applied to the runoff.
Once the Hydrologic Soil Group was determined, the composite Curve Number (CN) for
each subbasin was computed by using CN values from typical land use cover types and
applying them to the actual areas for the associated cover types within the subbasin.
Table 1 shows the CN values for the various land cover types used in this analysis.
Assumed Values
Land Cover Type CN % Impervious
Agricultural 82
Commercial 94 85
Forest/Vacant 73
Industrial 91 72
Institutional 94 85
Manufactured Housing 3 units per ac 81 30
MF/SF Residential 1 unit per ac 79 20
MF/SF Residential 2 unit per ac 80 25
MF/SF Residential 2.5 unit per ac 81 27
MRSF Residential 3.5 unit per ac 82 36
Water 100 100
Right of Way 92 50
MCAS 91 72
MF/SF - Multi-Family/Single Family
MCAS - Marine Corps Air Station
Table 1
These models were analyzed for the 1.5-year, and the 25-year storm events with a 24-
hour storm duration. The total precipitation for the 1.5-year, and 25-year storm events
are 4.5 in, and 8 in, respectively.
For this analysis, various 'Outfall' points were selected, based on subbasin
relationships, for study. Appendix `A', "Time of Concentration Calculations", defines the
subbasins associated with each outfall point. The subbasins are shown on the map
included in this report.
The computer models were created using data obtained from topographic maps, and
various federal and state agencies. Two storm events were run for each of the four
models for a total of eight computer runs. The results of these computer runs are shown
in Table 2 and 3. As stated previously in this report, the values for the percentage
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass - Report.doc
' 10/14/2005
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
change of the peak discharge and runoff volumes for the three proposed condition
models are in comparison to the existing condition model.
Outfall Data for 1.5 Year Storm Event
A B C D E F G H I J
Existinq Condition
Drainage Areas . mi 55.29 29.46 5.47 2.36 3.00 7.90 18.29 2.34 3.66 0.97
Impervious Areas . mi 10.04 2.60 0.15 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.39 0.15
Discharge cfs 18,448 8,776 1,459 738 736 2,007 3,737 638 1,295 465
Runoff Volume ac-ft 8,189 3,345 591 275 291 768 1,717 253 467 131
Future 'No Build' Condition

Impervious Areas . mi 11.06 2.88 0.26 0.27 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.15 0.53 0.21
Percentage Change 10.16 10.77 73.33 50.00 0.00 66.67 0.00 50.00 35.90 40.00
Discharge cfs 18783 8946 1520 790 743 2021 3762 669 1372 505
Percentage Change 1.82 1.94 4.17 7.03 0.91 0.67 0.68 4.82 5.95 8.67
Runoff Volume ac-ft 8370 3412 617 296 293 773 1729 266 497 144
Percentage Change 2.21 2.00 4.45 7.52 0.96 0.69 0.70 5.03 6.46 9.46
Future Scenario 1 Condition

Impervious Areas . mi 11.27 2.82 0.27 0.28 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.16 0.55 0.22
Percentage Change 12.25 8.46 80.00 55.56 0.00 100.00 0.00 60.00 41.03 46.67
Discharge cfs 18,833 8,903 1,530 802 743 2,025 3,762 675 1,381 510
Percentage Change 2.09 1.46 4.84 8.65 0.90 0.89 0.68 5.68 6.68 9.72
Runoff Volume ac-ft 8,400 3,392 621 301 293 775 1,729 268 501 145
Percentage Change 2.57 1.40 5.16 9.21 0.97 0.96 0.70 5.97 7.30 10.60
Future Scenario 2 Condition

Impervious Areas . mi 11.28 2.85 0.27 0.28 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.16 0.55 0.22
Percentage Change 12.35 9.62 80.00 55.56 0.00 133.33 0.00 60.00 41.03 46.67
Discharge cfs 18,835 8,929 1,530 803 743 2,025 3,762 675 1,386 511
Percentage Change 2.10 1.75 4.84 8.73 0.90 0.89 0.68 5.68 7.07 9.85
Runoff Volume ac-ft 8,401 3,403 621 301 293 775 1229 268 503 145
Percentage Change 2.59 1.72 5.17 9.31 0.97 0.96 0.70 5.97 7.67 10.79
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass - Report.doc
10/14/2005
Table 2 - Summary of 1.5 Year Storm Event
[J

1

t

F
1

L?

u

1
Outfall Data for 25 Year Storm Event
A B C D E F G H I J
Existing Condition
Drainage Areas . mi 55.29 29.46 5.47 2.36 3.00 7.90 18.29 2.34 3.66 0.97
Impervious Areas . mi 10.04 2.60 0.15 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.39 0.15
Discharge cfs 38,231 20,279 3,598 1,765 1,922 5,231 9,779 1,578 2,966 1,042
Runoff Volume ac-ft 17,109 7,918 1,437 647 741 1,956 4,412 614 1,059 291
Future 'No Build' Condition

Impervious Areas . mi 11.06 2.88 0.26 0.27 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.15 0.53 0.21
Percentage Change 10.16 10.77 73.33 50.00 0.00 66.67 0.00 50.00 35.90 40.00
Discharge cfs 38,744 20,499 3,673 1,828 1,930 5,248 9,813 1,616 3,053 1,086
Percentage Change 1.34 1.08 2.10 3.59 0.43 0.34 0.35 2.37 2.95 4.29
Runoff Volume ac-ft 17,353 8,013 1,472 675 745 1,963 4,429 631 1,098 307
Percentage Change 1.43 1.20 2.45 4.25 0.51 0.38 0.39 2.79 3.68 5.49
Future Scenario 1 Condition

Impervious Areas . mi 11.27 2.82 0.27 0.28 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.16 0.55 0.22
Percentage Change 12.25 8.46 80.00 55.56 0.00 100.00 0.00 60.00 41.03 46.67
Discharge cfs 38,788 20,440 3,686 1,843 1,930 5,253 9,813 1,622 3,063 1,092
Percentage Change 1.46 0.79 2.44 4.43 0.43 0.43 0.35 2.78 3.29 4.81
Runoff Volume ac-ft 17,391 7,985 1,478 681 745 1,966 4,429 634 1,103 309
Percentage Change 1.65 0.85 2.84 5.21 0.52 0.52 0.39 3.30 4.14 6.16
Future Scenario 2 Condition

Impervious Areas . mi 11.28 2.85 0.27 0.28 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.16 0.55 0.22
Percentage Change 12.35 9.62 80.00 55.56 0.00 133.33 0.00 60.00 41.03 46.67
Discharge cfs 38,790 20,473 3,686 1,843 1,930 5,253 9,813 1,622 3,069 1,092
Percentage Change 1.46 0.96 2.44 4.47 0.43 0.44 0.35 2.78 3.50 4.87
Runoff Volume ac-ft 17,393 8,001 1,478 681 745 1,966 4,429 634 1,106 309
Percentage Chan a 1.66 1.05 2.84 5.26 0.52 0.52 0.39 3.30 4.37 6.24
Table 3 - Summary of 25 Year Storm Event
As shown from this analysis, there are minimum future hydrological impacts from the
construction of this project as compared to the existing condition. Most areas show only
minor increases, (less than three percent), in the peak discharge and runoff volumes for
the three future conditions for the 1.5 year storm event. The areas that show a greater
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass - Report.doc
10/14/2005
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
percentage increase in the peak discharge and runoff volumes, (for the three future
conditions), are subbasins 5, 6, 9, 12, and 13, (Outfalls 'D', 'C', 'H', `I', and `J',
respectively), with values ranging from approximately four to eleven percent for the both
the peak discharge and runoff volumes, respectively.
However, upon comparisons of the two future `Build' scenarios to the future 'No Build'
condition, the percentage increases for the peak discharge and runoff volumes are
negligible (less than one percent).
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass - Report.doc
10/14/2005
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4P H NTB
TIP R-1015, Havelock Bypass, Craven County
September 5, 2005
Hydrological Sub Watersheds
County Boundary
Subwatersheds
water Body
Streams & Creeks
Local Roads
State Roads
Existing Land Use
Agricultural
Commercial
® Forest/Vacant
Industrial
Institutional
- MCAS
® Manufactured Housing
Multi-Family Residential
Single Family Residential
0 1 2
Miles
MAP SOURCES:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ESRI)
CITY HAVELOCK
CRAVEN COUNTY
CARTERET COUNTY
CHERRY POINT MCAS
HNTB NORTH CAROLINA, P.C.

11
li
u
?1

APPENDIX `A'
TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
1
1
1

I

1

Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass - Appendices.doc
9/27/2005
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

OI
OI
a
O
7.
7
O
{L ?
O
iu
A
7
O
C.1
r
O
01
C
O
.7
w
7
C
? p Om a
N
C
tD
V
C
O
V
O
m
E
Q I
1
A 1
J
O?
r 6
C O
V $
,' O -
r S S N
C
4 $ '7 m
G r
a N
t
1 O 0 1? C, V
N
r e

O m

R O S 1 ?
O S N

O ? $
O tD

r t0 O

a) m
th O• C m O C ^
0 G V 8 g In 80 C C C r PI a
, ;
m <
C 10 $ O M O ?j
IU
O/
GGG CO 8 0
C 10 ? O h 1?

1 ? ? Q ?
O O O IV m 7 N

?i„1
a
o
u?
v
$
?
e'!
r
$
$
N
m
o
g
gN 5Q?
S
n
.=
P!
vi
o
a
11 p C ?
9 Oo N
O'? '•
Y $ S $ 1X r
a O$ ? N N
6 1n
M r
a
19 O O m I p O 1 1
1

H

Q
C

b
Y
Q
"

S

n

?

m
N
a
O$ Y
8
YI O

? r

l m
?1 ? r C O C O r P a
m o -i g g $ gg ? 8 H
O r O h r C O m o ? N

O r O O N
0: LQ
C
O O G N
N 'd'
C 1f1
V Q 8 l+l $ $ q s $ Y S
N r eD r
0 Q ? O 6 C; C
a v
a m
? $ $ ??
r o $ m
o o g co $ r
a ey
a n
a
? a o co c ; c;
?? O V ? O p
0 N o $ C V V
m Y
?] t 14
I
it
0
V
8 10
8

r N
S SS
O
C
? N
$
a
a
v
It!
O C 1? O C N N

N
O
V
m
8 In

O
W!
O V

"

=

a

r
O
r
N
0
o
.
r

r
a in g o n o$ m ? g q ? r 1o In
O Y 1? 7 0 O N O O ? N ^ O a
L L L
?
a
i
L ?
ry O C
C
L/1 C
C •? N L
V L m
L N

X
d • a •• y V
E _
d
o
U
m d

? U.
d
L
? O
01 m? y ? C? O p
E
- H?„
d m CI$C
R ytr ?.
V -
`
L a=
w ?
}
y ? ? .V.. ? d C
? .
y 'IC ?G
s C d C1 6 m
.+ .
o°vmt c E mm

F 2
a
;a O
U
a? U
m?U
?-
U f v
sx
N c
LL. C d
3
Ci y
01 fm d. O
C O
J C
v V N
7 W
m JN
y- m 0 111 J C
L+
C C C N O
d C Y
>>
N
33
c i> b L t c? ° y? E A S S w
1nONLL.J ln JLL ? U2J H m

1

1

APPENDIX `B'
EXISTING CONDITION MODEL
CURVE NUMBERIIMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS
1.5 YEAR STORM EVENT RESULTS
25 YEAR STORM EVENT RESULTS
1
1
Fli

1
1
I
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass - Appendices.doc
9/27/2005
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
HAVELOCK BYPASS - EXISTING CONDITION
Subbastn -1
Land Cover Type Drainage Area (DA) I Ass umed Values
CN
Da
I
i
'/
DA

Agricultural Aces
0.0 Square Mlles
0.00 CN %
/• Impervious x
0.00 mperv
ous x
.
0.00
Commenial
FonssWacant 0.0
3,513.5 0.00
8.82 73 85.00 0100
629.08 0.00
0.00
mdu5trial
Institutional 0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00 J 72.00
85.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
Manufactured Housl 0.0 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00
WRI-Family Residential
Sineft Family Resitlen0al 0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00 85.00
20.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Wafer 2.640.9 4.13 100.00 412.77 4.13
MU d Way 0.0 0.00 92 60.00 0.00 0.00
Totals 8,154.4 12.75
Composite CN 81.7
% Impervious for Subbasin 32.4
Subbastn .2
Land Cover Type Drainage Area DA Ass umed Values CN
DA %I
i
D

rtarltural
Acres
0.0
Square Moos
0.00
CN
82
% Impervious x

0.00 mperv
ous x
A
0.00
Commercial
ForesWacant 0.0
1.008.4 0.00
1.57 94
73 85.00 0.00
114.83 0.00
0.00
Industrial
institutional 0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00 91
94 72.00
85.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
Manufactured Housin 0.0 0.00 Si 30.00 0.00 0.00
Multi-F Residential
Single Family Residential 0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00 90
79 85.00
20.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
of Way
M 0.0 0.00 92 50.00 0.00 0.00
Totals
11 1,008.4 137
Composite CN 73.0
% Impervious for Subbasin 0.0
1
1
1
1
Subbasin -3
Land Cover Type Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN
D i

datiural
Acres
0.0
square mites
0.00
CN
82
% Impervious x
A
0.00 %
mpervious x DA
0.00
Conunergal 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
ForesWacant 4948.9 7.74 73 564.86 0.00
Industrial
Institutional 0.0
O.D11 0.00
0.00 91
94 72.00
86.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
Manufactured Housing
Multi-Family Residential O.o
0.0 0000
0.00 81
90 30.00
65.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
Single Family Residential 104.2 0.18 79 20.00 12.87 0.03
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
R' hl ofWa 0.0 0.00 92 50.00 0.00 0.00
Totals 5,053.1 7.90
Composite CN T3.1
% Impervious for Subbasin 0.4
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calcs.xis
10/132005
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HAVELOCK BYPASS - EXISTING CONDITION
Subbasin - 4
Land Cover Type Drainage Area D Assumed Values CN
DA %i
D

Acres
Square Miles
CN
/• Impervious x mpervious x
A
Agricultural 38.0 0.08 82 4.87 0.00
Commercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Forest/Vacant 1873.1 2.93 73 213.72 0.00
kidustrlal 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Instkutlonat 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Hous
Mul"amlly Residential
ShO Family Residential 0.0
0.0
5.5 0.00
0.00
0.01 81
90
79 30.00
65.00
20.00 0.00
0.00
0.80 0.00
0.00
0.00
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right of Way O.o 0.00 92 50.00 0.00 0.00
Totals 1,917.8 3.00
Composite CN T3.2
% Impervious for Subbasin 0.1
Subbasin - 5

Land Cover Type Drainage Area D Assumed Values
CN
DA
I
Y
i
D

Agricultural
Acres
55.3
square miles
0.09
CN
82
% Impervious x

7.09 .
mperv
ous x
A
0.00
Commercial 45.1 0.07 94 85.00 6.63 0.06
Forest/Vacant
Industrial 1214.1
0.0 1.90
0.00 73
91
72.00 138.53
0.00 0.00
0.00
fnstltullwal
Manufactured Housing 9.3
010 OF,
0.00 94
81 86.00
30.00 1.37
0.00 0.01
0.00
Wl6-family Residential
Sin is Family Residential 29.1
91.1 0.05
0.14 90
79 66.00
20.00 4.09
11.25 0.03
0.03
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
;&M
01 Wa 834 0.10 92 50.00 9.12 0.05
17 1,507.4 2.36
Composite CN 75.6
% Impervious for Subbasin 7.8
Subbasin - 6
Land Cover Type Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN
D %I

Acres
Square Mlles
CN
/. Impervious x
A mpervious x DA
A rtailtural 530.7 013 82 68.02 0.00
Commercial
ForesWacant 3.4
2.061.5 0.01
4.16 94
73 85.00 0.50
303.67 0.00
0.00
Industrial 11.4 0.02 91 72400 1.62 0.01
Institutional
Manufactured Housing 0.0
0.0 0400
0.00 94
81 85.00
30.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
MulticFami Residential
Single Family Residential 24.7
206.8 0.04
0.32 90
79 65.00
20.00 3.47
25.51 0.03
0.06
Water oA 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right afWa 60.1 0.09 92 50.00 8.64 0.05
Totals 3,490.4 5.47
Composite CN 732
% Impervious for Subbasin 2.6
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro CaICS.xlS
10/1312005
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HAVELOCK BYPASS - EXISTING CONDITION
Subbasln .7
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA ervious x DA
%Im
yp Acres Square Miles CN % im rvious p
Agricultural 159.5 0.25 82 20.44 0.00
C mensal 144.1 0.23 94 85.00 21.17 0.19
ForesfNacant 11654.0 10.40 73 759.21 0.00
Industrial 3.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.43 0.00
Instdutlonal 62.0 0.10 94 85.00 9.11 048
Manufactured Housin 184,6 029 81 30.00 23.37 0.09
Multl-Farnilly Residential 12.7 0.02 90 86.00 1.79 0.01
Single Family Residential 513.5 0.80 81 27.00 65.01 0.22
Water Z5.0 0.04 100 100.00 3.91 0.04
M of W 292.9 0.48 92 50.00 42.12 0.23
Totals 8,051.3 12.58
Composite CN 75 2
%knpervtousforSubbasin 6.6
Subbasin - 8
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Im
ervious x DA
yp Acres Square Mlles CN % Impervious p
Agricultural 401 0.06 82 5.15 0.00
Commercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
ForwWacant 1t 863.2 18.23 73 1330.76 0.00
If dus6lal 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Housln 0.0 0.00 61 30.00 0.00 0.00
MuIO-Farm Residential 0.0 0.00 90 85.00 O 0.",
Sh* Farm Reskiential 0.0 0.00 79 20.00 0.00
f 0.00
Water 0,0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Rl t of way 000 0.00 92 50.00 0.00 0.00
Totals 11,703.4 18.29
Composite CN 73.0
%ImperviousforSubbasln 0.0
Subbasin - 9
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA vi
%I
DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious mper
ous x
A dWdural 361 0.06 82 5.02 0.00
Commercial 1.6 0.00 94 85.00 0.24 0100
ForesWacant t 55.9 1.98 73 143.30 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 O.DD
Institutional 1.5 0.00 94 85.00 0.22 0.00
Manufactured Housing 18.1 0.03 81 30.00 229 0.01
Multi-Fa Residential 0.0 0.00 90 85.00 0.00 0.00
Sin Family Residential 128.5 0.20 80 25.D0 16.07 0.05
Water 0.0 0.00 t00 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right of Way 51.0 0.08 92 50.00 7.33 0.04
Totals 1,495.8 2.34
Composite CN 74.6
% Impervious for Subbasln 4.4
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calcs.x15
10/13/2005
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
UAVELOCK BYPASS -EXISTING CONDITION
Subbasin -10
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %im
i
us
DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN /e Impervious perv
o
x
Agricultural 195.1 0.30 82 25.01 0.00
Commercial 20.0 0.03 94 85.00 2.94 0.03
ForesWacdnl 4.645.9 726 73 530.06 0.00
ktdwbw 7612 1.19 91 7200 108.27 0.86
Institutional 225.1 0.35 94 65.00 33.07 0.30
Manufactured Hausa e.6 0.01 81 30.00 1.11 0.00
Mullf-Family Residential 76,1 0.12 90 65.00 10.98 0,08
Shoe Family Residential 772.6 121 81 27.00 97.84 0.33
Water 20.3 0.03 •100 100.00 3.17 0.03
FtIgM of Way 304.7 0.48 92 50.00 43.81 024
Totals 7,031.7 10.95
Composite CN 77.9
K Impervious for Subbasin 16.9
Subbasin -11

Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values
CN
DA
yl
i
DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Im ervious x m erv
ous x
p
A rk ultural 42.1 0.07 82 5.40 0.00
Commercial 35.7 0.06 94 85.00 5.25 0.05
ForesWaranl 5,149.9 8.05 73 587.60 0.00
industrial 5427 0.85 91 72.00 77.19 0.61
Instilullonai 124.1 0.19 94 85.00 18.23 0.18
Marxrfaciured Housin 10.9 0.03 81 30.00 2.14 0.01
Multi-Fa Residential 4.9 0.01 90 65.00 0.86 0.00
Shale Family Residential 1352 0.22 61 27.DO 17.82 0.06
Water 23.5 0.04 100 100.00 3.57 0.04
M of Way 77.5 0.12 92 50.00 11.14 0.06
Totals 8,1582 9.62
Composite CN 75.8
% Impervious for Subbasin 1 D.3
Subbasin -12
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA .• Assumed Values CN
DA %i
i
DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN /e Impervious x mperv
ous x
A rkvhural 333.7 0.52 82 4177 0.00
Commercial 30.1 0.05 94 85.00 4.42 0.04
ForesWacanl 1363.7 2.13 73 155.60 0.00
irldustrtdl 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional 25.1 0.04 94 85.00 3.69 0.03
Manufactured Housin 146.6 023 81 30.00 18.56 0.07
Multil-Famfly, Residential
Single Family Residential 0.0
321.5
1 0.00

0.60 90

81 85.00

27.00 0.00

40.70 0.00

0.14
Water 17.0 0.03 100 100.00 2.66 0.03
ht ci Way 105.0 0.16 92 50.00 15.10 0.08
Totals 2,342.7 3.66
Composite CN 77A
% Impervious for Subbasin 10.6
Havelock Bypass Project -
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calcs.xls
1011312005
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
r
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calcs.xls
10/132005
HAVELOCK BYPASS - EXISTING CONDITION
Subbasin -13
Land Cover Type Drat ina a Area DA Assumed Values CN
DA i
%I
DA
Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious x mperv
ous x
rt0u0urat 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commercial 0.0 0.00 04 85.00 0.00 0.00
ForestNacant
Industrial 395.0
0.0 0.82
0.00 73
91
72.00 45.07
0.00 0.00
0.00
Institutional 3.4 0.01 94 85.00 0.50 0.00
Manufactured Hous 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Muhl-Faml Residential 0.0 0.00 90 56.00 0.00 0.00
Single Famly Residential 176.3 028 82 36.00 22.60 0.10
Water
Ri t of W a 20.0
24.9 0.03
0.04 100
92 100.00
50.00 3.13
3.58 0.03
0.02
Tog's 819.6 0.97
Composite CN 77.3
% Impervious for Subbasin 15.9
Subbasin -14
Land Cover Type Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN
D %I
i
Acres Square Mites CN '? Impervious
% x
A erv
ous x DA
rep
Agricultural 215.7 0.34 82 27.65 0.00
Commercial 216.0 034 94 85.00 3203 0.29
Forest/Vacant 4392.2 8.87 73 501.16 0.00
Industrial 82.7 0.13 91 72.00 11.76 0.09
Instituliortal
Manufactured Housing 289.1
83.1 0.45
0.13 94
81 85.00
30.00 42.48
10.52 0.38
0.04
Multi-Family Residential
S e Famlly Residential 9.3
479.1 0.01
0.76 90
81 85.00
27.00 1.31
60.88 0.01
020
Water 311.7 0.49 100 100.00 48.72 0.49
Rl ht ofWa 232.6 0.36 92 SO.DO 33.45 0.18
Totals 8,313.5 9.87
Composite CN 78.0
% Impervious for Subbasin 17.1
Subbasin -15

Land Cover Type Drainage Area (DA) I Assumed Values
CN
O
l
M

Acres
Square Miles
CN
% Impervious x
A yo
m e
ous x DA
p
Agricultural 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commercial 49.9 0.08 94 65.00 7.33 0.07
Forest/Vacant
Industrial 3582.3
300.0 5.57
0.47 73
91
72.00 408.45
42.67 0.00
0.34
Institutional 46.7 0.07 94 85.00 8.86 0.06
Manufactured Hous
WIti-Family Residential 0.4
24.9 0.00
0.04 81
90 30.00
85.00 0.05
3.60 0.00
0.03
Single Fa i Residential
Water 220.3
$562 0.34
0.87 81
100 27.00
100.00 27.89
86.93 0.09
0.87
t Of Way 53.6 0.08 92 50.00 7.74 0.04
Togis 41814.5 7.53
Composite CN 78.3
%Impervious forSubbasln 19.0
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HAVELOCK BYPASS - EXISTING CONDITION
Subbasin -16
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area D Assumed Values CN x DA %im
erviou
DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious p
s x
Agricuftural 4153 0.65 62 5325 0.00
Commercial 11.4 0.02 94 85.00 1.67 0.02
Forest/Vacant 10A".0 16.50 73 1204.77 0.00
Industrial 2803 0.44 91 72.00 39.90 0.32
ft twml 71.2 0.11 94 85.00 10.48 0.09
Manufactured Housln 282.0 0.41 81 30.00 33.17 0.12
WM-Famlly Residential 10.0 0.02 90 85.00 1.41 0.01
Sing b Famly Residential 4721 0.74 81 27.00 69.78 0.2D
Water 460.1 0.73 100 100.00 72.85 0.73
Right of W 144.8 0.23 92 50.00 20.82 011
r??u?a ? ?c,aac.r? ls.a?t
Composite CN 7S.S
% Impervious for Subbasin 8.1
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calcs.xts
10/13/2005
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name s Run 30
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall A
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 1.5yr
Execution Time : 140ct05 0815 Control Specs Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
' Subbasin-2
Subbasin-1
Reach-1
' Subbasin-10
Subbasin-7
Junction-1
Reach-2
Subbasin-15
Subbasin-14
Outfall A
565.87 27 Sep 05 0150 200.09 1.570
6853.3 27 Sep 05 0140 2317.4 12.750
7380.3 27 Sep 05 0200 2460.1 14.320
3369.9 27 Sep 05 0310 1685.5 10.990
3838.1 27 Sep 05 0240 1738.3 12.580
13815 27 Sep 05 0220 5883.9 37.890
13796 27 Sep 05 0310 5418.8 37.890
4469.2 27 Sep 05 0110 1233.4 7.530
3361.0 27 Sep 05 0240 1537.1 9.870
18448 27 Sep 05 0300 8189.3 55.290
1
1
1
1
I
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 32
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall B
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 1.5yr
Execution Time 140ct05 0817 Control Specs Eventl
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-11
Reach-1
Subbasin-16
Outf all B
3993.9 27 Sep 05 0130 1179.4 9.620
3953.9 27 Sep 05 0220 1073.8 9.620
4996.1 27 Sep 05 0300 2271.5 19.840
8775.5 27 Sep 05 0230 3345.3 29.460
' HMS * Summary of Results
' Project Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 3
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall C
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time 26Sep05 1514 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1459.3 27 Sep 05 0230 590.98 5.470
HMS * Summary of Results
' Project Haveloc k-Exist Run Name : Run 4
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall D
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time 26Sep05 1515 Control Specs : Eventl
r
1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
738.42 27 Sep 05 0210 275.36 2.360
1 HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 5
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall E
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 26Sep05 1516 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
1
736.37 27 Sep 05 0230 290.50 3.000
' HMS * Summary of Results
' Project Haveloc k-Exist Run Name : Run 6
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall F
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 26Sep05 1517 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
2007.4 27 Sep 05 0220 767.47 7.900
HMS * Summary of Results
' Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 7
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall G
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 26Sep05 1517 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3736.6 27 Sep 05 0310 1716.6 18.290
1
1
1
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 8
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall H
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 26Sep05 1518 Control Specs : Eventl
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
' Subbasin-9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
638.33 27 Sep 05 0220 252.88 2.340

HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 9
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall I
End of Run : 27Ssp05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 26Sep05 1519 Control Specs : Eventl
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
' Subbasin-12
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1294.6 27 Sep 05 0200 466.99 3.660
1
1
1

1
HMS * Sununary of Results
Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 10
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall J
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 26Sep05 1519 Control Specs : Eventl
Subbasin-13 464.82 27 Sep 05 0120 131.28 0.970

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 31
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall A
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 140ct05 0815 Control Specs : Eventl
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-2 1266.3 27 Sep 05 0150 444.54 1.570
Subbasin-1 13444 27 Sep 05 0130 4533.0 12.750
Reach-1 14647 27 Sep 05 0150 4893.3 14.320
Subbasin-10 6948.6 27 Sep 05 0310 3467.6 10.990
Subbasin-7 8274.2 27 Sep 05 0240 3728.2 12.580
Junction-1 28121 27 Sep 05 0210 12089 37.890
Reach-2 28030 27 Sep 05 0250 11444 37.890
' Subbasin-15 9134.1 27 Sep 05 0110 2508.7 7.530
Subbasin-14 6929.1 27 Sep 05 0240 3157.1 9.870
Outfall A 38231 27 Sep 05 0240 17109 55.290
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 33
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall B
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time : 140ct05 0817 Control Specs Eventl
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-11
Reach-1
Subbasin-16
Outf all B

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
9363.6 27 Sep 05 0120 2723.4 9.620
9305.4 27 Sep 05 0200 2569.7 9.620
11949 27 Sep 05 0250 5348.4 19.840
20279 27 Sep 05 0220 7918.1 29.460
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 16
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall C
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0733 Control Specs : Eventl

Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
' Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-6 3597.9 27 Sep 05 0220 1436.9 5.470

1
1
1
j HMS * Su=ary of Results
Project Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 17
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall D
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0734 Control Specs : Eventl

Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1764.6 27 Sep 05 0200 647.44 2.360
HMS * Su=ary of Results
Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 18
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall E
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0734 Control Specs : Eventl

Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-4
1922.0 27 Sep 05 0220 741.02 3.000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
j HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name : Rua 19
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall F
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0734 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5230.5 27 Sep 05 0210 1955.5 7.900
t

HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 20
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall G
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0735 Control Specs Eventl
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
A
9778.8 27 Sep 05 0300 4412.2 18.290
1
1
1
1
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 22
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall I
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0735 Control Specs Eventl
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2965.7 27 Sep 05 0200 1059.3 3.660
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Exist Run Name : Run 23
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall J
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0736 Control Specs : Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1041.6 27 Sep 05 0120 290.94 0.970
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX `C'
FUTURE NO BUILD' CONDITION MODEL
CURVE NUMBER/IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS
1.5 YEAR STORM EVENT RESULTS
25 YEAR STORM EVENT RESULTS
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass - Appendices.doc
9/27/2005

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
HAVELOCK BYPASS - FUTURE'NO BUILD' CONDITION
Subbasin -1
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Im
ervi
us x DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious p
o
Agricultural 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commerclai 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
ForesWacant 5513.5 8.62 73 629.08 0400
4xtusbw 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
ImItutional 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0100 0.00
Manufactured Housin 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Muld-Fawilly Residential 0.0 0.00 90 85.00 0.00 0.00
Single Famly Residential 0.0 0.00 79 2000 . 0.00 0.00
Water 2.5409 4.13 100 100.00 412.77 d.t3
ntofWa 0.0 0.00 92 50.00 0.00 0.00
Totals 5,154.4 12.75
Composite CN 81.7
% Impervious for Subbasin 32A
Subbasin -2

Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values
DA
CN
l
DA
e/
l
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious x mperv
ous x
o
Agricultural 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Forest/Vacant 1006.4 1.67 73 114.83 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Housl 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Mu81-Fam Residential 0.0 0.00 90 85.00 0.00 0.00
Stn ls Fartd Residential 0.0 0.00 7 20.00 0.00 0.00
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right ofWa 0.0 0.00 92 60.00 0.00 0.00
Totals 1,005.4 1.57
Composite CN 73.0
% Impervious for Subbasin 0.0
Subbasin .3
Land Cover Type Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN
DA %i
i
DA
Acres Square Mlles CN % Impervious x m erv
ous x
p
Agricultural 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
ForesWacant 4903.4 7.58 73 559.48 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Housin 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Milli-Family Residential
Single FamS Residential 0.0
149.7 0.00
0.23 90
79 65.00
20.00 0.00
18.48 0.00
0.05
Water 0.0 0,00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right of Way 0.0 0.00 92 50.00 0.00 0.00
Totals 5,053.1 7.90
Composite CN 73.2
% Impervious for Subbasin 0.5
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro C21s.xl5
10/132005

1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HAVELOCK BYPASS - FUTURE'NO BUILD' CONDITION
Subbasin - 4
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA •bim
ervlous x DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious p
A ultural 38.0 0.06 82 4.87 0.00
Commercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Forest/Vacant 1.858.1 2.90 73 21201 0.00
kdustrial 0.0 o.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Ine0tu0onal 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured HousIn 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
I&N-Family Residential 0.0 0.00 90 85.00 0.00 0.00
Single Famity Residential 8.5 0.01 79 20.00 0.80 0.00
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
ht of Way 15.0 0.02 92 50.00 2.16 0.01
Totals 1,917.8 3.00
Composite CN 73.3
% Impervious for Subbasin 0.5
Subbasin - 5
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Im ervious
DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious x
p
Agricultural 55.3 0.09 82 7.09 0.00
Commercial 59.9 0.09 94 85.00 8.79 0.08
Forast/Vaant 1073.7 1.88 73 122.61 0.00
Industrial 41 0.01 91 72.00 0.80 0.00
Institutional 11A 0.02 94 85.00 1.88 0.02
Manufactured Housin 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Multl-Family Residential 31.4 0.05 90 65.00 4.41 0.03
Sin le Family Residential 183.5 0.26 79 20.00 20.23 0.06
Water o.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right of Way 107.8 0.17 92 50.00 15.50 0.08
Totals 1,507.4 L38
Composite CN 78.7
% Impervious for Subbasin 11.3
Subbasin - B
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values
CN
DA
•/
i
i
DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious x .
mperv
ous x
A ullural 530.7 0.83 82 68.02 0.00
Commercial 72 0.01 94 85.00 1.08 0.01
Forest/Vacant 2,450.5 3.83 73 279.60 0.00
Industrial 28.5 0.04 91 72.00 178 0.03
Institutional 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Housin 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Multi-Fame Residential 292 0.05 90 65.00 4.11 0103
Single Famlly Residential 352.1 0.56 79 20.00 43.47 0.11
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right of Way 102.21 0.16 92 50.00 14.69 0.08
Totals 3,498.4 5.47
Composite CN TS.B
% Impervious for Subbasin 4.7
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calcs.xls
10113/2005
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

HAVELOCK BYPASS - FUTURE 'NO BUILD' CONDITION
Subbasin -7
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Im
ervi
us
DA
yp Acres Square MR" CN % Impervious p
o
x
Agricultural 159.5 015 82 20.44 0.00
COTImerclat 190.6 0.30 94 55.00 26100 0.25
Forest/Vacant e.072.0 9.49 73 692.80 0.00
IndusMal 5.e 0.01 91 7200 0.94 0.01
institutional 63.5 0.13 94 85.00 12.28 0.11
Manufactured Hou 238.9 0637 81 30.00 29.99 0.11
Mold-Fa Residenial 102, 0.03 90 65.00 2.71 0.02
inilte Fam Resldanflal 848.0 1.33 81 21.00 107.37 0.36
Water 25.0 0.04 100 100.00 3.91 0.04
Right of Way 410.1 0.54 92 50.00 58.96 0.32
Totals 8,051.3 12.58
Composite CN 76.1
% Impervious for Subbasin 9.7
Subbasin - 8

Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values
CN
Da
•
I
i
DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN •
/• Impervious : .
mperv
ous x
Agricultural 40.2 0.06 82 5.15 0.00
COmmaroial 2.3 0.00 94 85.00 0.34 0.00
ForesWacant 11593.5 18.12 73 132281 0.00
Industrial 1.9 0.00 91 7200 0.27 0.00
Inseweonal 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Housiryl; 0.0 0.00 61 30.00 0.00 0.00
AMdB-Fam Residential 0.0 0.00 90 55.00 0.00 0.00
Single Fwft Residential 45.5 0607 79 20.00 6.81 0.01
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
M ntofwa 20.0 0.03 92 50.00 2.88 0.02
TOfale 11,703.4 18.29
Composite CN 73.1
% Impervious for Subbasin 02
Subbasin - 9
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN
DA %I
i
D
yp
Acres
Square Miles
CN
% Impervious x m erv
ous x
A
p
Agricultural 392 0.06 82 5.02 0.00
Comnrerclal
ForesiNacant 10.0
1164.0 0.02
1.82 94
73 85.00 1.47
132.81 0.01
0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional 1.5 0.00 94 85.00 012 0.00
Manufactured Housing 18.1 0.03 81 30.00 2.29 0.01
MW6-Farm Residential 0.0 90 65.00 0.00 0.00
Single Family Residential 196.7 80 25.00 24.59 0.08
Water 0.0 nOD 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
ht O(wa 6e3 92 50.00 9.53 0.05
Totals 1,495.8 2.34
Composite CN 76.3
%Impervious for Subbasin BS
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calcs.xis
10/13/2005
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HAVELOCK BYPASS -FUTURE WO BUILD' CONDITION
Subbasin -10
d C
T
L Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %impervious x DA
over
ype
an Acres Square Mass CN /e Impervious
A dcultural 132.7 021 82 17.01 0.00
Commercial 31.4 0.05 94 85.00 4.61 0.04
ForesWaeant 4262.2 8.71 73 489.74 0.00
Industrial
Institutional 801.0
230.8 1.25
0.36 91
94 72.00
85.00 113.92
33.91 0.90
0.31
Manufactured Housing 8.8 0.01 81 30.00 1.11 0.00
WIB-Family Residential 84.9 0.13 BO 86.00 11.95 0.09
Single Family Residentlat 3 1.59 11 27.00 128.91 0.43
Water 20.3 0.03 100 100.00 3.17 0.03
Right of Way 411.3 0.84 92 50.00 59.15 0.32
Totals 7,031.7 10.99
Composite CN 78.6
% Impervious for Subbasin 19.3
Subbasin -11
L
d C
T Drainage Area DA Assumed Values
' CN x DA %Impervious x DA
an
over
ype Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious
A ricultural 42.1 0.07 82 5.40 0.00
Commercial 40.4 0.08 94 85.00 5.94 0.05
ForesWaant 49811.8 7.80 73 589.21 0.00
industrial 564.8 0.88 91 72.00 80.33 0.64
Instllutlona' 128.8 0.20 94 85.00 18.93 0.17
Mantrhadurad Housing 252 0.04 81 30.00 3.19 0.01
Mu81-FamA Residential 7.1 0.01 90 65.00 1.00 0.01
Shale Family Residential 2192 0.34 A 27.00 27.75 0.09
Water 23.5 0.04 100 100.00 3.67 0.04
Right ofWa 118.3 0.18 92 50.00 16.72 0.09
Totals 6,156.2 9.62
Composite CN 76.1
% Impervious for Subbasin 11.4
Subbasin -12
L
d C
T Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Impervious x DA
an
over
ype Arras Square Miles CN % Impervious
A Ocultural 277.8 0.43 82 35.81 0.00
Commercial 53.8 O.OB 94 85.00 7.90 0.07
FwwWaanl 1,198.1 1.87 73 138.47 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Ins6tu6onal 33.0 0.05 94 85.00 4.85 0.04
Manufactured Housing 1624 0.25 81 30.00 20.58 0.08
AMMO-Family Residential 0.0 0.00 90 65.00 0.00 0.00
Sin a Family Residential 445.1
0.70
81
27.00
66.36
0.19
Water 17.0
I 0.03 100 100.00 2.68 0.03
Right ofWa 157.5 025 92 50,00 22.65 0.12
Totals 2,342.7 3.66
Composite CN 78.4
% Impervious for Subbasin 14.4
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Caks.xls
10/132005
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
HAVELOCK BYPASS - FUTURE'NO BUILD' CONDITION
Subbasln -13
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Im ervious x DA
yp Acres square miles CN % Impervious p
Agricultural 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
ForesWacant 292.8 0.48 73 33.39 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Irtsil lal 3.4 0.01 94 85.00 0.60 0.00
Manufactured Houstn 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Mu01-Family Residential 0.0 0.00 90 65.00 0.00 0.00
Single Fam Residential 273.7 0.43 82 36.00 35.08 0.15
Water 20.0 0.03 100 100.00 3.13 0.03
Right of Way 29.9 0.05 92 50.00 4.30 0.02
Totals 819.8 0.97
Composite CN 78.9
% Impervious for Subbasin 22.0
Subbasln -14
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN
DA %I
i
DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious x m erv
ous x
p
fticultural 191.8 0.30 82 24.58 0.00
Cormnefclal 2902 0.45 94 85.00 42.83 0.39
ForesWacant 3938.4 6.16 73 449.36 0.00
Industrial 93.0 0.15 91 72.00 13.23 0.10
Institutional 309.7 0.48 94 85.00 45.50 0.41
Manufactured HouW 94.8 0.16 81 30.00 12.01 0.04
Multi-Famil Residential 16.3 0.03 90 65.00 2.30 0.02
S kyle, Family Residential 718.8 1.12 81 27.00 90.98 0.30
Water 311.7 0.49 100 100.00 48.72 0.49
Right of Way 348.9 0.55 92 50.00 50.17 0.27
Totals 8,313.6 9.87
Composite CN 79.0
% Impervious for Subbasln 20.5
Subbasln -15

Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values
cN
Da
•/
I
i
DA
yp Acres Square Mlles CN % Impervious x .
ous x
m erv
p
Agricultural 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commercial 585 0.09 94 85.00 8.67 0.08
ForesWacant 3472.3 5.43 73 396.18 0.00
Industrial 329.5 0.51 91 72.00 46.86 0.37
Institutional 50.9 0.08 94 85.00 7.48 0.07
Manufactured Housing 0.4 0.00 81 30.00 0.05 0.00
Mug{-Fa Residential 29.4 0.05 90 65.00 414 0.03
Single Family Residential 247.8 0.39 81 27.00 31.34 0.10
Water 5592 0.87 100 100.00 86.93 0.87
R! IofWa 89.9 0.11 92 50.00 10.08 0.05
Totals 4,914.5 7.53
Composite CN 78.8
% Impervious for Subbasln 20.9
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro CaIcs.xis
10/132005
HAVELOCK BYPASS - FUTURE'NO BUILD' CONDITION
Subbasin -16
v
r T
L
d C Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA yimpervious x DA
an
o
e
ype Aces Sgwre Miles CN /. Impervious
Aculft al 415.5 0.85 82 53.25 0.00
Canmenial te.1 0.03 94 85.00 2.37 0.02
ForesWacant 10.255.5 16.03 73 1170.14 0.00
Industrial 304.2 0.48 91 72.00 43.26 0.34
InsBtutlonal 74.4 0.12 94 85.00 10.92 0.10
Manufactured Housing 2802 0.44 81 30.00 35.47 0.13
WtWamil Residential 10.8 0.03 90 55.00 2.37 0.02
Sin le Family Residential 846.7 1.01 Bt 27.00 81.88 0.27
Water 488.1 0.73 100 100.00 7285 0.73
Flight of Way 217.2 0.34 92 50.00 3123 0.17
Totals 12,6927 19.84
Composite CN 75.8
% Impervious for Subbasin 9.0
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calcs.xis
10/13/2005
1
1
1
1
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 61
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall A
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 140ct05 0822 Control Specs : Eventl
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-2
' Subbasin-1
Reach-1
Subbasin-10
' Subbasin-7
Junction-1
Reach-2
1 Subbasin-15
Subbasin-14
' Outf all A

565.87 27 Sep 05 0150 200.09 1.570
6853.3 27 Sep 05 0140 2317.4 12.750
7380.3 27 Sep 05 0200 2460.1 14.320
3449.8 27 Sep 05 0310 1729.4 10.990
3976.7 27 Sep 05 0240 1806.1 12.580
14035 27 Sep 05 0220 5995.6 37.890
14019 27 Sep 05 0310 5530.9 37.890
4511.7 27 Sep 05 0110 1246.2 7.530
3473.6 27 Sep 05 0240 1593.1 9.870
18783 27 Sep 05 0300 8370.2 55.290
HMS * of Results
Summar
y
' Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 63
Start of Run : 26Sep05
E
d
f R
27S
05 1200
1200 Basin Model : Outfall B
l
1
M
M
d
5
t
n
o
un :
ep :
.
yr
o
e
e
.
Execution Time : 140ct05 0824 Control Specs : Eventl

I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-11 4069.5 27 Sep 05 0130 1203.6 9.620
Reach-1 4051.4 27 Sep 05 0220 1095.9 9.620
Subbasin-16 5088.7 27 Sep 05 0300 2316.4 19.840
' Junction-1 8945.8 27 Sep 05 0230 3412.3 29.460

HMS * Summary of Results
' Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 36
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall C
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0743 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1520.1 27 Sep 05 0230 617.21 5.470
' HMS * Summary of Results
' Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 38
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall D
' End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0743 Control Specs : Eventl

Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
790.33 27 Sep 05 0210 296.09 2.360
HMS * Summary of Results
' Project Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 40
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall E
' End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 1.5yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0744 Control Specs Eventl
1
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
743.06 27 Sep 05 0220 293.32 3.000
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 42
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall F
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 1.5yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0745 Control Specs Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2020.8 27 Sep 05 0220 772.75 7.900
' HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 44
Start of Run : 26Sep05
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall G
1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0745 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3761.9 27 Sep 05 0310 1728.7 18.290
HMS * Summary of Results
t Project Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 48
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall H
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 1.5yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0747 Control Specs Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
669.06 27 Sep 05 0220 265.57 2.340
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 50
Start of Run : 26Sep05
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall I
1200 Met. Model 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0747 Control Specs Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1371.6 27 Sep 05 0200 497.16 3.660
HMS * Summary of Results
' Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 52
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall J
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0748 Control Specs Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
505.10 27 Sep 05 0120 143.69 0.970
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 62
' Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall A
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 140ct05 0823 Control Specs : Eventl
1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
' Subbasin-2
Subbasin-1
Reach-1
Subbasin-10
Subbasin-7
Junction-1
' Reach-2
Subbasin-15
Subbasin-14
' Outfall A
1
1
1
1266.3 27 Sep 05 0150 444.54 1.570
13444 27 Sep 05 0130 4533.0 12.750
14647 27 Sep 05 0150 4893.3 14.320
7048.4 27 Sep 05 0300 3525.7 10.990
8451.8 27 Sep 05 0240 3820.6 12.580
28403 27 Sep 05 0210 12239 37.890
28365 27 Sep 05 0250 11596 37.890
9184.8 27 Sep 05 0110 2525.4 7.530
7066.3 27 Sep 05 0240 3231.0 9.870
38744 27 Sep 05 0240 17353 55.290
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 64
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall B
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time : 140ct05 0824 Control Specs Eventl
t
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-11
Reach-1
Subbasin-16
Junction-1
1
9455.3 27 Sep 05 0120 2755.2 9.620
9445.9 27 Sep 05 0200 2604.8 9.620
12064 27 Sep 05 0250 5408.6 19.840
20499 27 Sep 05 0220 8013.4 29.460
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 37
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall C
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0743 Control Specs Eventl

Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
i
I
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
3673.4 27 Sep 05 0220 1472.1 5.470
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 39
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall D
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0744 Control Specs Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
i
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1828.0 27 Sep 05 0200 674.90 2.360
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 41
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall E
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0744 Control Specs : Eventl

Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1930.3 27 Sep 05 0220 744.84 3.000
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 43
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall F
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0745 Control Specs Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
r
i
5248.4 27 Sep 05 0210 1963.0 7.900

1
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 47
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall a
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0746 Control Specs Eventl
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
f
1
r
i
9812.7 27 Sep 05 0300 4429.3 18.290
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 49
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall H
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0747 Control Specs Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
t
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1615.7 27 Sep 05 0220 631.02 2.340
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 51
Start of Run : 26Ssp05 1200 Basin Model Outfall I
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0747 Control Specs Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
i
1
t
1
1
1
1
I
1
f
1
3053.1 27 Sep 05 0200 1098.3 3.660
HMS * Summary of Results
' Project : Havelock-No Build Run Name : Run 53
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall J
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0748 Control Specs : Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1086.3 27 Sep 05 0120 306.89 0.970
1

APPENDIX `D'
FUTURE SCENARIO1 CONDITION MODEL
CURVE NUMBERIIMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS
1.5 YEAR STORM EVENT RESULTS
25 YEAR STORM EVENT RESULTS
fl
1
e

r

1

Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass - Appendices.doc
9/27/2005
HAVELOCK BYPASS - SCENARIO i CONDITION
Subbasin -1
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area (DA) i
Assumed Values
CN x DA
%i
ervious x DA
yp Acres Square Muss CN X Impervious mp
Rural 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
ForesWacant 51513.5 8.62 73 829.08 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Housno 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0,00 0.00
Murd-Fa Residential 0.0 0.00 90 66.00 0.00 0.00
Sinals Family Residential 0.0 0.00 79 20.00 0.00 0.00
Water 2.640.9 4.13 100 100.00 412.77 4,13
Right of Way 0.0 0.00 92 50.00 0.00 0.00
Totals 8,150.4 12.75
Composite CN 81.7
% Impervious for Subbasin 32.4
Subbasin - 2
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA erviou
%i
x DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN Y. Impervious mp
s
A riculWral 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Forestniacant 1.006.4 1.57 73 114.83 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional 0.0 0.00 94 86.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Housin 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
MulB-Family Residential 0.0 0.00 90 85.00 0.00 0.00
Single Fami Residential 0.0 0.00 79 20.00 0.00 0.00
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
M M of Way 0.0 0.00 92 50.00 0.00 0.00
TOtal9 1,006.4 1.57
Composite CN 73.0
% impervious for Subbasln 0.0
Subbasin .3
Land Cover T
pe Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %im
ervious
DA
y Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious p
x
Agricultural 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
ForasWacant 4,848.9 7.56 73 553.25 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional 0.0 0.00 94 65.00 0400 0.00
Manufactured Housing 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Multi-Fami Residential 0.0 0.00 90 65.00 0.00 0.00
Single Family Residential 204.2 0.32 79 20.00 25.21 0.06
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right of Way 0.0 0.00 92 60.00 0.00 0.00
Totals 5,053.1 7.90
Composite CN 71.2
% Impervious for Subbasln 0.8
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calcs.xis
10/1312006
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HAVELOCK BYPASS - SCENARIO 1 CONDITION
Subbasin - 4
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %im
ervious x DA
yp Acres Square Mlles CN % Impervious p
A nculwral 39.0 0.06 82 4.87 0.00
Corn mercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
ForesWacanl 1,959.1 2.90 73 212.01 0.00
kWustrial Co 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
InstlwBamal 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
ManuFMW Housing 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
W111-Family, Residential 0.0 0.00 9o 65.00 0.00 0.00
Family Shole Residential 6.5 0.01 79 20.00 0.80 0.00
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0,00 0.00
Right of Way 15.0 0.02 92 50.00 2.18 0.01
Totals 1,917.9 3.00
Composite CN 73 3
%impervious for8ubbasln OS
Subbasin - 5
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN
DA %i
erviou
DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Im ervious x mp
s x
Agricultural 55.3 0.09 82 7.09 0.00
Commercial 61.3 0.10 94 85.00 9.01 0.08
ForwWacant 10371 1.62 73 118.33 0.00
Industrial 4.9 0.01 91 72.00 0.68 0.01
Institutional 11.8 0.02 94 85.00 1.71 0.02
Manufacwred Housin 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
MUU-Fan*y Residential 32.2 0.05 90 65.00 4.53 0.03
Single Fam Residential 191.1 0.30 79 20.00 23.60 0.06
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right of Way 114.1 0.18 92 60.00 16.41 0.09
Totals 1,507.4 2.36
Composite CN T7.0
% Impervious for Subbasin 12.0
Subbasin - 6
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN
DA %i
e
i
DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN /. Impervious x mp
ous x
rv
A ncvlwrdl 530.7 0.83 82 68.02 0.00
Commercial 7.6 0.01 94 85.00 1.11 0.01
ForesWacant 2,427.6 3.79 73 276.99 0.00
Industrial 28.1 0.04 91 72.00 3.99 0.03
Institutional 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Housln 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Mulil-Family Residential 29.7 0,05 90 66.00 4,18 0.03
Single Family Residential 368.6 0.57 79 20.00 45.27 0.11
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right of Way 1082 0.17 92 50.00 15.66 0.08
Totals 3,498.4 5.47
Composite CN 75.9
% Impervious for Subbasin 5.0
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Caics.xis
10/132005
1
t
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HAVELOCK BYPASS - SCENARIO I CONDITION
Subbasin -7
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA etvious x DA
%Im
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious p
Agricultural 159.6 0.25 82 20.44 0.00
Commercial 204.3 0.32 94 85.00 30.01 0.27
ForesWacant 5.944.7 9.29 73 878.28 0.00
industrial 7.6 0.01 91 72.00 1.09 0.01
Institutional as's 0.14 94 85.00 13.19 0.12
Manufactured Housing 247.1 0.39 81 30.00 31.28 0.12
Muld-Famity, Resbenaal 20.5 0.03 90 65.00 2.89 0.02
Shale Famity Residential 913.5 1.43 81 27.00 115.65 0.39
Water 25.0 0.04 100 100.00 3.91 0.04
RI t of Way 439.4 0.89 92 50.00 63.18 0.34
Totals 5,051.3 12.58
Composite CN 76.3
% Impervious for Subbasln 10.4
Subbasin - 8
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Im
ervious x DA
yp Acres Square was CN % Impervious p
A ricultural 402 0.06 82 5.16 0.00
commercial 2.5 0.00 94 65.00 0.37 0.00
ForesWacanl 11.585,5 1811 73 1321.90 0.00
Industrial 2.1 0.00 91 72.00 0.30 0.00
Ins5tubwal 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
sin 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
endal 0.0 0.00 90 65.00 1.1 0.00
K
dential 50.0 0.08 79 20.01 6.17 0.0
o.0 O. 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
23.0 0. 92 60.00 3.31 0.02
11,703.4 18.29
Composite CN 73.1
% impervious for Subbasln 0.2
Subbasin -9
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Im
ervious x DA
yp Acres Square Mlles CN % Impervious p
Agricultural 392 0.06 82 5.02 0.00
Commercial 132 0.02 94 85.00 1.94 0.02
ForesWacant 1,148.9 1.80 73 131.09 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional 1,5 0.00 94 85.00 0.22 0.00
Manufactured Housin 18.1 0.03 81 30.00 2.29 0.01
Multi-Familly Residential 0.0 0.00 90 85.00 0.00 0.00
Single Family Residentlal 203.5 0.32 80 25.00 25.45 0.08
Water 010 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right of Way 71.4 0,11 92 50.00 10.27 0.06
Totals 1,495.8 2.34
Composite CN 75.4
% Impervious for Subbasin 7.0
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calcs.xls
10/13/2005
t
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
r
a
HAVELOCK BYPASS - SCENARIO I CONDITION
Subbasin -10
L
d C
T Drains a Area DA umed Values CN x DA ervious x DA
%Im
an
over
ype Acres Square MOes /. Im envious p
ricut4aal 116.5 0.18 14.94 0.00
Commensal 34.3 0.05 N 85.00 5.05 0.05
ForesWacant 4 .7 8.57 73 479.30 0.00
Industrial 811.4 117 ' 72.00 115.41 0.91
Institutional 2313 0.36 85.00 34.13 0.31
Manufactured Housin 8.8 0.01 81 30.00 1.11 0.00
MuIB-Fam' Residential 86.8 014 90 65.00 1218 0.09
Sink Family Residential 1.078.8 1.69 81 27.00 136.58 0.48
Water 20.3 0.03 100 100.00 3.17 0.03
Right of Wa 441.0 0.69 92 50.00 63.53 0.35
Totals 7,031.7 10.99
Composite CN 78.7
% Impervious for Subbasln 19.9
Subbasin -11
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA Impervious x DA
'/
yp Acres Square Mlles CN % Impervious .
Agricultural 42.1 0.07 82 6.40 0.00
Commercial 39.2 0.08 94 85.00 5.76 0.05
ForesWacent 5,041.3 7.88 73 575.20 0.00
Industrial 558.9 0.87 91 72.00 79.49 0.63
Institutional 127.6 0.20 94 85.00 18.74 0.17
Manufactured Housin 21.9 0.03 81 30.00 2.77 0.01
Milt-Family Residential 6.1 0.01 90 65.00 0.86 0.01
Single Family Residential 167.21 81 27.00 23.70 O.DB
Water 23.5 0.04 1DO 100.00 3.67 0.04
Right of Way 1085 0.17 92 50.00 15.80 0.08
Totals 6,156.2 9.62
Composite CN 78.0
% Impervious for Subbasin 11.1
Subbasln -12
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Im
ervious x DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious p
Agricultural 270.3 0.42 82 34.64 O.DO
Commensal 56.1 0.09 94 85.00 8.25 0.07
ForesWacant 1173.4 1.83 73 133.89 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.DO 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Insulubonal 33.8 0.06 94 85.00 4.96 0.04
Manufactured Housin 166.8 0.26 81 30.00 21.09 0.08
MuiO•FamY Residential 0.0 0.00 00 65.00 0.00 O.Do
Sin a Family Residential 4575 0.72 81 27.00 57.92 0.19
Water 17.0 0.03 100 100,00 2.66 0.03
Pi ht of Wa 1se.o 0.26 92 50.00 24.16 0.13
Totals 2,342.7 3.66
Composite CN 78.5
% Impervious for Subbasln 15.0
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Caics,xi5
10/13/2005
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HAVELOCK BYPASS -SCENARIO I CONDITION
Subbasin -13
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed values CN x DA %Im
ervious x DA
yp Acres Square Mlles CN % Impervious p
Agricultural 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
ForesWacant 250.4 0.44 73 31.99 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional 3.4 0.01 94 85.00 0.50 0.00
Manufactured Housln 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
WN-Farm Residential 0.0 0.00 90 66.00 0.00 0.00
Sin le Farm Residential 263.4 0.44 82 38.DO 36.33 0.18
Water 20.0 0.03 100 100.00 3.13 0.03
Right of Way 32.4 0.05 92 50.00 4.85 0.03
Totals 619.8 0.97
Composite CN 79.1
% Impervious for Subbasin 22.6
Subbasin -14
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area (DA) I Assumed Values CN x DA ervious x DA
%Im
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious p
Agricultural 188.6 0.29 82 24.17 0.00
Commercial 300.6 0.47 94 85.00 44.17 0.40
ForssWaant 3,877.5 8.06 73 442.42 0.00
Industrial 94.5 0.16 91 72.00 13.44 0.11
Institutional 312.7 0.49 94 85.00 45.94 0.42
Manufactured Housin 96.0 0.15 81 30.00 12.16 0.05
Multi-Fam' Residental 17.1 0.03 90 86.00 2.40 0.02
Sinale Family Residential 742.6 1.18 81 27.00 94.02 0.31
Wafer 311.7 0.49
-1 100 100.00 48.72 0.49
Right of Way 3722 0.58 92 50.00 53.52 0.29
Totals 8,313.5 9.87
Composite CN 79.1
% Impervious for Subbasin 21.0
Subbasin -15
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area (DA) I Assumed Values CN x DA %Im
ervious x DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious p
Agricultural 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 O.DO
Commercial 57.8 0.09 94 85.00 8.49 0.08
ForesWaant 3,484.2 5.45 73 397.54 0.00
Industrial 327.5 0.51 91 72.00 46.59 0.37
Institutional 50.6 0.08 94 85.00 7.44 0.07
Manufactured Housing 0.4 0.00 61 30.00 0.05 0.00
MUPJ-Fam9 Residential 28.9 0.05 90 85.00 4.07 0.03
Sin0c Family Residential 244.3 0.38 51 27.00 30.93 0.10
Water 5562 0.87 100 100.00 68.93 0.87
Right ofWa 64.6 0.10 92 60.00 9.28 0.05
Totals 4,814.5 7.SJ
Composite CN 76.6
% Impervious for Subbasin 20.8
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calrs.xls
10/132005
1

1

1
1

1
I
1

1
t
1

1
HAVELOCK BYPASS - SCENARIO 1 CONDITION
Subbasin • 18
L
d C
T Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA yimpervious x DA
over
an
ype Acres Square Mlles CN /. Impervious
Agricultural 4153 0.85 82 53.25 0.00
Commercial 14.9 0.02 94 85.00 2.18 0.02
ForesWacant 10,3042 15.11 73 1175.89 0.00
Industrial 297.9 0.47 91 72.00 42.37 0.34
InsomBanal 73.5 0.11 94 85.00 10.80 0.10
Manufactured Housi 277.9 0.43 81 30.00 35.17 0.13
Mul0-Family Residential 15.9 0.02 90 85.00 2.24 0.02
Single Family Residential 824.2 0.98 81 27.00 79.03 0.28
Water 468.1 0.73 100 100.00 72.85 0.73
Right of Way 202.7 0.32 92 50.00 29.15 0.16
Totals 12,892.7 19.84
Composite CN 75.7
% Impervious for Subbasin 8.8
Havelock Bypass Project
' Havelock Bypass-Hydro CaIcs.xls
10/13/2005
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Haveloc k-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 61
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall A
' End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 1.5yr
Execution Time : 140ct05 0828 Control Specs Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
' Subbasin-2
Subbasin-1
Reach-1
Subbasin-10
Subbasin-7
Junction-1
' Reach-2
Subbasin-15
Subbasin-14
Outfall A
565.87 27 Sep 05 0150 200.09 1.570
6853.3 27 Sep 05 0140 2317.4 12.750
7380.3 27 Sep 05 0200 2460.1 14.320
3465.1 27 Sep 05 0310 1738.1 10.990
4008.3 27 Sep 05 0240 1821.7 12.580
14083 27 Sep 05 0220 6019.8 37.890
14057 27 Sep 05 0310 5553.9 37.890
4509.8 27 Sep 05 0110 1245.5 7.530
3487.1 27 Sep 05 0240 1600.0 9.870
18833 27 Sep 05 0300 8399.5 55.290
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Haveloc k-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 63
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall B
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 140ct05 0829 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-11
Reach-1
Subbasin-16
Junction-1
4046.5 27 Sep 05 0130 1196.4 9.620
4009.1 27 Sep 05 0230 1088.0 9.620
5062.2 27 Sep 05 0300 2304.0 19.840
8903.4 27 Sep 05 0230 3392.0 29.460
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 39
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall C
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0758 Control Specs : Eventl

Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-6 1529.9 27 Sep 05 0230 621.43
5.470
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Haveloc k-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 41
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall D
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0758 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
802.30 27 Sep 05 0210 300.76 2.360
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 43
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall E
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0759 Control Specs Eventl

Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
743.06
27 Sep 05 0220 293.32
3.000
HMS * Summary of Results
' Project : Haveloc k-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 45
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall F
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 1.5yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0759 Control Specs Eventl

Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
2025.3 27 Sep 05 0220 774.90 7.900
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 47
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall G
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0800 Control Specs : Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3761.9 27 Sep 05 0310 1728.7 18.290
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 49
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall H
' End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0801 Control Specs Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-9 674.60 27 Sep 05 0220 267.97 2.340
r
' HMS * Suuunary of Results
' Project Havelock-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 51
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall I
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0801 Control Specs : Eventl

Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-12 1381.1 27 Sep 05 0200 501.05
3.660
HMS * Summary of Results
' Project : Haveloc k-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 53
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall J
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0802 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
t
1
510.03 27 Sep 05 0120 145.23 0.970
1 HMS * Summary of Results
' Project : Haveloc k-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 62
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall A
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 140ct05 0828 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-2
Subbasin-1
Reach-1
' Subbasin-10
Subbasin-7
Junction-1
Reach-2
Subbasin-15
Subbasin-14
Outfall A
1266.3 27 Sep 05 0150 444.54 1.570
13444 27 Sep 05 0130 4533.0 12.750
14647 27 Sep 05 0150 4893.3 14.320
7066.7 27 Sep 05 0300 3536.9 10.990
8491.7 27 Sep 05 0240 3841.5 12.580
28462 27 Sep 05 0210 12272 37.890
28398 27 Sep 05 0250 11627 37.890
9182.8 27 Sep 05 0110 2524.6 7.530
7082.2 27 Sep 05 0240 3239.9 9.870
38788 27 Sep 05 0240 17391 55.290
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Haveloc k-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 64
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall B
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time 140ct05 0830 Control Specs Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-11
Reach-1
Subbasin-16
' Junction-1
r
9427.1 27 Sep 05 0120 2745.6 9.620
9393.3 27 Sep 05 0200 2593.7 9.620
12031 27 Sep 05 0250 5391.6 19.840
20440 27 Sep 05 0220 7985.3 29.460
i
1
1
1
1
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 40
Start of Run : 26sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall C
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0758 Control Specs : Eventl
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3685.6 27 Sep 05 0220 1477.7 5.470
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 42
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall D
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0758 Control Specs : Events
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1842.7 27 Sep 05 0200 681.14
2.360
HMS * Summary of Results
' Project : Haveloc k-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 44
Start of Run : 26Ssp05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall E
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0759 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1930.3 27 Sep 05 0220 744.84 3.000
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Haveloc k-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 46
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall F
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0800 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
5253.3 27 Sep 05 0210 1965.6 7.900
HMS * Summary of Results
- Project : Havelock-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 48
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall G
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0800 Control Specs Eventl
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9812.7 27 Sep 05 0300 4429.3 18.290
1
1
1
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 50
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall H
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0801 Control Specs Eventl
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
r
i
1622.2 27 Sep 05 0220 634.15 2.340
' HMS * Summary of Results
. Project : Havelock-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 52
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall I
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0802 Control Specs : Eventl
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-12
3063.4 27 Sep 05 0200 1103.2 3.660

HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Scenario 1 Run Name : Run 54
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall J
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0802 Control Specs Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1091.7 27 Sep 05 0120 308.85 0.970
1
1
1
APPENDIX `E'
FUTURE SCENARIO 2 CONDITION MODEL
CURVE NUMBERIIMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS
1.5 YEAR STORM EVENT RESULTS
25 YEAR STORM EVENT RESULTS
I Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass -Appendices.doc
' 9/27/2005
r
i
1
f
1
HAVELOCK BYPASS - SCENARIO 2 CONDITION
Subbasin -1

Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values
cN x DA
y
tm
ervlous x DA
yp Acres Square Mllas CN % Impervious e
p
rlcWOxal 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
commercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.D0 0.00
ForesWacant 5,513.5 8.82 73 629.08 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
InstisltIonal 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Hous' 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Murd-F Residental 0.0 0.00 90 115.00 0.00 0.00
Single Family Residential 0.o 0.00 79 20.00 0.00 0.00
Water 2,540.9 4.13 100 100.00 412.77 4.13
t Wa 0.0 0.00 92 50.00 0.00 0.00
Totals 8,154A 12.75
Composite CN 81.7
% Impervious for Subbasin 32.4
Subbasin - 2

Land Cover T
pe Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Im
ervio
s x DA
y Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious p
u
Agricultural 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 O.Do 0.00
Forest/Vacant 1,006.4 1.57 73 114.83 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
ftanutactured HOUSin 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Mu10 Far Resident al 0.0 0.00 90 65.00 0,00 0.00
Stride Family Residential 0.0 0.00 79 20.00 0.00 0.00
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right of Way 010 0.00 92 50.00 0.00 0.00
Totals 1,006.4 1.57
Composite CN 73.0
% Impervious for Subbasin 0.0
Subbasin - 3

Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN
DA %I
i
DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious x mperv
ous x
Agricultural 0.0 0.00 82 0.D0 0.00
Commercial 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
ForesWacant 4,644.4 7.57 73 552.74 0.00
Industrial 0.0 DAO 91 72.00 0. DO 0.00
Institutional 0.0 0.D0 94 85.00 0.00 0.D0
Manufactured Housin 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Mil$Family Residential 0.0 0.00 90 85.00 0.00 0.00
ghgle Fam Residential
Water 206.1
0.0 0.33
0.00 79
100 20.00
100.00 25.78
0.00 0.07
0.00
t of Way 0.0 0.00 92 50.00 0.00 0.00
Totals 5,053.1 7.90
Composite CN =
% Impervious for Subbasin 0.8

1
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calcs.xls
1CII32005
HAVELOCK BYPASS - SCENARIO 2 CONDITION
Subbasin - 4
Land Cover Type Drainage Area (DA) I Assumed Values CN
D I

Acres
square muss
CN
% Impervious x
A %
m ervious x DA

p
I
rkulwral
Commercial 38.0
0.0 0.08 82
0.00 94
85.00 4.87
0.00 0.00
0.00
ForesWacant 1,858.1 2.90 73 212.01 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
InshAonal 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Housing
MuBi-Fa Resden0al 0.0
O.o 0.00 81
0.00 90 30.00
65.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
SnOe Family Residential 05 0. 01
79 20.00 0.80 0.00
Water 0.0 00
0. 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
tofway 15.0 0.02 92 50.00 216 0.01
Totals 1,917.8 3.00
Composite CN 73.3
% Impervious for Subbasln 0.5
Subbasln - b
Cover Type Draina a Area DA Assumed Values CN

Acres
55.3
square miles CN
0.09 82
% Impervious x DA

7.09 %Im ervious x DA
p
0.00
l
W2oresWacant
nt 62.0
1.034.3 0.10 94
1.62 73 85.00 9.11
118.04 0.08
0.00
4.8
11.7 0.01 91
0.02 94 72.00
85.00 0.69
1.72 0.01
0.02
d Housin 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
MuBi-Fam Residential
angle Family Residential 32.4
195.6 0.05 90
0.31 79 65.00
20. DO 4.55
24.16 0.03
0.06
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 O.DO 00
0
Right of Way 111.0 0.17 92 50.00 15.95 .
0.09
Totals 1,507.4 2.36
Composite CN 77.0
% Impervious for Subbasln 12.1
Subbasin - 6
Land Cover Type Drainage Area (DA) I Assumed Values

rf
Acres
530.7
Square Mlles
0.83
CN
82
/e Impervious CN x DA

68.02 %Impervious x DA

0.00
Commmorciia ercial 7.9 0.01 94 85.00 1.14 0.01
ForesWapnt 2,422.1 3.79 73 276.36 0.00
Industrial 28.8 0.05 91 72.00 4.10 0.03
Institutional 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Hcue n 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Multi-Farm Residential 29.9 0.05 90 65.00 4.21 0
03
Sin Ie Family Residential 373.9 0.58 79 20.00 46.16 .
0.12
water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right of Way 1051 0.16 92 50.00 15.12 0.08
Totals 3,498.4 5.47
Composite CN 75.9
% Impervious for Subbasln 5.0
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Caks.xis
10/132005
HAVELOCK BYPASS - SCENARIO 2 CONDITION
Subbasin - 7
C
T Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %impervious x DA
Land
over
ype Acres Square Miles CN /. Impervious
Agricultural 159.5 0.25 82 2044 . 0.00
commercial
ForesWacant 207.0
5,933.7 0.32
9.27 94
73 85.00 30.41
677403 028
0.00
Industrial 7.8 0.01 91 72.00 1.11 0.01
Institutional 91.0 0.14 94 85.00 13.37 0.12
Manufactured Hous 249.9 0.39 81 30.00 31.84 0.12
Muftl-Famify Residential 20.9 0.03 90 65.00 2.94 0.02
Single Family Residential 931.7 1.46 81 27.00 117.95 0.39
Water 25.0 0.04 100 100.00 3.91 0.04
Right of Way 424.7 0.86 92 50.00 e1.07 0.33
Totals 8,051.3 12.58
Composite CN 78.3
% Impervious for Subbasln 10.4
Subbasin - 8
d C
T
L Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Impervious x DA
an
over
ype Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious
A dcutitxal 402 0.06 82 5.15 0.00
Commercial 2.7 0.00 94 85.00 0,39 0.00
ForesWacant 11581.0 18.10 73 1321.39 0.00
Industrial 22 0.00 91 72.00 0.31 0.00
Institutional 0.0 0.00 94 85.00 0.00 0.00
Manufactured Housing 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Wutil-FamllResklen0al 0.0 0.00 90 65.00 0.00 0.00
Single Family Residential 52.3 0.08 79 20.00 21.45 0.02
Water o.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
RightofWay 25.0 0.04 92 50.00 3.59 0.02
Totals 11,703.4 18.29
Composite CN 73.1
% Impervious for Subbasln o2
Subbasin - 9
d C
L
T Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %impervious x DA
over
an
ype Acres Square Mlles CN % Impervious
Agricultural 392 0.06 82 5.02 0.00
Commercial 13.7 0.02 94 85.00 2.01 0.02
ForesWacant 1147.5 1,79 73 130.93 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0,00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional 1.5 0.00 94 85.00 0.22 0.00
Manufactured Housing 18.1 0.03 81 30.00 2.29 0.01
AAt19-FamilResidential 0.0 0.00 90 65.00 0.00 0.00
Single Family Residential 208.9 0.32 80 25.00 25.87 0.08
Water 0.0 0.00 100 100.00 0.00 0.00
Right of Way 88.9 0.11 92 50.00 9.90 0.05
Totals 1,495.8 2.34
Composite CN 75.4
% Impervious for Subbasln 7.0
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calcs.xis
10/1312006
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
r
HAVELOCK BYPASS - SCENARIO 2 CONDITION
Subbasin -10
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Im
ervious x DA
yp Acres Square Mites CN /e Impervious p
Agricultural 1182 0.18 82 14.90 0.00
Commercial 35.0 0.05 94 85.00 6.14 0.05
ForesWacant 4198.8 6.58 73 479.08 0.00
Industrial 813.7 1.27 91 72.00 115.74 0.92
instflutional 232.6 0.36 94 85.00 34.17 0.31
Manufactured Hous' 8.8 0101 81 30.00 1.11 0.00
Wtil-Fam Residental 87.0 0.14 90 65.00 12.24 0.09
Sincile Family Residential 1.0977 1.71 81 27.00 138.34 0.46
Water 20.3 0103 100 100.00 3.17 0.03
Right ofWa 426.6 0.67 92 50.00 61.34 0.33
Totals 7,031.7 10.99
Composite CN 78.7
%impervious for Subbasln 19.9
Subbasin -11
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Im
ervious x DA
yp Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious p
AWIcultural 42.1 0.07 82 5.40 0.00
Commercial 39.3 0.08 94 86.00 5.78 0.05
ForesWacant 5.030.0 7.86 73 573.92 0.00
Industrial 559.8 0.67 91 72.00 79.60 0.63
Institutional 127.7 0.20 94 85.00 18.77 0.17
Manufactured Hou 22.1 0.03 81 30.00 2.80 0.01
fAild-Famity, Residental 8.2 0,01 90 65.00 0.87 0.01
Single Family Residential 189.4 0.30 81 27.00 23.98 0.08
Water 23.5 0.04 100 100.00 3.67 0.04
Right of Way 116.3 0618 92 50.E 18.72 0.09
Totals 81156.2 9.82
Composite CN 78.0
% Impervious for Subbasln 112
Subbasin -12
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %Im
ervious x DA
yp Acres Square Mlles CN /e Im ervious p
Agricultural 268.1 0.42 82 34.36 0.00
Commercial 57.3 0.09 94 85.00 8.42 0.08
ForesWacanl 1,166.9 1.82 73 131% 0.00
Industrial 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional 34.2 0.05 94 85.00 5.02 0.05
Manufactured Housing 167.5 016 81 30.00 21.21 0.08
Wit)-Famfly Residential 0.0 0.00 90 65.00 0.00 0.00
Single Family Residential 463.7 0.72 81 27.00 58.70 0.20
Water 17.0 0.03 100 100.00 2.88 0.03
Right of Way 168.0 0.26 92 60.00 24.16 0.13
Totals 2,342.7 3.88
Composite CN 78.8
% Impervious for Subbasln 15.1
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Caics.xls
10/13/2005

1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HAVELOCK BYPASS - SCENARIO 2 CONDITION
Subbasin -13

L
d C
T Drainage Area DA Assumed values
CN x DA
%impervfous x DA
over
ype
an Acres Square Miles CN % Impervious
Rural 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commercial o.0 0.00 94 8540 0.00 0.00
Forest/Vacant 276.8 0.43 73 31.58 0.00
kWustrlal 0.0 0.00 91 72.00 0.00 0.00
Institutibnaf 3.4 0.01 94 85.00 0.50 0.00
Manufactired Housing 0.0 0.00 81 30.00 0.00 0.00
Mutd-Family Residential 0.0 0.00 90 65.00 0.00 0.00
Shyle Family Residential 266.3 0 82 36.00 36.95 0.16
Water 20.0 0231 100 100.00 3.13 0.03
Right ofWa 31.1 0.05 92 SOHO 4.48 0.02
Totals 819.8 0.97
Composite CN 79.1
% Impervious for Subbasln 23.0
Subbasln -14

L
d C
T Drainage Area DA Assumed Values
CN x DA
ervious x DA
im
y
an
over
ype Acres Square Miles CN a
/. Impervious p
?
Agricultural 189.3 0.29 82 24.13 0.00
Commercial 304.4 0.48 94 85.00 44.72 0.40
ForesWocant 38713 6.05 73 441.70 0.00
Industrial 95.0 0.15 91 7200 13.52 0111
institutional 313.8 0.49 94 85.00 46.10 0.42
Manufactured Housin 99.8 0.15 81 30.00 12,23 0.05
Multi-Famity Residential 17.4 0.03 90 85.00 2.45 0.02
Single Fami1hy Residential 754.8 5.18 61 27.00 95.63 0.32
Water 311,7 0.49 100 100.00 48.72 0.49
Right of Way 380.5 0.68 92 60.00 51.88 0.28
Totals 8,313.5 9.87
Composite CN 79.1
% Impervious for Subbasln 21.1
Subbasln -15
Land Cover T
e Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA Im
ervfous x DA
Y
yp Acres Square Maas CN % Impervious p
.
Agricultural 0.0 0.00 82 0.00 0.00
Commercial 56.1 0.09 94 85.00 8.54 0.08
Forest/Vacant 3,478.4 5.44 73 396.89 0.00
Industrial 323.8 0.51 91 72.00 48.76 0.37
Institutional 50.8 0408 94 85.00 7.47 0.07
Manufactured Housing 0.4 0.00 81 30.00 0.05 0.00
Multi-Family Residential 291 0.05 90 85.00 4.09 0.03
Sin le Family Residential 245.4 0.38 61 27,00 31.07 0.10
Water 556.2 0.87 100 100.00 86.93 0.87
FUght of Way 87.3 0.11 92 60.00 9.67 0.05
Totals 43814.5 7.53
Composite CN T8.6
% Impervious for Subbasln 20.9
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Caics.xis
10/1312005

1
r
1
t
HAVELOCK BYPASS • SCENARIO 2 CONDITION
Subbasin • 16
C Drainage Area DA Assumed Values CN x DA %impervious x DA
over Type
Land Acres Square MOes CN % Impervious
rv-ukur2l 415.5 0.65 82 53.25 0.00
Commercial 15.0 0.02 94 65.00 2.21 0.02
ForesWacant 10288.0 16.08 73 1173.85 0.00
Industrial 298.6 0.47 91 72.00 42.48 0.34
Insmulional 73.8 0.12 94 85.00 10.82 0.10
Manufactured Housln 278.8 0.44 81 30.00 35.27 0.13
Wki-Fam' Residendal 18.2 0.03 90 65.00 2.28 0.02
Sink Fantily Resldentiai 631.1 0.99 81 27.00 79.90 0.27
Water 466.1 0.73 100 100.00 72.85 0.73
Right of Way 210.0 0.33 92 50.00 30.19 0.16
Totals 12,692.7 19.84
Composite CN 78.8
% Impervious for Subbasln 8.9
1
1
1
1-1

1
u

1
1
1
1
Havelock Bypass Project
Havelock Bypass-Hydro Calcs.xIs
10/13/2005
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 59
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall A
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 140ct05 0834 Control Specs : Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-2 565.87 27 Sep 05 0150 200.09 1.570
Subbasin-1 6853.3 27 Sep 05 0140 2317.4 12.750
Reach-1 7380.3 27 Sep 05 0200 2460.1 14.320
Subbasin-10 3465.1 27 Sep 05 0310 1738.1 10.990
Subbasin-7 4008.3 27 Sep 05 0240 1821.7 12.580
Junction-1 14083 27 Sep 05 0220 6019.8 37.890
Reach-2 14057 27 Sep 05 0310 5553.9 37.890
Subbasin-15 4511.7 27 Sep 05 0110 1246.2 7.530
Subbasin-14 3488.6 27 Sep 05 0240 1600.9 9.870
Outfall A 18835 27 Sep 05 0300 8401.0 55.290

HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock -Sceanrio 2 Run Name Run 61
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall B
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 140ct05 0835 Control Specs : Eventl

Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-11
Reach-1
Subbasin-16
Junction-1

4049.7 27 Sep 05 0130 1197.6
4011.9 27 Sep 05 0230 1089.1
5084.3 27 Sep 05 0300 2313.9
8929.2 27 Sep 05 0230 3403.0
9.620
9.620
19.840
29.460
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Haveloc k-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 37
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall C
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0808 Control Specs Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1529.9 27 Sep 05 0230 621.43 5.470
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Havelock-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 39
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall D
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 1.5yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0809 Control Specs Eventl

Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
802.89 27 Sep 05 0210 301.04 2.360
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 41
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : putfall E
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0809 Control Specs : Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
743.06 27 Sep 05 0220 293.32 3.000
' HMS * Summary of Results
Project Havelock-Sceanric 2 Run Name : Run 43
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall F
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0810 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2025.3 27 Sep 05 0220 774.90 7.900
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 45
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall G
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0811 Control Specs : Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3761.9 27 Sep 05 0310 1728.7 18.290
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 47
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall H
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0811 Control Specs : Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
674.60 27 Sep 05 0220 267.97 2.340
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 49
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall I
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0812 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) , ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1386.1 27 Sep 05 0200 502.83 3.660
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 51
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall J
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 1.5yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0812 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
510.61 27 Sep 05 0120 145.45 0.970
' HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Haveloc k-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 60
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall A
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 140ct05 0834 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-2
Subbasin-1
Reach-1
Subbasin-10
Subbasin-7
Junction-1
Reach- 2
Subbasin-15
Subbasin-14
Outfall A
i
I
1
1
1
1
1
1266.3 27 Sep 05 0150 444.54 1.570
13444 27 Sep 05 0130 4533.0 12.750
14647 27 Sep 05 0150 4893.3 14.320
7066.7 27 Sep 05 0300 3536.9 10.990
8491.7 27 Sep 05 0240 3841.5 12.580
28462 27 Sep 05 0210 12272 37.890
28398 27 Sep 05 0250 11627 37.890
9184..8 27 Sep 05 0110 2525.4 7.530
7083.8 27 Sep 05 0240 3240.9 9.870
38790 27 Sep 05 0240 17393 55.290
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Haveloc k-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 62
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall B
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time 140ct05 0836 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
' Subbasin-11
Reach-1
Subbasin-16
Junction-1
9430.5 27 Sep 05 0120 2747.1 9.620
9402.2 27 Sep 05 0200 2595.4 9.620
12060 27 Sep 05 0250 5405.6 19.840
20473 27 Sep 05 0220 8001.0 29.460
HMS * Summary of Results
Project Haveloc k-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 38
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall C
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0809 Control Specs Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3685.6 27 Sep 05 0220 1477.7 5.470
' HMS * Summary of Results
' Project Haveloc k-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 40
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall D
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0809 Control Specs : Eventl

t
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1843.4 27 Sep 05 0200 681.48 2.360
' HITS * Summary of Results
Project Havelock-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 42
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall E
End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0810 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
' Subbasin-4
1930.3 27 Sep 05 0220 744.84 3.000
HMS * Summary of Results
' Project : Haveloc k-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 44
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall F
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0810 Control Specs : Eventl

1
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-3
5253.3 27 Sep 05 0210 1965.6 7.900
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HMS * Sumnary of Results
Project : Havelock-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 46
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall G
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0811 Control Specs Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
' Subbasin-8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9812.7 27 Sep 05 0300 4429.3 18.290
HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Haveloc k-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 48
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model : Outfall H
End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model : 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0811 Control Specs : Eventl

I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
' Subbasin-9
1622.2 27 Sep 05 0220 634.15 2.340
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Haveloc k-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 50
Start of Run : 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall I
' End of Run : 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time : 27Sep05 0812 Control Specs Eventl

Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
' Subbasin-12 3069.4 27 Sep 05 0200 1105.6 3.660
' HMS * Summary of Results
Project : Havelock-Sceanrio 2 Run Name : Run 52
Start of Run 26Sep05 1200 Basin Model Outfall J
' End of Run 27Sep05 1200 Met. Model 25yr
Execution Time 27Sep05 0813 Control Specs Eventl
I
Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage
Element Peak Peak (ac Area
(cfs) ft) (sq mi)
Subbasin-13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1092.3 27 Sep 05 0120 309.10 0.970